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.

 

Hamas' Powerful New Weapon Alters Strategic Calculations Along the Gaza Strip

page: 20
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Precisely, many of the members here with zero military background fail to understand how a tandem warhead or HEAT round works.

The explosive is focused on a small spot. This creates an explosive jet which penetrates armor. These arn't the kinds of weapons that make large explosions. When armored vehicles cook off from being hit by shaped charges its due to ammo and fuels igniting not the penetrator.

Often the munition requires a hard target to trigger the warhead, otherwise the warhead doesn't go off and acts simply as a big bullet. There are examples of this from Iraq where warheads did not go off after penetrating the soft skin of M1025s.




posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Often the munition requires a hard target to trigger the warhead, otherwise the warhead doesn't go off and acts simply as a big bullet. There are examples of this from Iraq where warheads did not go off after penetrating the soft skin of M1025s.


We get that mate but this "so called" missile hit the engine block..

If whatever it was did not detonate then please explain all the blown out windows..
I can't for the life of me see a "big bullet" doing that...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I can assure you a big bullet will blow windows out. You are familiar with with cannons? An inert round can still release a tremendous amount of energy, especially kinetic energy penetrators such as the APFSDS aka Sabot round or the long rod penetrators being developed for use in railguns.

To add, If it did hit the engine block, the explosive jet may have emptied into the engine.
edit on 14/4/11 by MikeboydUS because: to add



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by backinblack
 


I can assure you a big bullet will blow windows out. You are familiar with with cannons? An inert round can still release a tremendous amount of energy, especially kinetic energy penetrators such as the APFSDS aka Sabot round or the long rod penetrators being developed for use in railguns.


We don't actually know if the windows were blown out since they all function as emergency exits as a school bus.

It's not really possible to do a real forensic photographic examination based on the couple of photos that have been released. There are no interior pictures of the bus, and nothing of the surrounding scene.

A forensic examiner would require a lot more photographic evidence in the way of angles and surrounding shots to really make an educated guess.

That's all any of us are doing is guessing.

It's kind of funny watching so many people go into melt down over it.

Reminds me of the first Mummy Movie "You must not read from the book, you must not read from the book".



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by backinblack
 


I can assure you a big bullet will blow windows out. You are familiar with with cannons? An inert round can still release a tremendous amount of energy, especially kinetic energy penetrators such as the APFSDS aka Sabot round or the long rod penetrators being developed for use in railguns.

To add, If it did hit the engine block, the explosive jet may have emptied into the engine.
edit on 14/4/11 by MikeboydUS because: to add


The equivalent of 10 kgs of TNT emptied into the engine bay yet didn't even blow off the back panel on the bus ??
Really, this is getting silly..



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




It does look like the jet spewed into the interior of the bus. Notice all of the spots that look like droplets of either melted metal and/or plastic.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Source for the pic please...

It may be just me but that rear window looks to be still there..
If so, this is not the same bus..
edit on 14-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Thanks for posting that, I can't honestly tell, the way they die cast some of those fittings back in my school days left a lot of rough surfaces and imperfections. They didn't make the school busses as nice as the passenger busses.

It's a shame we don't have the money and the resources to conduct our own study, you know a few similiar school busses and a few of the rockets that the Israeli sources are claiming were being used.

I would think though if molten metals were dropping that the some of the seats might have caught on fire. While the seats are probably treated with some kind of anti-fire retardant, the cloth covers, the foam and wood inside would likely burn if something that hot burned through the seat covers.

I still don't feel like we have enough information to make an indepedent determination of any quality.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Israeli journalists.

Here's some more:







posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


If I could get some pictures of the injuries I could make a pretty good guess on the type of weapon. I have only seen one picture of one of the children and the picture isn't clear enough to see if they have burns. I could see fragmentation injuries though, which most likely would be from parts of the bus propelled by either an explosive or the impact of the warhead.
edit on 14/4/11 by MikeboydUS because: spelling



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The long and short of it is Hamas's 'rockets' are a political statement not a military solution.

It's actually a strategy that is working for them in a lot of ways.

The sucide bombers really were to extreme to gain public sympathy, while the rockets that rarely cause any damage at all give them that David versus Goliath quality.


Alright, I can see that as a propaganda gambit. Some sugar-chlorate mixture for propellant, a few industrial strength mailing tubes (like posters or maps are mailed in), and you have yourself a fine bit of kit that goes "whoosh!" spectacularly enough to get noticed, but not much else. Then hide some of your own "martyrs" among a pile of civilians, Israel retaliates so that folks see them doing "something" about the spectacular but ineffectual attacks, and voila! You have a host of civvie casualties to parade on the nightly news to garner sympathy in the popular court. I ca see that.

I believe, and this is just personal opinion, that using any sort of anti-tank weapon against a civilian target would be as bad a blunder propaganda-wise as using suicide bombers to garner public sympathy for the cause, though. Even Che would not be pleased with that!



Because they are cheap and home made they are hard to respond to militarily and often end up baiting Israel into using dispraportionate force that very much does make Gazans look like the victims they are.


It's difficult for me to see "victims" where they continually poke the badger with spoons. Now, if the badger attacked without being poked with the spoons, that would be a different story altogether. Some times, when you pick a fight, you get it. Hard to see a "victim" in that.

I'll find one somewhere, though, if they don't get my check in the mail much pronto!



Israel would be wise to make peace in my humble opinion.


See, there's the problem. They CAN'T make peace and continue to exist, considering the stated goals of those arrayed against them. They can "make peace" and try to work with al Fatah, and Hamas gets all butt hurt and stirs the pot. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if they made peace some how with Hamas, then al Fatah would be the ones doing the stirring. It looks to me for all the world like pack of wolves harrying a buffalo. This one nips, that one distracts, and on it goes.



In large part because their volunteer blogger force makes them look even worse than their dispraportionate response to Hamas's home made rockets.


Something my dear old dad taught me about "proportionate response": If they know that you'll back down when they cry "uncle", then you'll never have any peace, since they know they can attack, and that you'll lay off on their say so. Never let THEM control the fight, and never stop until YOU are happy with the results - not when THEY tell you to.

To my own personal philosophy, "proportionate response" means whatever it takes to put an end to hostilities. Anything less is just egging it on, and begging for trouble.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeboydUS
 


Source please..
I'd like to see the site this came from...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Anti-armor stuff is for use against, well, you know, ARMORED stuff. It doesn't do so well under other conditions.


This so called missile hit straight into the bus engine at the rear..
Detonation MUST have occurred for the windows to blow out..
I fail to see enough damage consistent with 10kg of TNT..

It's just not believable....


Come now. You of all people should be aware that shaped charges, as usually employed in anti-armor work, have "directed force". The blast is focused, which is the purpose for shaping the charge. What you appear to be looking for is omnidirectional damage from a static charge, and you KNOW that won't be found if there was a shaped charge in play.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Is there beer and cookies at least over there?


Depends what sort of cookies you're after..

Man I've fallen for the cookie scam more than once.


Damn disgusting rival pub trying to put me off my pool game..


Actually, I look for the beer to make me "see things" and make my hands shaky enough to throw off my pool game. Putting that ability in the cookies is just plain wrong and EVIL!

I think we need to lob a few home-made rockets at that rival pub!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


The Israel Project:
A non profit organization for journalists

www.theisraelproject.org...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



It's difficult for me to see "victims" where they continually poke the badger with spoons. Now, if the badger attacked without being poked with the spoons, that would be a different story altogether. Some times, when you pick a fight, you get it. Hard to see a "victim" in that.


But honestly, do you not concede the Palestinians are being "poked" daily with the continued push of illegal settlements on their land?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by backinblack
 


The Israel Project:
A non profit organization for journalists

www.theisraelproject.org...


Don't see the pics there..
Please link to the page..



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Come now. You of all people should be aware that shaped charges, as usually employed in anti-armor work, have "directed force". The blast is focused, which is the purpose for shaping the charge. What you appear to be looking for is omnidirectional damage from a static charge, and you KNOW that won't be found if there was a shaped charge in play.


I don't see any evidence of any decent sized blast consistent with what is being discussed..
Even with the supposed inside pics I've now seen..

Not one panel blown off inside or outside the bus..



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Its in this news story.
www.theisraelproject.org...

You can tell its the exact same seats as the other pictures.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by backinblack
 


So let me see if I have this right.. You are ok with children being targeted provided it only injures them, and not kills them? You are ok with the targeting of civilians, provided they are only injured and not killed?


Let me set you straight on what I believe as you obviously have not read my posts..

I will NEVER condone the injuring or killing of any civilian, be they man, woman or child..

I have given my reasons why I do NOT think this was a deliberate attack on the school bus..
Your sources are all over the place but all seem to basically come from the one original source..
That would be the reporter I mentioned previously..

Now, why are you not SCREAMING from the rooftops about Israel injuring a FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL??
Is it because she is but one of many that Israel has injured or killed so it doesn't seem so bad??

edit: Star for the apology, good to see.

edit on 14-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)


Here is my issue with your comments / positions to date.

Your position seems to shift, depending on what information is available, or who is arguing what point at what time.

Dont beleive me?

From Page 1 -

Originally posted by backinblack
No offense but if it's a new powerful weapon then it did a lousy job on a flimsy bus...
It wouldn't even take the paint off a tank.
Is there proof it was a laser guided missile apart from Fox or Israeli sources.?


You ask if there is proof it was a laser guided missile.

From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
You really think a sophisticated,Russian built, laser guided missile is what did that damage to the bus??
Seriously, you are intelligent..
It appeared to be a clean hit in the rear..
That kind of weapon would have blown that bus to bits...


You question the use of a laser guided missile.

From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Show me where Hamas said it was an anti tank missile..
Show me where the admit they targeted a school bus..
Oh, no Israeli sources please..


You now demand proof where Hamas said it was an anti tank missile / and intentional targeting of the bus.

Answered -
Aljazeera
Lebanon Daily Star
Times of India
Turkey Daily News
Focus.net
Now Lebanon News
Palestinian Times

Specifically, from the Palestinian Times, is the name of the Hamas Spokesperson

Abu Obeida


From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
So, I see no mention of a laser guided anti tank missile or that they deliberately targeted a school bus..
The crumby rockets Hamas fire are often referred to as missiles..
Check the multiple threads if you don't believe me..


Answered -
Aljazeera
Lebanon Daily Star
Times of India
Turkey Daily News
Focus.net
Now Lebanon News
Palestinian Times

Specifically, from the Palestinian Times, is the name of the Hamas Spokesperson

Abu Obeida


From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Seems to me the Israelis are merely at it again..
They are trying to make people believe Hamas has this evil new weapon..
I'm sure they will use that as an excuse to bomb more Palestinians including women and children..

Oddly, if you read further into the article, it is only the Israelis that claim these are new powerful weapons..
They also state more of these anti tank missiles were fired later..
So with all these laser guided anti tank missiles fired all Hamas managed was to hit ones bus, and even then the bus does not look all that damaged???
You believe all the propaganda BS you wish..
I'll believe my eyes and common logic.


The information you ask for is provided, and now its all propoganda, because it not only answered your questions, it underminded your argument.

From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Yes I am because Israel is making out that Hamas now has advanced weapons..
They will use that as an excuse for more aggressive attacks and I'm sure will also question where they came from and do something about that..
According to Israel, Hamas fired at least four of these laser guided missiles but hit only one bus??
Doesn't ring true as does the lack of damage..


Still arguing its propoganda. You stated no Israeli sources are to be used, because they cant be trusted im assuming, yet we see here you have no issues using an Israeli source when it supports your argument (emphasis above added by me).

From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Totally agree..
Same with targeting a school with phosphorous..
Sub human animals...


Justifing Hamas actions because of a Phosphorous incident at a school that was being used by Hamas.

From Page 2 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Hamas never once said it was a laser guided anti tank missile.
You'd think they would be bragging about it if they had acquired them..
And the missile you are talking about has the equivalent of 10kg of TNT..
en.wikipedia.org...
Experts have stated the damage just doesn't fit...


You once again are stating that Hamas never said it was a laser guided missile, even though the answers have already been provided to you. Except now your argument is they wouldnt be bragging about it, even though they have been.

Aljazeera
Lebanon Daily Star
Times of India
Turkey Daily News
Focus.net
Now Lebanon News
Palestinian Times

Specifically, from the Palestinian Times, is the name of the Hamas Spokesperson

Abu Obeida



From Page 3 -

Originally posted by backinblack
From Israeli sources the one Oaktree lists is what they say was used..
It really doesn't add up..Nowhere near enough damage..
I'd still like proof that Hamas DELIBERATELY targeted a school bus...


Here you are quoting Israeli sources, which you have stated should not be used. You are now looking where Hamas DELIBERATELY targeted the chool bus (emphasis above added by me).

Aljazeera
Lebanon Daily Star
Times of India
Turkey Daily News
Focus.net
Now Lebanon News
Palestinian Times

Specifically, from the Palestinian Times, is the name of the Hamas Spokesperson

Abu Obeida


From Page 3 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Don't recall ever saying that so what's your point?
You did however state Hamas deliberately targeted the school bus..


You once again ask where Hamas deliberately targeted the school bus.
Aljazeera
Lebanon Daily Star
Times of India
Turkey Daily News
Focus.net
Now Lebanon News
Palestinian Times

Specifically, from the Palestinian Times, is the name of the Hamas Spokesperson

Abu Obeida


From Page 3 -

Originally posted by backinblack
Lets make this perfectly clear..
It was only the Israelis that were quoted as saying it was a laser guided tank missile..
Hamas did NOT say that...


Now you are making it perfectly clear that its only the Israelis being quoted, and continuing to maintain Hamas did NOT say that.


Lebanon Daily News
The military wing of Hamas on Thursday claimed responsibility for firing an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus, the Al-Qassam Brigades said in a statement.

"Al-Qassam Brigades claims responsibility for targeting the bus of the occupation," the statement said, adding that it was in response to Israel killing three of the group's leaders last week.



Focus.net
Gaza City. The military wing of Hamas on Thursday claimed responsibility for firing an anti-tank missile at an Israeli school bus, the Al-Qassam Brigades said in a statement, AFP reported.
"Al-Qassam Brigades claims responsibility for targeting the bus of the occupation," the statement said, adding that it was in response to Israel killing three of the group's leaders last week.


So yes, Hamas DID say they claim responsibility
So yes, Hamas DID say they used a guided missile
So yes, Hamas DID deliberately / intentionally targeted a school bus

This is just from Page 3 - Where all of your claims / accusations have been countered, answered by sources other than western or Israeli media / source. If people actually keep reading on page 3, you will see BackinBlack continue the circular argument game, demanding proof thats already been provided to him, while his posts start to contain justifications for Hamas attacking a school bus, by pointing out what occured in Egypt in '67. The mental condition you are looking for based on your posts backinblack is called rationalization. The justification of abhorrent behavior because of something that occured in the past.

The rest of your argument from the rest of page 3, up now, is the somewhat the same argument. The only diiferences are you shift your argument to:

* Hamas is justified because of Palestinian deaths / Egyptian Deaths
* Circular argument that repeats the same questions you asked and have already been answered
* I m bluffing in my argument
* The Israeli charter calls for the takeover of all lPalestine
* That it could be a guided missile, but Hamas is not skilled enough to use one - Page 4
* That Israel was given X land, but had conquest dreams from the start, and then you ationalise and justify Hamas actions because of this - Page 5
* You demand proof Israel was attacked by Arabs, then justify the Arab reasons for their attacks - Page 5
* Then its the Rothchilds behind everything, further justifying Hamas actions - Page 5
* You threaten to tell on me for asking you to read and comprehend the info I provide while refusing to actually continue with the conversation at hand - circular argument technique you use - Page 5
* You argue, again, it was not a guided missile and once again ask for proof it was - Page 5
* You suggest the plan of Palestinian domination started in 1917, ignoring the fact Palkestine didnt exist in 1917 since it was part of the Ottoman Empire. - Page 5
* You argue the use of the term new technology, and once again ask for proof of the missle, even though its already been provided. - Page 5
* You now claim Israel attack the Arbas in all the mid east wars, and once again state Hamas never said they were responsible for it, even though the info has been provided numerous times now. - Page 6


And this is just up to page 6. I can continue if you want since you suggested I attack your posts and not you. Well here you go, your posts are the circular argument. You make claims, and when those claims are refuted, you find a different angle, and when that angle is refuted, you go back to the origional argument you made.

A circular argument.

Based on your posts, you discredit yourself by saying children and civilians should not be targeted, followed by justifying attacks on civlian targets because of an attack in Egypt in 67, or a phosphorous attack on a school.

I have no issues admitting when I am wrong, and appolgizing for that and others can attest to that fact. In this thread though, you are all over the place with your argument and reasons. All I ask, and have wanted from the begining is for you to make your argument, cite the sources that support your argument, and we debate from there.

All of the sources I have cited are consitent. What you have done though is take 2 pictures in 2 differnet articles, and quoted the picture caption, which is by the AFP / AP and not the cited sources.

Instead, and you can se if you take 10 minutes and go back and check, is when sources / facts are supplied by me or someone else on the opposite side of this debate, you come back with nothing but comments. No proof, no cited sources, no facts that are provable etc. You state not to use Israeli sources, yet you turn around and use that very same source when it suits your argument.

Its one ting to say - Hamas doesnt have the techincal ability to use a Laser guided anti tank missile. Its completely differnt though when you cannot back that claim up with any type of fact / source to support it. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of those types of weapons are automated, and are essentially target and squeeze the trigger. They are designed to be used in combat situation, and are designed to be used by people who would be essentially operating under fight or flight body reaction, which means loss of fine motor control.

The insinuation they are complex is incorrect.

Thats all I ask.. If you make a statement, back it up with a cited source. I point this out so you can see where my frustration with your argument is coming from. You go through your line of accusations and demand proof, which is given, and at the end of that line, you start it over again.

I point this out not to be an ass, but so you can see what I am talking about.

Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join