Israel 'admits' using white phosphorus munitions

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

Wrong - the UN, amnesty, HRW and othe human rights organisations are all pro hamas and anti isreal are they?

You have brought nothing to this discussion except attempts to derail it from your very first post.

No proof, nothing.

I am not asking you to prove a negative - I am asking for PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE ASSERTING AS FACT.

I won't hold my breath - you have no argument, and you know it.

If they're accepting claims without independant verification on their own, then yes they are. I don't give those organizations a lot of credence as they're rarely even handed in their criticism. Where's their outrage at terrorist activities, suicide bombers, mortars/rockets fired at Israeli civilians, etc...? Until they demonstrate objectivity, I could give less than a damn what they think or say.

You asked me to prove that the IDF weren't intentionally targetting civilians. My proof is - were that the case, the IDF could certainly do a better job at producing casualties than they have been.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by BlueRaja]

reply to post by BlueRaja


In other words, until they agree with you, you won't see what they have to say.

yeah, really objective.

FYI - all the organisations I mentioned have pieces condemning hamas - so that kind of blows your argument out of the water

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

In other words, until they agree with you, you won't see what they have to say.

yeah, really objective.

FYI - all the organisations I mentioned have pieces condemning hamas - so that kind of blows your argument out of the water

That's not what I said, but nice try.

Here's my expectation- if you're going to accuse someone(or some country) of criminal activity, the burden of proof is on the accuser to investigate for themselves, and verify the accuracy of any claims. If they're merely parroting reports from anti-Israel sources, without double checking the accuracy, then they aren't credible to me.
What's even worse than these news sources parroting these stories, are third parties parroting "news" sources that are reporting the talking points of Hamas, etc.., and then claiming contrary information is biased or not worthy of discussion.

Claims come, and claims go. Anyone can claim anything.

Charges of targeting civilians have been made. Prove it.

Charges of using WP specifically against civilians have been made.
Prove it.

Proof is different ffom claims, or even evidence.

Proof.

Israel can counter-claim they were targeting Hamas fighters. No one can ever refute that claim with proof.

Israel can claim that rounds and bombs on occasion go astray, and that accidents occur. No one can ever refute that claim with proof.

Israel can claim that WP, which is in the arsenals of every major nation, is legal, and not subject to selection, and no one can ever refute that claim with proof.

The silly claims against Israel at the end of the day - can't be proven. And I don't care what the International Community wishes to consider, at the end of the day, there is no irrefutable proof that civilians were specifically targeted by an illegal weapon.

And our opinions mean squat.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by BlueRaja


It's the humanitarian organisations and the UN that have also reported this - the links prove that.

The fact is that it could be filmed in HD at a meeting of the general staff and you would still deny it - you and all the rest of the israeki apologists.

the burden of proof has been fulfilled, but because you don't want to believe it, you dismiss it out of hand.

You and dooper both have either ignored or failed to respond to anything that goes against what you THINK - despite the huge amount of evidence that proves you wrong.

You both dodge and duck questions that you can't answer, and maintain an untenable position in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The epitomy of everything this site stands against.

The evidence is all there - you just refuse to acknowledge it.

Well, I can play this game as long as either of you - and I am just going to repost the evidence provided so that the rest of the site can see you for what you are.

So now for the other side of the argument - prove to me that hamas, AND NO OTHER ORGANISATION HAVE FIRED ROCKETS INTO ISRAEL.

I want photo's, affadavits and positively ID'd members of hamas photographed firing the rockets, and for it to be verified by a neutral 3rd party - because that's your argument for isreal, that they have a right to defend themselves.
So prove it was hamas by all the criteira mentioned.

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

[edit on 28/1/2009 by budski]

reply to post by budski


I'm not one who's refusing to acknowledge a few basics. Once you break a problem down to the basics, solution is easy.

1. International law allows the conduct of war and conflict in civilian areas if those civilian areas contain combatants.

2. International law allow the use of many weapons and ordinance mixes. This would include WP, and most nations that have significant military forces use WP and would never ban its use..

3. International law recognizes that civilians will be killed inadvertantly, and thus the presence of civilian deaths is not to be equated with intentional targeting of civilians.

Once you get past the basics, these claims and criticisms are pointless.

But if you just don't like it, then rant and rave until you're blue in the face.

It will not matter one bit.

And there will be more than one permanent member of the Security Council who will veto any measures of political nature rather quickly.

Too bad.

reply to post by budski


The links prove that these organizations have reported things, as you said. They don't prove that these organizations personally verified the info that they're reporting, and not just repeating what was told to them.
Call me a skeptic of Arab media, based upon my first hand experiences while downrange. Their journalistic standards are questionable at best.

reply to post by BlueRaja


No, these are people on the ground inside gaza - they are the UN and humanitarian organisations.

They have not got their info from what you confusingly term "arab" sources - read the links, they are there, they are reporting what they see themselves.

Dooper - sorry to disappoint, but this is no longer the sixties, the world has moved on, and there is no room for your kind of thinking if we are to end war and suffering.

reply to post by budski


Remember how I was talking about how WP is being used to gas people?

Here is another news wire story to that effect:

"Palestinian medical sources at Al Shifa Hospital, in Gaza City, reported on Sunday that a Palestinian infant died at the hospital of wounds sustained during the recent Israel war against the Gaza Strip.

The infant, Nancy Sa'di Wakid, 6 months, inhaled gas that was radiated by Phosphoric bombs dropped by Israel on Gaza.

She suffered serious complications in her lungs and died of her wounds.

Nancy is the youngest Palestinian killed in Israel's war on Gaza. More than 1335 Palestinians were killed, 5000 were injured, in the 23-day war. Most of the casualties were women, children and elderly."
-Saed Bannoura - IMEMC (Uruknet Reporting)

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

No, these are people on the ground inside gaza - they are the UN and humanitarian organisations.

They have not got their info from what you confusingly term "arab" sources - read the links, they are there, they are reporting what they see themselves.

Dooper - sorry to disappoint, but this is no longer the sixties, the world has moved on, and there is no room for your kind of thinking if we are to end war and suffering.

I've already sent you links(if you bothered to look at them), showing how "objective" these organizations are. Here are some of the highlights.
This isn't an open and shut case of Israel=bad, Hamas=good. You've been unwilling to even entertain the notion that the ground truth may be very different than the sources you believe have asserted.

www.ngo-monitor.org...

The exploitation of international legal rhetoric is a major weapon in the political war to delegitmize Israeli anti-terror operations. Under this strategy, crystallized at the NGO Forum of the UN's 2001 Durban Conference, the terminology of international humanitarian (IHL) and human rights law is selectively applied to charge Israel with "violations of law," "crimes against humanity," "war crimes," "disproportionate force" and "indiscriminate attacks." In contrast, the violation of Gilad Shalit's human rights and Hamas' use of human shields are ignored. NGOs use the legal language to increase the credibility and seriousness of the charges, and in the Gaza conflict, many are already calling for international "investigations" and "lawfare" (i.e. filing lawsuits against Israeli officials in different countries) based on these accusations. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO have reaped significant political benefits from this strategy in their conflicts with Israel.

Hamas exploits schools, mosques, hospitals and cultural centers to carry out its attacks in flagrant violation of article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. This factor is minimized or ignored by numerous NGOs, and the emphasis is placed on Israel to avoid civilian casualties. But international law is clear: in cases of human shields, civilian deaths that result are clearly the responsibility of Hamas and not Israel.

Under international law, the test for proportionality is whether civilian harm is "clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated." Casualty ratios are not relevant, and this standard does not require equivalency in weaponry.

NGO claims that Israel deliberately targets civilians or does not attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets are entirely without foundation. The NGOs leveling these charges do not possess military expertise, detailed information on the dispersal of weapons by Hamas, and they are not privy to Israeli targeting decisions. Such information is essential in order to make a credible evaluation of Israeli military responses to the thousands of rocket attacks by Hamas.

The NGO charge of "collective punishment" is false both legally and factually. "Collective punishment" refers to the imposition of criminal penalties, not economic sanctions. Israel is in compliance with article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and allows access for humanitarian supplies well in excess of its legal obligations while under attack.

Calls for "war crimes" investigations and lawsuits are part of the NGO anti-Israel lawfare strategy, in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations and to promote a negative media image of Israel. Rather than obtaining "justice" for victims, these cases are intended to punish Israel for its anti-terror methods, to prevent future operations, to interfere with Israel's diplomatic relations, and to advance boycotts and other aspects of the Durban strategy.

Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by BlueRaja


Those links were for the BBC - BTW here are the foundations which support your "unbiased" ( ) source: Ford Foundation, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES): (Germany), New Israel Fund

Not even a little bias there eh?
And yet you critisize all sources except your own and post BLOGS as evidence

AGAIN, the UN and various humanitarian organisations, ON THE GROUND IN GAZA have reported WP being fired in civilian area's.

And AGAIN this thread is not about hamas - you want to discuss what they are doing, then write a thread about that.

The UN and humanitarian orgs reporting on this is good enough for GOVERNMENTS, but not for you - that says a lot about just how determined you are to ignore the reality of what has heppened, just as you ignore everything that is not pro israeli.

I will repeat this and repost links as often as necessary.





[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

Those links were for the BBC - BTW here are the foundations which support your "unbiased" (

) source: Ford Foundation, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES): (Germany), New Israel Fund

Not even a little bias there eh?
And yet you critisize all sources except your own and post BLOGS as evidence

A- Pot this is Kettle, come in....over. So in my case, sources contrary to your assertions are biased and not to be trusted, yet in your case, the sources are obviously completely truthful, and interested in objectivity?

B- I used a lot more than a blog, as a reference. There were links in the blog that were certainly pertinent, as well as cogent observations on the subject. You on the other hand have failed to debate the content based upon the merits(or anything else I've said or referred to for that matter), because aside from the talking points you have bupkis to add.

And AGAIN this thread is not about hamas - you want to discuss what they are doing, then write a thread about that.

You can't separate Hamas from what this thread is about. Their actions are what caused the Israeli response in the first place, as well as putting non-combatants in harm's way.

I will repeat this and repost links as often as necessary.

Joseph Goebbels used this same technique.





[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

reply to post by BlueRaja


Joseph goebels and the israeli's both used it - the problem is that people like you believe them..

Now please respond to the UN and humanitarian Orgs links that I posted.

The people who were on the ground and SAW what was heppening, including the UN compound which was shelled with WP by the isreali's.

reply to post by BlueRaja


double post


[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

Joseph goebels and the israeli's both used it - the problem is that people like you believe them..

As do Hamas, PLO, etc..

Now please respond to the UN and humanitarian Orgs links that I posted.

I already gave my thoughts on the veracity of their assertions.

The people who were on the ground and SAW what was heppening, including the UN compound which was shelled with WP by the isreali's.

What was the proximity of the UN compound to Hamas targets? Unless its location was so far away from any possible legitimate target, then it'd be difficult to assert any attack was deliberate.

reply to post by BlueRaja


You haven't commented on the veracity of those organisations - you've avoided the issue by claiming they were not there and got their reports from "arab" news sources which I have shown to be patently false.

Once again - The UN and various humanitarian organisations have people in Gaza who have seen the evidence with their own eyes, how do you reconcile that with your attempts to say they are wrong and that the isreali's have acted within the law?

Are you saying that you know better than these organisations what is happening in gaza?

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja

 

You haven't commented on the veracity of those organisations - you've avoided the issue by claiming they were not there and got their reports from "arab" news sources which I have shown to be patently false.

Once again - The UN and various humanitarian organisations have people in Gaza who have seen the evidence with their own eyes, how do you reconcile that with your attempts to say they are wrong and that the isreali's have acted within the law?

Are you saying that you know better than these organisations what is happening in gaza?

What I'm saying is that these organizations have been shown to portray things in a less than even handed way, therefore I don't take for granted that their assertions are 100% accurate, and unbiased. In otherwords there is a good likelihood that exaggerations, ommissions, or outright fallacies have been told, in addition to whatever else they may have said.

reply to post by BlueRaja


the sources also contain articles condemning the actions of hamas - is that equally tainted and unreliable?

If you had bothered to read them you would know this.

Now, AGAIN, why do you deny the accuracy of these reports from the UN and humanitarian organisations, bearing in mind that they also comdemn hamas's actions against israel?

OK folks, lets take a deep breath and relax a little.

This has been an interesting debate, but is now resorting to mere bickering and we don't want to see that happen. Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

Feel better? If not, take another deep breath before continuing.

Thank you.