It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:40 PM
reply to post by budski

Indiscriminate targeting? If the Israelis wanted to engage in indiscriminate killing, which would intentionally include civilians, there would be 100,000 dead. At least. That alone is proof enough that civilians weren't intended targets, nor indiscriminate targets.

It's your opinion. Nothing more, And while you seem to hold your opinion in great esteem, it's not anything I have any respect for based on your examples and logic.

There is no evidence of intentionally or indiscriminately targeting civilians, or blatantly ignoring them in the conduct of the fighting, you have no proof otherwise, and like it or not, the proof is the ultimate test, is it not?

The slaughter of innocents cuts both ways. Or do you only look out of one eye, in one direction? Sounds like a bit of bias.

Kill Israelis, and it's fine. Counterattack Gaza, and it's a frigging war crime. That's pure logic, all right.

Your justification is that millions of people think? Hell, they used to think the earth was flat, and everyone knew it was true. But it wasn't. Millions, including the so-called experts, used to think that man would disintegrate upon breaking the sound barrier. Wrong. Millions, and and so-called experts may have all believed the same thing, but it wasn't actually correct, was it?

I'm not real familiar with all the ins and outs of this web site yet, and was just asking what your area of expertise was. Thanks for your information. Is it something you are ashamed of?

I suppose I'll have to speculate. Whatever it is, it isn't likely to have anything to do with international rule of warfare, or what constitutes proof, or what constitutes opinion, does it?

As far as the shared avatar, I just found it a bit odd.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:46 PM
White phosphorous bursts over populated areas most DEFINATELY *does* constitute indiscriminate targeting of civilians.
The IDF could easily send in squads of soldiers to dispatch the few combatants holed up in these buildings, if they wanted to.
They don't. Instead, they terrorize the civilians in the hopes that the civilians will hand over the combatants.
Sorry, but that won't work. That, in and of itself, constitutes entrapment. But aside from that, it shows blatant cowardice.
It is a war crime as it stands alone. Not even to mention the fact of the illegal weapons.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by dooper

And no, you may have had some experience with the Northern Ireland bit, but I fail to recall either side taking outsiders "captive" and cutting off their heads, while still alive.

Do you remember the kidnapping of civilians whose family were held hostage at gun point, who were then tied into the driver's seat of a vehicle carrying a large bomb and told that if they didn't drive it to an army checkpoint then their family would be killed?

Effectively being forced into becoming suicide bomber

Proxy bombing

I'm from Northern Ireland, and I agree with Budski on the similarities between these conflicts, and the outrageously disproportionate use of force on the Israeli's part.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by dooper

Oh please - yet gain you are avoiding the issue.

Why has the UN been so vociferous in their condemnation?

the same with the humanitarian agencies?

Why do you think it's OK to kill 100 palestinians for every single israeli?

The disproportionate use of indiscriminate force is a crime against humanity.
So is the wall, so is the blockade, so is the deliberate targetting of relief centres including a UN building.

Today the Israeli's fired on FISHING BOATS as they tried to catch food to feed their starving people.

The Israeli's only stopped and only DIDN'T kill tens of thousands because they could not get away with it - left to their own devices they would commit REAL genocide.
They are the new nazi's, employing the same policies and tactics that were used against them in WW2 - but because it's foreigners, people like you care not a jot.

This kind of bloodlust is everything that is wrong with the world, your kind of thinking is included in that.
Gungo ho, macho bullplop that means nothing, and only brings about more and more suffering.

Put yourself in the position of a palestinian for just five minutes - if you have the imagination.

Read the REAL history of the area, not the drip fed MSM sanitised version you spew forth.

Look at the number of UN resolutions against israel - all blocked by the US.

Put yourself in someone else's shoes for once instead of playing the macho man - which I have major doubts that you are - and stop compensating, and show some humanity.

I also know exactly why you asked about the avatar.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:51 PM
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Jay, there's something you aren't thinking about. You suggest sending in ground troops instead of using stand-off weapons.

Exactly how many firefights have you engaged in, where you elected to do it the hard way, expose yourself and your buddies to fire, when you have a perfectly good stand off weapon that will do the job?

If I have a building full of turds, and I have an artillery piece or aircraft overhead, I'm going to do the identical same thing you would do.

Blow it.

The whole thing.

Do not try to tell me that you're going in to do it up close and personal. It doesn't work that way.

The reason for rifles over knives is the stand-off ability.

Stand-off weapons saves your side's lives.

And that's what it's all about.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by Poon

You drive home a great point.

As such, it will summarily be ignored by the admitted sociopath and he will go on and on talking about anything OTHER than the point you raise.

He has been made an example of numerous times here. I'm actually shocked he is still here.

You are right, though. The tactics are similar and in this case, terroristic force is being used. If people would simply understand that this is by design to create a future enemy, it would all become clear.
I mean, what is the point of peace? There isn't one if you are looking at a long-term invasion scenario. They are sowing the seed of chaos and committing war crimes in the meanwhile.
The US employs the same tactics and they use the "especially bright" people like our resident sociopath to achieve those ends.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by dooper

And here is something YOU aren't thinking about. How about a JDAM instead of chemical agents designed to disperse over large areas?

I KNOW they have them in their arsenal. They also have the non-chemical equivalent RED Phosphorous.

This is the point you aren't addressing. You or any of the ilk like you on this thread.

PS - And by the way, phosphorous rounds aren't designed to "blow it".
Bombs are.

With that being said, the dishonesty is getting too thick in here. I've got to take a break. Be back later to see if people have decided to become honest all of a sudden, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

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

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

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

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
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.

It is ILLEGAL to use WP the way Saddam did, and because the Kurds were non-combatants as well, he had 2 strikes against him.

3) To the other dude: Learn how to comprehend what you read.

Any questions?

I'm perfectly capable of comprehending what I've read. I can't say the reverse is true. I've pointed out time and time again- it's not the civilians deciding to be human shields, it's the combatants staging offensive military action in the midst of civilians, that in question. Hamas knowingly puts civilians at risk to gain sympathy on the world stage, when there are casualities.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:14 PM
This thread is stupid.
WP is not illegal, Us British and the Americans used it in Iraq to flush out the Iraqi army from hardened positions, then later against insurgents in CIVILIAN areas.
Also if Israel really wanted to kill people they wouldn't airburst it 400-500 feet in the air, they would use it like a conventional artillery round.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:14 PM
reply to post by budski

The UN? The UN is a political joke! I recall in 1967, the UN facilitated a pending invasion on Israel, by getting UN troops the hell out of the way of Egyptian forces massing on the Israeli border.

No problem for the UN. Everything at that point is A-OK.

Then, when Israel has turned the tables, and is busy kicking the living $#!T out of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, and were threatening their very capitals, I do recall the UN, led by the Soviet Union, screaming bloody murder for Israel to stop.

After all, these same client states of the Soviet Union were performing terribly, while using Soviet tactics and equipment.

Don't even go there with the UN.

God, this is ridiculous. I cannot believe half-intelligent people could even consider such a concept, as if they or their loved ones would never, ever agree that the concept has any validity whatsoever.

There is no concept of parity in war. If you can kill 1,000, or even 10,000 for every loss of yours, then this is definitive proof of your efficiency and success.

One must be a complete retard to think otherwise. There is no "fair" in war.

No one lines up and suggests, "OK, you kill ever how many of mine you want, and then when you're finished, I'll kill the same number of yours."

Only an idiot ... .

I hate idealists who are not grounded in reality, and who prefer long-term suffering and misery.

The way you want to do it, there will be more total deaths, more total suffering, and more long-term misery.

My God.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:18 PM

Originally posted by budski
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]

If you were as vocal about the attacks on Israeli civilians, I might be more persuaded that you have the ability to be objective.

As for the Falklands- that's why I said somewhere in the neighborhood of non-existant, rather than none. This denotes a negligible amount, to the point that they were a non-issue.

I have zero regard for terrorists, and I believe Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens. Article 51 clearly states that the presence of civilians doesn't make a military target off limits. Using human shields is prohibited, yet you refuse to even acknowledge any wrongdoing by Hamas due to your painfully obvious bias. I'm not cold hearted- I do feel for the innocents being put in harm's way. The difference between you and I is who we feel the blame falls on, for this. I hold Hamas responsible for any civilians injured or killed, while they're conducting combat operations. Israel even warned civilians to help minimize collateral damage.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:06 PM
Calling bias is totally bogus, what you think we side with terrorists because it's cool or something? Because we dont complain about the underhand things terrorists do, that means we arent objective? What's the point in pointing out the obvious and saying how nasty terrorists are? tell me that.

I can just see it now, I'm gonna make a thread called "Hey everyone, terrorists are evil" Just because nobody figured it out yet, and I want everyone to think I'm objective.

When Hamas kills hundreds of civillians and not as many as you can count on your fingers, you might see criticism swing towards them. More deaths of civvies = more criticism. It's that simple.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Lazyninja]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:10 PM
The thing is, you don't start a shooting war, and then whine about your casualties.

Unless you're a girly-man Hamas-hide-my-face and shake-my-weapon-while-hiding-behind-women-and-children.

Cry, cry.


posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:15 PM
Alright, I have taken a sufficient pause to calm myself down over this. I am not going to bother trying to reason on an emotional level with people arguing these points. It is pointless.

Instead, I ask a simple question: Why did Israel deny the use of the weapons if they knew that the usage of them was legal? I mean, if it were me using them, and I knew I was using them legally, I would own up to it immediately. And then I would immediately use another 20 rounds of them just to prove my point. However, they lied.

I don't like liars myself. Maybe I'm alone in this.

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

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by Jay-in-AR

Not acknowledging and denying are two separate things.

One thing the Israelis have learned in the past two years is to somewhat conceal your military state. Your condition. It's a primary principle of warfare, and they're finally doing it.

Screw all the openness.

You should always be very slow to confirm or deny anything.

Thus you unveil nothing that an enemy can use.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by dooper]

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:20 PM
reply to post by dooper

No, they denied it. Quite clearly, infact.

Line 3

Line 5

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:21 PM
reply to post by dooper

Again, this aint about Hamas, it's about the people being killed by Israel. And it's not war either. Remember what war was? War is usually when two sides of generally the same military might, face each other on the battlefield and try and kill each other, and the civillians are hundreds of miles away.

This is called, bombing a city and killing lots of people, while hoping you kill some terrorists. That's the real girl-man war that people like nowdays.

There hasn't been a proper war since WW2, cold war? girly fight without anyone even shooting at each other. Vietnam? faceroll. Iraq? same. Afghanistan? dont let em set fire to the drugs man! Iraq 2? faceroll. Gaza is just another pretend girly war, so that gun loving Americans can break out the popcorn, and come on the internet to debate about how great it is.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:31 PM
Taken from the OPs article: "The Times first accused Israeli forces of using white phosphorus on January 5, but the IDF has denied the charge repeatedly. Phosphorus bombs can be used to create smoke screens, but their use as weapons of war in civilian areas is banned by the Geneva Conventions.

Yesterday reports emerged from Gaza about the killing of five members of the Halima family, when a single white phosphorus shell dropped on their house in the town of Atatra on January 3. Two others were in a coma and three were seriously wounded, according to doctors and survivors.

Salima Halima, 44, who is in Gaza City's Shifa hospital, said that the chemical burst in all directions after hitting her living room.

Nafiz Abu Shahbah, a doctor who trained in Britain and America, said he was sure white phosphorus was responsible. Her wounds at first appeared superficial “but it eats at the flesh, it digs deeper and gets to the bone...The whole body becomes toxic,” he said.

In the Jabaliya refugee camp, the Associated Press found a crater that was still producing acrid smoke days after the war ended, and in the town of Beit Lahiya a lump of white phosphorus burst into flames after some boys dug it up from beneath some sand."

Read that carefully.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:34 PM
reply to post by Lazyninja

Lazy, it is about Hamas. Of course civilians were killed. They're almost always killed in wars and conflicts.

You have a romantic concept of war. I think that if you roll back through the history books, you'll rarely find parity of size.

It's more frequently one side much larger than the other. It's extremely rare that the vastly outnumbered side picks a fight, because most everyone is smart enough to know better.

Of course, the being smart part doesn't apply to these people.

War is war, and it is not like the Westerns where two line up and see who can draw the fastest and shoot the straightest.

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, you are unprepared, and your planning absolutely sucks.

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:49 PM
Imagine being someone in the situation of my above post's situation.

You are sitting in your living room when a "smokescreen" "blow it" "bomb" comes through your roof and lands in your living room. Everyone in your house is now either dead or in the hospital.
Remember, you have already tried to flee the area, but were turned back.

But remember, you are also "shielding" the bad guys, which makes this "legal". (and once again remember that the Israeli government has denied that this has even happened... repeatedly)

Bull#, this isn't right. Israel has Palestine LITERALLY landlocked and the Palestinians have NOWHERE to go. Also, the Hamas militants HAVE NOWHERE ELSE TO FIGHT. Nor do they have the manpower to meet the Israelis head-on.

What amazes me even more than the BS story I've just told above is that people have the nerve to defend it. What DOESN'T surprise me is that one of them is a supposed Special Forces soldier and an admitted sociopath.

(Although I said I would argue without emotion, I think it isn't possible here. We are dealing with Human Rights Violations here and the UN needs to step in and OVERSTEP what the US will inevitably do if sanctions are imposed on Israel in this situation. But I won't hold my breath there either.)

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in