It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

page: 21
21
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


if you have a complaint re the T&C then instead of trolling , press ALERT - you are not a MOD , SUPER MOD or ADMIN , let them do the job and don`t pretend to be something you are not.


You may want to look at exactly who it was that brought up T&C, in the post immediately preceding mine.

As for trolling, are we using the definition that disagreement with Budski=trolling?




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Blue, you are littering this thread with logic, facts, and documentation. That's not what this thread is about.

It's about anti-Israeli propoganda.

Not one of these guys will look at the evidence, and past history. Israel is known for having exceptional intelligence, and Israel is known for excellent military execution.

Don't you dare tell these guys that Israel was firing WP high in the air, to draw attention away from what they were doing in Rafah.

For heaven's sake, do not mention that the real objective of the Israelis was the Phildelphia Corridor, while they were busting WP way and well above effective altitude.

And Jesus, don't let them know that the intent now is to let the scattered cockroaches gather together and concentrate again, as Israel intelligence maps them out.

Don't say a word!

Just like Hamas, they are/were concentrating all their attention on the misdirection.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


First of all that was from october last year, and was a completely different attack - what the hell does that have to do with the current conflict?

Hamas are going to keep everything in the same place are they?


No tap dancing from me - as usual you attempt to cloud the issue and make this thread about hamas when in fact it is about israels use of WP in civilan area's.

You make definitive statements about the current conflict then back them up with old sources????

Now, as you made a definitive statement about Israel only targetting hamas and not civilians, please back that statement up and cite sources from the current conflict.

Hamas may shoulder some of the blame, but that's not the title or the debate in this thread, this is about israel using WP in gaza when they had previously denied it, and about the targetting of civilian area's.



-The oldest source I provided was from late December.
-I've never said civilians haven't been hit- I said they weren't targetted.
-I've never said that Israel didn't use WP- I said that WP wasn't targetted against civilian targets, but due to the proximity of the Hamas targets, civilians have been hit.
-You're asserting that in one attack Israel took care and had in depth planning on its target list, but now they're just randomly firing, without any regard for where rounds impact?

-We're never gonna reach an agreement because we aren't using the same terms and definitions. My definition of a civilian area(which also happens to be the one accepted by world militaries), is an area populated by civilians and devoid of military targets. Military targets in urban areas are not in safe havens, and off limits to attack.
-Sites that normally would be protected(schools, hospitals, religious/historic sites, residential areas, etc..) lose their protected status if they're being used by combatants.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Neither of you have provided anything even approaching proof.

Once again, I ask you to cite sources for youor assertions.

Especially those assertions where you have stated that you have definitive knowledge.

I'm afraid sources from 6 months ago concerning one bombing mission from an Israeli newspaper don't count as neutral - which is what both of you demand from everyone else.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by dooper
 


Neither of you have provided anything even approaching proof.

Once again, I ask you to cite sources for youor assertions.

Especially those assertions where you have stated that you have definitive knowledge.

I'm afraid sources from 6 months ago concerning one bombing mission from an Israeli newspaper don't count as neutral - which is what both of you demand from everyone else.




Did you even bother to read the links I sent, or do you just look for one thing to object to, and disregard the remainder of the information. The oldest link I provided was from Dec 26th(updated on Dec 28th). The remainder were from January/February.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Hey bud, why don't you get off the anti-Israeli data, and look some of this stuff up for yourself.

Do you have to be spoonfed?

It's one thing to be ignorant, but another to willfully and intentionally remain so.

Do a tiny bit of research.

They even have captured maps you can view for yourself.

You come across as one who knows so much, but I'm stunned by the selective ignorance.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Why don't YOU address the issue, and try posting some facts to support your assertions.

Why don't you cite your sources for this vast expanse of knowledge you profess to have?

Everyone who has expressed opposition against Israeli actions has provided sources and information aplenty - where is yours?

Blueraja - your sources regarding Israeli intel are from a different "mission" altogether.
End of story.

Unless you can provide evidence to back up your claims that Israel didn't target civilians, you are just posting opinion.

And they are like bottoms.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's link about the UN sensationalizing info, or just plain getting the facts wrong.

blogs.law.harvard.edu...


UNRWA’s 29,000 area staff members are overwhelmingly composed of agency registered Palestinian refugees—an oft-criticized arrangement. There are several obvious downsides to UNRWA using staff members drawn from the beneficiary population. At worst, such staff may be more concerned about beneficiaries’ objectives than UNRWA’s. They can also be manipulated more easily than staff who are not beneficiaries, whether by argument or threat, to distort the agency’s objectives.



These are not hypothetical concerns. Back in October 2004, then-Commissioner-General of UNRWA Peter Hansen unapologetically admitted to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) that the UN employs members of Hamas. “Oh, I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll,” Hansen stated, “and I don’t see that as a crime.”


www.reuters.com...


By day, Awad al-Qiq was a respected science teacher and headmaster at a United Nations school in the Gaza Strip. By night, Palestinian militants say, he built rockets for Islamic Jihad.


And so I ask, why shouldn't I hold "UN" reports suspect, when many of the folks on the payroll are in fact Hamas, etc....? Of course they're going to be critical of Israel.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Blueraja - your sources regarding Israeli intel are from a different "mission" altogether.
End of story.

Unless you can provide evidence to back up your claims that Israel didn't target civilians, you are just posting opinion.

And they are like bottoms.


And I suppose you'll be busy providing me with evidence that they did right? If not, it's merely talking out of one's hindquarters.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The evidence has been provided throughout the thread - including the relevant parts of the GC, and photographic evidence.

There have also been numerous reports from humanitarian agencies - reports which also railed against hamas, and are therefore NOT biased.

If you need to refrsh your memory, please re-read the thread.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 





Unless you can provide evidence to back up your claims that Israel didn't target civilians, you are just posting opinion.

I am sorry to interfere in the midst of an argument but i have 100% proof that IDF did not target civilians.
Palestinian losses due to Israeli actions:
According to Palestinian sources (and it clearly differs from Israeli sources)
Civilians - 894, total 1284. So 390 were militants even according to Palestinian sources. 390/1284 = 30%
Population of Gaza - 1.4 million. So unless Hamas has army of 400000 people (which is clearly impossible) then ratio of militants killed to general population killed is higher then ration of militants to general population.
And it is 100 percent proof that militants were targeted and not vice versa.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Sorry, but that is not proof - that is a few numbers dressed up as logic to try and prove something and could come from anywhere.

The fact that there was severe collateral damage, and that WP was used even before troops were moved in, points to the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Sources as well please.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Yes ,missed out the sources.


His group, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), released a final tally Wednesday, saying 1,284 Gazans were killed......
.....The PCHR said 894 of the dead were civilians.....

www.cbsnews.com...
As for "numbers dressed up as logic" - are you kidding? It is what called statistics. So personal opinion is not enough, statistical evaluation is not enough - what will be considered proof? That Hamas leader will go out and say - yeh , Israel did all it could to make civilian casualties as low as possible?
Use of WP is not targeting civilians. It is not even logic. Use of WP against people is against the law - as you say it. Between this and "targeting" civilians there is no connection.
The fact that you try to ignore is that in overcrowded, overpopulated Gaza ,with militants/terrorists hiding inside the population - percentage of losses of militants is much higher then their percentage in general population. So they were targeted. The only thing that can be concluded by very high number of civilians killed or from usage of banned weapons - is that there is a possibility that IDF was not trying very hard to reduce civilian casualties of population of Gaza. Tops. Or you want to say that Israel tried to hit only civilians and got high percentage of militants by mistake?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


your figures are off - I suggest you re-read the article all the way through.

I can also point you in the direction of other figures which dispute yours.

I should also point out that firing WP into a densely packed civilian area, regardless of where hamas is allegedly hiding shows a stunning disregard for human life, especially when one considers the following from your own source:

Yet he acknowledged that troops "moved forward with fire" to prevent Israeli casualties and that "nobody had any illusions that civilians wouldn't be harmed as well."

source

So what he is saying here is that he knew his troops would fire indiscriminately, but didn't care.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by ZeroKnowledge
 


Sorry, but that is not proof - that is a few numbers dressed up as logic to try and prove something and could come from anywhere.

The fact that there was severe collateral damage, and that WP was used even before troops were moved in, points to the deliberate targetting of civilians.

Sources as well please.



Even the BBC said 2/3 of the casualties were Hamas. As for the WP- of course you're going to use it before the troops move in, otherwise it will be landing on the troops. You wouldn't call in artillery, mortars, or airstrikes once the troops moved in either. You'd use those before hand to prep the battlespace, and then the troops would come in to finish off whatever enemy forces were still present.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


For a week before the troops moved in?

Give me a break - this was a terror tactic, plain and simple.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


For a week before the troops moved in?

Give me a break - this was a terror tactic, plain and simple.



How long did the US bomb Iraqi forces in Desert Storm before sending in ground forces? 6-8weeks or so. You never want to fight a foe on even terms. The object is to not only break his will to fight, but destroy his ability to fight, while minimizing risks to your own forces.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You and drooper seem to think you are the only ones here with military knowledge - patronising to say the least.

Gaza is not iraq

there are few places as heavily populated as gaza.

the israeli's used WP as a terror weapon long before troops went in.

this kind of use was useless against hamas and was intended to terrorise the civilian population by targetting them.

I'm done with the pair of you - neither of you can provide any substantive evidence, and would swear the sun rose in the north if that's what israel said.

Frankly, I'm bored of you - you have nothing to offer.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You and drooper seem to think you are the only ones here with military knowledge - patronising to say the least.

Gaza is not iraq

there are few places as heavily populated as gaza.

the israeli's used WP as a terror weapon long before troops went in.

this kind of use was useless against hamas and was intended to terrorise the civilian population by targetting them.

I'm done with the pair of you - neither of you can provide any substantive evidence, and would swear the sun rose in the north if that's what israel said.

Frankly, I'm bored of you - you have nothing to offer.



Gaza isn't Iraq, but the principles of warfare don't change. You still want to destroy the enemy force while minimizing risk to your own side, regardless of the location or terrain. How is WP useless against Hamas? If there's a large concentration of militants in a known location, it can be very effective. You have yet to provide any evidence that the IDF intentionally targetted non-combatants. You may feel that they didn't go far enough to prevent collateral damage, but that's all subject to debate, which is the whole point of this discussion.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You have yet to provide any proof of anything you've posted.

Proof for my assertions have been posted throughout the thread by myself and others.

byeee.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 18  19  20    22 >>

log in

join