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: 8
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
"
"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. "

Read the above very, very carefully. Especially the part when it tells CIVILIANS not to move in a way that would shield military operations!

In this case, the civilians HAVE NOT MOVED TO HINDER OPERATIONS. In FACT they tried to move out of the country. They were turned away. I had better reading comprehension in the sixth grade.


No you're the one reading it incorrectly. The combatant force is prohibited from moving the civilians in order to shield military objectives from attacks.

"The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. "




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You THINK I may have watched Rambo too many times? Yeah, but look at what you have to think with.

Why didn't you SAY so? You've KNOWN real soldiers? That certainly elevates your position on this! Wow!

I've know two 747 pilots, neither was anything alike, and I still don't know diddly $#!T about flying a 747!

Your assertion that the WP used as we saw it used is a gas agent is laughable! Too funny! I note that your quoted material also shows examples of ingestion by mouth. I assure you, you won't eat much of that stuff! It is HOT!

I do not glorify slaughter. I do however believe in efficiency.

My experience may be skewered as I was in Special Forces, and in serving in two Ranger Companies. We were always outnumbered, and we had to be efficient. I always made a point to carry two WP grenades, much to the initial amusement of my team members. But after they saw the many uses, they started carrying as well. I was a team engineer, and did a lot of work with explosives.

WP does not act as a gas agent. All explosives give off odors and gases, as that's what an explosive is. A rapid expansion of gases. Same with gunpowder. Rapid expansion of gases.

Your own quote shows that no deaths have ever been reported from the inhalation of WP gases. How can that be? Cordite produces gasses, all explosives produce gasses, but if you're close enough to be affected by inhalation of the gases, you're also part of the world weather system.

So, why all the argument and emphasis on something which is a non-issue, and all the claims that aren't true?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




And your MO is tap dancing, and back peddling, rather than answering a question( or countering an assertion.)

You have made no assertions that have not been countered already throughout this thread by myself and others - your inability to read these posts is not my problem.




In other words if there is a specific military objective, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.

Show me a single military objective that was achieved, from a reputable news source.



In other words if the concrete and direct military advantage exceed the collateral damage, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.

Only a person lacking in humanity would consider the killing of a fewf alleged terrorists at the expense of hundreds of civilians including women and children to be acceptable.
If A hundred civilians are killed for every one alleged terrorist, that would qualify as indiscriminate.



In other words the presence of civilians DO NOT render areas immune from military operations, nor should a combatant seek to use civilians to shield themselves.

And yet again, you refuse to read or address other posters points - innocents COULD NOT escape the area - the israeli's built a wall around it.

They are also denying them food, aid, medical assistance, and bombing UN buildings which were attempting to provide these.



[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I have already addressed this... at length. I will do so once more, and after that I guess I am going to drop my participation in this thread, as it is becoming a very big waste of time.

FIRST OFF, the Israelis claim that the "combatants" are "irregular" as mikeboyd so eloquently put it. Meaning, that they DRESS AS CIVILIANS. Then they claim that they bombed a school because they knew the combatants were there (convienently disregarding the fact that they KNOW that the combatants are waging a stick and move campaign. oh and by the way 10 seconds ago they said they didn't know who the combatants EVEN WERE)... Then they shell the civilians with WP. Illegal. Why is it illegal, because they are playing a double standard. On the one hand, they don't know who the civilians are. On the other they know that they are hiding in said school...

Couple that with the fact that the civilians ARE NOT shielding the combatants, and you have a war crime.

I have already stated, multiple times, why the civilian shield argument doesn't work. You are simply overlooking my points and being deliberately obtusive. You are a rabid, violent person and my participation in this "discussion" is over.

Edit to add - The "parties of the conflict" DIDN'T move the civilians in the way. They left the civilians quite well enough alone to run away. They were turned back.

The civilians had nowhere to go. It is a small area. They had no choice. It is a war crime.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Yet again, you fail to look at any of the evidence provided, and try to twist the argument to suit yourself - you stated that WP did not act as a gas, was not a gas and could not be a gas.

Frankly, I don't much care which fantasy you have concocted for yourself.

Special forces soldiers do not believe or act in the way you do.

Special needs children might, but not professional soldiers or special forces of which I know many.

Frankly you do the armed forces a vast disservice with your misguided bloodlust.

The evidence has been provided, and yet you still deny it - the very essence of ignorance.



[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

You have made no assertions that have not been countered already throughout this thread by myself and others - your inability to read these posts is not my problem.


I've quoted the articles verbatim, and pointed out the pertinent parts. If yourself and other posters don't like what they say, that's not my problem.




Show me a single military objective that was achieved, from a reputable news source.


What would you consider a reputable source? Al Jazeera, The Guardian, The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, Prison Planet?



Only a person lacking in humanity would consider the killing of a few alleged terrorists at the expense of hundreds of civilians including women and children to be acceptable.
If A hundred civilians are killed for every one alleged terrorist, that would qualify as indiscriminate.


If that were a reflection of reality, I'd agree with you, but it hasn't been anywhere near a 100:1 exchange ratio civilian:terrorist, in terms of the casualties. Would you consider imagery of armed combatants enough proof to distinguish between an alleged combatant, and an actual combatant?


And yet again, you refuse to read or address other posters points - innocents COULD NOT escape the area - the israeli's built a wall around it.

They are also denying them food, aid, medical assistance, and bombing UN buildings which were attempting to provide these.


Again, whether the civilians have freedom of movement or not is not part of the verbage in the Conventions. What is in the verbage is that the presence of civilians isn't enough reason in and of itself to prohibit military activity. What's also in the verbage is that it's unlawful to use civilians willingly or unwillingly as shields from attack.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

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






Edit to add - The "parties of the conflict" DIDN'T move the civilians in the way. They left the civilians quite well enough alone to run away. They were turned back.



[edit on 22-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]


It's not the civilians that are shielding the combatants that's at issue. It's the combatants using civilians that is. Your argument about civilians not being able to run away doesn't hold water either. The entire Gaza strip isn't under siege. There are specific targets getting hit within the Gaza strip. The parties of the conflict don't have to move the civilians, to use them as shields. If they move to where the civilians are, the end result is the same. They're surrounding themselves with civilians.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Let's see. I disagree that WP is illegally being used.

I state that in accordance with all Geneva Conventions, WP use is legal.

I disagree with you that WP is a gas agent.

And suddenly this difference implies a stain on Special Forces?

I think I know.

There really never were too many of us.

And you had to be very bright, just to get in.

And to argue against all internationally recognized indicators for personal reasons, is to me, just not too bright.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


More dancing, more deflection and obfuscation, and refusal to answer questions - and yet you expect others to answer yours.

I and others have answered every single point you have raised - there is a reason for a UN and humaniotarian investigation, as well as widespread international condemnation.

Of course the US will block any attempts at sanctions or any other action by the UN - mainly due to the pro-israeli lobbyists in washington and their bought and paid for stooges, which is also well documented.

In fact the US is the only consistent defender of Israeli actions - which is reflected in the way the armed forces of both countries treat civilians in combat zones.

The way those guys are going, war will never end - but then that serves the money making function of the military industrial complex and all the politicians money can buy.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 




Let's see. I disagree that WP is legally being used.

So then it is being used illegally - thanks for your agreement.



I state that in accordance with all Geneva Conventions, WP use is legal

Except in civilian area's which is precisely where it is being used.



I disagree with you that WP is a gas agent

Nope, you said it wasn't a gas, and didn't give off gas, and couldn't BE a gas - false again.




And you had to be very bright, just to get in.

You've already shown in this post that thiis doesn't apply to you - see above.




And to argue against all internationally recognized indicators for personal reasons, is to me, just not too bright.

Which is exactly what you have been doing.

QED




[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 




More dancing, more deflection and obfuscation, and refusal to answer questions - and yet you expect others to answer yours.


BS- nobody has shown how any example that I've given is incorrect. There's been a lot of personal opinions given, but no references contradicting the ones I've used.






In fact the US is the only consistent defender of Israeli actions - which is reflected in the way the armed forces of both countries treat civilians in combat zones.


As opposed to how Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, etc... treat civilians?

Can you give me one example of any major war in history, where any other country has treated civilians(or wounded enemy combatants for that matter) better than the US. There are countless examples of both US and Israeli forces accepting greater risk(and casualties even) to their forces, in order to minimize collateral damage. War isn't pretty, and there is no such thing as zero collateral damage.





posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I made a typo, and no, I don't agree.

The Geneva Accords allow of WP or any other weapon usage in civilian areas when targeting an enemy.

You didn't read my earlier post where I specifically stated that all explosives are chemical in nature, but that WP does not off-gas enough to matter. Besides the thing you posted stated that no evidence exists that shows harm from WP usage in conflict.

I think it's clear you have an agenda to ignore what even the Geneva Accords allow.

You may not like some of the things that Israel, or the US do, but that doesn't make them wrong.

One other little item. Do you know you and elevatedone have the same avatar? Are you related?

And based on your replies here, I'd sure like to know your area of expertise.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


well, let's look at the UK forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands.

Or any of the UK forces on DET around the world.

That'll do for starters.

BTW - sources aplenty have been provided - you just don't read them.
As usual.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 





I made a typo, and no, I don't agree.


or just lack understanding?



The Geneva Accords allow of WP or any other weapon usage in civilian areas when targeting an enemy.

Not when that targetting is indiscriminate, which israels has been.



You didn't read my earlier post where I specifically stated that all explosives are chemical in nature, but that WP does not off-gas enough to matter. Besides the thing you posted stated that no evidence exists that shows harm from WP usage in conflict.

I read all your posts and you stated quite clearly that WP was not a gas, could not give off a gas and couldn't be a gas - newsflash - anything can be a gas under the right circumstances, or a liquid or a solid.



I think it's clear you have an agenda to ignore what even the Geneva Accords allow

My only agenda is against the slaughter of innocents - something Isreal is guilty of.



You may not like some of the things that Israel, or the US do, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Me and billions of others, including every single humanitarian agency and the UN and many governments.
Only the US and Israel think Israel is right.



One other little item. Do you know you and elevatedone have the same avatar? Are you related?

Why don't you ask him or her - I assume you know how to use the u2u function.
And what does that have to do with the topic?



And based on your replies here, I'd sure like to know your area of expertise.

My area of expertise is easy to find - if you knew anything about the site, you'd know how to find out.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


well, let's look at the UK forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands.

Or any of the UK forces on DET around the world.

That'll do for starters.

BTW - sources aplenty have been provided - you just don't read them.
As usual.



I appreciate what the UK forces have done, but how much of the direct combat has been done by the UK forces? It's easy to have no collateral damage when you're not having to do a lot of shooting. Had the UK forces been in Al Anbar or Baghdad, instead of Basra there might have been more to compare. If I recall, didn't the UK have some embarassing incidents themselves with regards to mistreatment of civilians.

some examples-

www.guardian.co.uk...

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You made no distinctions as to the level of combat, and this incident was a one off, and didn't include locking them up and torturing them for months on the flimsiest of evidence.
Nor did we raze any towns or cities, use WP on civilians or DU in civilian area's resulting in horrific birth defects.

You have also failed to address the other points.

Cherrypick all you like - I've dealt with far too many of your type to be taken in.



[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I thought I was done here. However, there just isn't much else on the boards that catches my interest right now.

A few points.

1) The US *itself* defined WP as a chemical agent when Saddam Hussein used it on the Kurds in the 80's. This should appeal to MikeBoyd who seems to enjoy looking to the US as THE moral authority of the world. And to the sociopath who claims it simply ISN'T a chemical agent.
2) To the sociopath: I couldn't care less if you are or were, at any time, a member of the US Special Forces - see my numerous posts about US Military illegal acts. (Not implying that you yourself commited illegal acts of war, just that you don't read well and that you are an admitted sociopath. Any claims you make to morality, don't hold much water)
3) To the other dude: Learn how to comprehend what you read.

Any questions?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You made no distinctions as to the level of combat.

Cherrypick all you like - I've dealt with far too many of your type to be taken in.



You have to make distinctions for the level of combat if you want to compare apples to apples.

How many Argentinian civilians were on the Falkland Islands during that conflict?(that would be somewhere in the neighborhood of non-existant)

The Province that the UK forces operated in, in Iraq was fairly quiet(aside from SAS/SBS/etc... ops)

You accuse me of cherrypicking, yet you ignore facts that don't
corroborate your version of reality.

You still have yet to point out any inaccuracies in my quoting the lines from the Article 51 and 52. Instead you resort to incessant diatribes on how awful it is that any civilians are caught in the fray. What about Israeli civilians who get rocketed or blown up while at a restaurant? Do their deaths bother you too?

My type being a stickler for the facts, rather than going off on emotional tangents.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


"You have to make distinctions for the level of combat if you want to compare apples to apples."

Well now THAT is an interesting statement. I remember issuing words very, very near to that effect way, way back on this thread in regards to how Hamas conducts its military affairs.
Fell on deaf ears.
Nice to see the reasoning being turned around now.


PS - You still need to re-read the "conventions" you quote.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


A stickler for being pedantic would be more accurate.

There were in fact Argentine civilians on the falklands - a little known fact attested to by soldiers in the UK invasion force.
Not many, but they were there.

I have completely addressed the point about the GC as have other posters, the fact that you have as little regard for the GC as Cheney, bush and the israeli's is neither here nor there - cherrypicking bits to justify slaughter is what shrub did.

The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence and don't appear to be able to read an opposing point of view is not my concern.

You've been thoroughly trounced again, as you have been every time you have attempted this with me.



[edit on 22/1/2009 by budski]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join