Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

I don't think they did sign it, and when one wishes to bring international agreements into the equation, one must understand their basis nature.

It's like a contract between combatants. One side breaks the rules, then guess what? There is no more agreement.

It is these arbitrary sensitivities that have prolonged this conflict year after year after year.

Those who would argue nuances, prefer to see people killed in smaller numbers, but in smaller numbers forever. Those who would argue against using maximum force are most heartless. More total suffering over the long term.

When you get a tooth pulled, the dentist doesn't bring you in, day after day, week after week, month after month and each time incrementally twist and turn on the tooth.

He doesn't prolong the pain incessantly, without resolution.

He pulls the damned thing, it hurts, it's sore, but it will heal once the problem is gone.

Some things aren't as cut and dried as we would like.

Sometimes you have to do the hard things in order to stop the suffering. Even this use of force by Israel wasn't nearly sufficient. And so we will continue this ongoing conflict for another several decades.

Until one side or the other gets tired of dying or can't kill any further.

That's a fact.

reply to post by deltaboy


Yeah, just like Abu Gharib didn't really happen because our military was so upstanding, huh?

Jesus Christ people make me sick sometimes.

Mike: Any support that the US military used Phosphorous in a civilian populated area such as Fallujah?



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


What is wrong with using the term "Irregular Force"? Hamas maintains an irregular military force. All Guerrilas, Special Forces, and even Militias are irregular forces.

I understand why they are doing this. Pride. They are too proud to sit down and negotiate peace. Hamas is so wrapped up in their macho bovine scat they are blind to the civilian suffering, the fact they cannot win and that Israel will never give up.

I'm not excusing the Israelis but I'm not excusing Hamas either. I'm trying to point out that the best thing that can be done is to have peace. The war is unwinnable.

reply to post by dooper

it's not only legal, it's morally correct.

Morally correct to use white phosphorus against women and children?

Your morals sicken me.

It just doesn't get much worse than that.


*P*E*A*C*E*

reply to post by Kernel Korn


As long as there is peace and some kind of security agreement can be reached there is no need for sanctions. Real peace means tolerance and acceptance on both sides.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Beheadings and killings made that happen. Why else would they do what they did in Abu Graib?

Want to see a video of a beheading of an Iraqi soldier portrayed as a traitor and working for the occupier?

reply to post by MikeboydUS


The problem is one of disproportionate violence - during the troubles in Northern Ireland, the UK didn't level whole area's, bomb indiscriminately and use WP in civilian area's.
What the UK did was bad enough - and that nasty little war was a few levels higher than what is happening in Gaza.

The UK used restraint in comparison to Israel - and now we have peace, because the UK government understood that using the tactics that Israel uses simply begets more "terrorists" or "freedom fighters" depending on your point of view.



[edit on 21/1/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by deltaboy

 

Yeah, just like Abu Gharib didn't really happen because our military was so upstanding, huh?

Jesus Christ people make me sick sometimes.

Mike: Any support that the US military used Phosphorous in a civilian populated area such as Fallujah?



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

I'm not going to excuse Abu Gharib. They were a national guard MP unit and what they did was extremely juvenile and inhumane.

I worked at a detention facility in Afghanistan, watching over Taliban detainees. We treated our people humanely, respectfully and with dignity.

We use phosphorous far more often than people realize. Its used in screening and flares on a large scale. We even use it in training. There are chunks of it all over the training area at NTC (Fort Irwin) in California. When soldiers do a "police call" aka pick up trash, they have to be instructed on how to identify the WP and not to touch or kick it.

Personally I find Cluster munitions far more terrible than WP. Children tend to pick the munitions up.

Proportionality? Are you serious? Proportionality?

So if I get shot once, but I'm only bleeding and still manageable, I can't shoot my attacker but once?

You're full of yourself. You would do the same thing I would. I'd empty a full clip in his belly given the chance, and so would you.

There is no proportionality in conflict! There is no proportionality at any point in history in conflict!

Alexander came to Tyre. Asked them to surrender, and they would be treated graciously, and as brothers. They balked.

Read for yourself what he did. But you know what happened after that?

Every city met him with gates open, arms open, and parades to welcome Alexander.

But you still don't get it. Do you?

Alexander saved a lot of lives.

reply to post by dooper


No, you don't get it - this is the modern world where we are SUPPOSED to be a bit more civilized than Alexander.

There is no room in the world for your kind of barbarity.

I'll point you again in the direction of the Northern Ireland conflict - without disproportionate violence there is now a lasting peace.

Also, do not presume to tell me what I would or would not do - some of us practise a little somthing called restraint, a quality that is apparently lost on Israel, and others.

reply to post by silo13


You use the weapons at hand to inflict the maximum destruction on you enemies, killing them in the greatest number, as efficiently as you can, in the greatest concentrations, as quickly as you can.

That is not a pretty concept, but that is the morality of warfare.

To not take out every known enemy is to leave him to kill one of you. To lose a fellow soldier or countryman because you fail to do your part is morally wrong.

If innocents get killed in the process, which has been a fact of war since time began, it too, is part of the process. You see, what you may call civilians, another may call enemy enablers.

Intentionally or unintentionally, a civilian population often enables the continuance of the conflict.

If your sensitivities will not allow you to do your duty, then stay the hell out of the way. You will do more harm to your own side than good.

The first principle of war is to never start a fight you aren't certain you can win. Of course, Hamas is full of dumbasses.

Never do anything that will hurt your own side.

And that's the thing. You sometimes have to pick a side.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


Because giving them the term of "irregular force" in the context of this discussion marginalizes them.

It relegates them to the likes of someone who is simply fighting to fight.

And the rest of your post went on to reiterate that implication.

You also present a false dichotomy. You paint the picture as if disarm or die are the only two options.
Well, there is a third option and its possibility grows stronger each and every day Israel weilds unwarranted force against an obviously lesser enemy. That being, that pretty soon other folks are going to jump into the fold.

This is probably part of the damned design, knowing these scoundrel bastards.

Oh yeah, do you have any support for your claim that the US forces used phosphorous in Fallujah? I think I already asked that.
I don't think you do. I think you are trying to paint yet ANOTHER picture of "Well, the Americans do it. So it is alright for others to do it."

In and of itself it is dishonest. But aside from that, everyone here already knows that the US is the biggest bully and criminal on the block. It actually wouldn't surprise me if they had used that in Fallujah. But it is immaterial to the discussion at hand.

Furthermore, being a six year infantry soldier for the US Army, I don't need any lessons on military protocol. Thanks, though.


[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by budski

I apologize for presuming that you would be upset by being attacked, and then killing the SOB that tried to kill you.

My mistake.

And don't come with the Northern Ireland BS. That's no comparison at all.

In Ireland, like kind fighting like kind.

Not the same animal in Gaza.

Not even close.

reply to post by dooper


Bait and switch.

In reality, Israel is the aggressor in this region, and this CAN be firmly established.

reply to post by deltaboy


Thanks but no thanks on the beheading video. I've seen enough blood in my life to have gotten over a blood-lust more than a decade ago.

reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Only if you ignore the facts.

line 2

line 3

reply to post by dooper


The facts are pretty clear. Since 1950, or so, Israel has steadily and unrelentingly invaded more and more of Palestine until today the Palestinians occupy an area that will barely even HOLD its population.

If you want to ignore this fact, I will show you some maps when I get home from work in a few hours. However, I would think you would understand this. Or at least I hope you would.
I've got to leave shortly or I would illustrate it for you now. Give me about 4 hours pause.

Line 8

Line 10



[edit on 21-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Jay, I have no idea where you get this from.

Hit the books. 1948-49, immediately after declaring independence, Israel was hit, and hit hard by Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, and a large Islamic guerilla group.

The Israelis were charged with starting it. They denied the charge, and if you'll go back to the UN Security Council meeting, the Arabs admitted they started it. With one goal: a massacre. Of Israelis.

Do some homework.

Don't just listen to Islamic apologist crap.

Both sides lately have done the others dirty, but overall, it's pretty much one-sided.

What? You think we should give Arkansas back to France?

reply to post by dooper


Actually NI is a very valid comparison - there was even a wall separating the two sides, just like in gaza.

There was also 2 groups of similar ethnicity, but of different religions.

The major difference was that UK forces used a little more RESTRAINT - something you appear to be unfamiliar with.

I bet the wife just loves that eh?

There was also the fact that the IRA used the US as a major source of funding and weapons - imagine that, the US sponsoring terrorism (again)

Here's another of your qoutes:

The first principle of war is to never start a fight you aren't certain you can win. Of course, Hamas is full of dumbasses.

Do the words Korea and Vietnam mean anything to you?

If yes, would that make YOU the dumbass?



[edit on 21/1/2009 by budski]

reply to post by budski

You better believe that Korea and Vietnam showed our commanders were dumbasses. And we still have the same, dull, BS mentality at the head of our military here in the US.

I'm sorry, and I'm not being a smartass, but I don't think NI is or was the same thing. It was bad enough to be sure, but nothing on the scale of hatred we see all Arabs of all nationalities hold against the Israelis.

And yes, there was fund raising here in the US. We here in the US have a large Irish contingent, supporters of both sides.

On one side of my family, we are Scots and Irish, so you can't blame me if I want to cut to the chase!

Bad business.

And it isn't going to get any better anytime soon. I think we can agree on that.