11 points about Israel,Lebanon and Palestinians

Post Reply New Topic

No, I am mocking on him and you.

White phosphorous was used. There is footage of a reporter exposing some to air and it igniting. The place is completely strewn with it. I don’t think the Israelis have denied they use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon)#2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict

Psych's source wasn't the internet Ragtime, it was the 3 respected organisations whose testimony you refuse to acknowledge. But regardless of that, the Israeli army has admitted using it:

guardian

It's hard to believe you that you have been following these events daily & hadn't heard of the use of white phosphorus before reading this thread. What is your source for information about this war? Joe the Plumber's reports in his new role as war correspondent?

That Allies used white phosphorus and other incendiary materials in the course of WW2. So what is the problem? We burned Japanese cities to the ground with incendiary ordinance and we set off three major fire storms in Germany (Dresden was the father of fire storms). This all falls under the heading of fighting a war. In a war, the idea is to kill your enemies and bust up their s**t.

ruveyn

It's a grisly supply-and-demand situation. Saddam used to pay poor families thousands of dollars per child suicide-bomber they raised and sent off. No doubt that still goes on in some form wherever children are recruited for violence.

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Jan 2009, 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Looks like it was used:



Full article:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231866575577&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So, that's settled. What's the significance of it though?

Because the use of white phosphorus near civilian areas is against international law, & this specific use of it might amount to a war crime.

Because even if everyone on this thread agreed with you that Israel was justified in its actions, & that the blame for any civilian deaths rested with Hamas because they chose to live in a civilian area, Israel still would not be justified in using phosphorus, which ignites upon contact with air & indiscriminately burns everything around it.

Some war crime. It is how we won WW2.

The only War Crime is loosing the War. You will notice that it is people from the winning side who condemn people from the loosing side for war crimes.

ruveyn

No, loosing the war isn't the only war crime. I take it you're not an expert on international law. Are you really saying that in war anything that hastens your side's victory is morally justified?

International Law is bogus. There is no government to enforce it. It is not the result of legislation nor is it the decisions of a court that is universally recognized.

At best it is a custom and a protocol to be adhered to or violated according to the needs of nations.

ruveyn

Well, forget jurisprudence then. What i actually asked you was: Are you really saying that in war anything that hastens your side's victory is morally justified?

At this point, would you care to admit that "civilian areas" is an outmoded and completely-undefineable term when dealing with terrorists who commandeer civilian homes (with the civilians still inside) and use them to fire ammunition from? And when, often enough, the terrorists are more or less given permission by the "innocent civilians" to do just that? There are no terrorists outside of "civilian areas", since the term "terrorist" loses all meaning as soon as they leave civilian areas and move onto a battlefield. When they do that, they are then "soldiers", instead of cowards who hide behind women and children, or their preferred term, "human shields". But they won't step onto a battlefield (i.e. away from civilians), because they're despicable cowards. So, they shoot from other peoples' homes, deliberately making it both very difficult and extremely unpopular for Israel to respond in any effective way to such weapons fire.



I hope you become a general one day, and show the world how to fight an absolutely perfect war, where no one innocent ever dies.
You ask the impossible -- clean combat against terrorists ingrained as deeply as possible within civilian areas -- as if it is an actual option.

How would you handle the Gaza civilian-dwelling terrorists, hot shot? Yeah, I thought so. No one else knows either. So, give Israel a break while they try and find the best options to defend themselves from these constant, daily rocket attacks into their civilian territory. Which is actual civilian territory, with 100% unarmed non-combatant citizens, just trying to survive on their own property. Israeli soldiers don't fight from civilians' homes because, unlike the Gazan terrorists, Israeli soldiers actually want civilians to survive, whereas the terrorists don't give a hoot who lives or dies, on their side or Israel's, as long as "jihad" is being done. They are scum, and they need to be killed for Israel's AND the Palestinians' sakes!

Last edited by Ragtime on 26 Jan 2009, 5:10 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Please don't do the strawman thing Ragtime, & the sarcasm isn't necessary. I can't imagine that you really mistook me as saying any war which results in death is unjustified. I made the point that Israel are attacking civilian areas, claiming the enemy is responsible for any civilian deaths that might happen accidentally as a result of Israeli action, but then, in using white phosphorus, they behave as if they actually wish to maximise civilian casualties & kill people as randomly as they can manage.

Even in terms of Israel's own justification for their actions this is wrong. The fact that it is impossible to avoid killing innocent people in any war doesn't mean anyone is absolved of the responsibility to minimise civilian casualties.

To address, and indeed answer the above, let me repost something I posted hours ago in this thread which you seem to have trouble reading:

Red Cross representative:

Please have your vision checked if you still missed this.
(Large type for the vision-impaired.)

Ok, there is simply too much to quote, but those of you who are busy demonising Israel seem to be ignoring certain facts...

On the issue of land, it was previously owned by the British until a few years after the second world war, and given to the Israelis who fled oppression. At that time, the Palestinians had little to no interest in that land, since it was of little agricultural value, etc.

However, once the settlers began to make something of it, the Palestinians rather conveniently changed their minds.

There have been several attacks on Israel by the Arab nations over the last century. All instigated by the Arab nations, and all driven back by Israel. But it's no longer about land anymore. That's just an excuse.

Hamas has openly said that their goal is to exterminate the Israelis. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Israel's goal was to exterminate Palestinians, surely they would have done so by now. If they were capable of driving back enemies on all sides during the six days war, it would be a piece of cake to steamroll over your so-called 'innocents'. Now, I know not every Palestinian is a terrorist, and many on both sides wish for peace, but the Islamic nations of the Middle East are not exactly known for their political or ethical sense. A group like Hamas knows it cannot destroy a whole country in a straight fight, so they play games of subversion, hiding amongst their own people, firing rockets blindly into Israeli land with no regard for where they hit, and goad them into retaliation. And what nation wouldn't retaliate after rockets are fired at their people? That they did more damage in return is a moot point. Are you saying they should simply sit there and take it?

Israel is surrounded on all sides by people who hate them simply because they're Jews. Jews have got it in the neck at every turn, throughout the centuries. I'd say that justifies a little returning fire.