Israel bombs 160 sites in Gaza overnight. Mod Warnings in First Post.

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

Do you know anything abot this man or have you just heard about him?

Yes, he has storng views - do I agree with him? Not always.

Has he been right in the past about things that others weren't (incl myself in this) ?

Yes

Does this mean his views are always the right ones for humanity as awhole?
I don't think so.

He does not recognise Israel's right to exist - problem.
Therefore no matter what Israel does it will be wrong in his view.

He has strong views and he is entitled to them.
I don't think he is a hypocrite I just think he needs to take a breath of air and step down form his preacher's stool for aminute.

If not, he will be the same as those he opposes.

All talk and no ears.

Yes I do know a lot about him, I admire him for his honesty and standing up to bully nations like the Israeli's, U.S and even Britain. He talks sense 99% of the time. If he was in power instead of the warmonger Blair I am sure Britain wouldn't be in the mess it is now with regards to the middle east.

seanaway

Gringo180 wrote: »

Yes I do know a lot about him, I admire him for his honesty and standing up to bully nations like the Israeli's, U.S and even Britain. He talks sense 99% of the time. If he was in power instead of the warmonger Blair I am sure Britain wouldn't be in the mess it is now with regards to the middle east.

No disresepect meant but I do think you are being somewhat naiive about this man.

He is far left and that is as bad as far right.

Now you may be right that Britain mignt not be in the position it is re: Mid East but then again Britain has never been in a good spot there - not since they shafted the new Israeli state back in 1948 by handing the 7 high points to the Arab Legion when they should have handed then to the newly founded State of Israel.

Back to the main point however.

Mr Galloway for all his convictions is dangerous.

If he had been in charge in the 1930's the Britain would never have taken on Hitler and succumbed to Stanin''s sweet words until it was too late and the world would have seen a new dark age of violence even worse than it is seeing now.

Do not let yourself be taken in by anyone's convicetions.

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

If he had been in charge in the 1930's the Britain would never have taken on Hitler and succumbed to Stanin''s sweet words until it was too late and the world would have seen a new dark age of violence even worse than it is seeing now.

Do not let yourself be taken in by anyone's convicetions.

He has said before he would of being the first in line to tackle Hitler. I think your been a bit harsh on the man.

seanaway

I stand corrected so.

How about Stalin?

Did he mention him in the same or later statements?

Frank Bullitt

Gringo180 wrote: »

How is he vermin? I think the world would be a better place if the likes of himself where in positions of power.

You are aware that he was quite friendly and cushy with Saddam Huasain and Bashar al-Assad, so I wouldn't want him anywhere near a position of power.

seanaway

Of course the main point here is to see that all dictators are a danger not only to the people they 'serve' but to those too 'ignorant' to see they are being manipulated.

Gringo180

Gintonious wrote: »

You are aware that he was quite friendly and cushy with Saddam Huasain and Bashar al-Assad, so I wouldn't want him anywhere near a position of power.

And the Yanks and Brits weren't?? It wasnt long ago that Assad was sleeping in Buckingham Palace. Sure wasnt Tony Blair best mates with Gaddaffi when he was Prime Minister?

Manic Moran

Out of curiousity, what's going on over on the West Bank side of things?

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

Out of curiousity, what's going on over on the West Bank side of things?

Not a heck of a lot, the usual stone throwing etc. There were celebrations in Jerusalem over the alleged capture of an Israeli soldier in Gaza.

The other main news from the West Bank is that the main suspect in the murder of Abu Khader has been named at his arraignment http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183126#.U80RI_ldV8G

Gringo180

Health ministry in Gaza now reporting the use of white phosporus by the Israelis.

Warper

steveblack wrote: »

Israel V Palestine is a fight that been going on for years with no end in sight.
The reason there is no end in sight is it is a Death by a thousands cuts. A few hundred deaths each time they fight does not bring them to there senses, it only makes each side dig in even more.
Neither side has suffered enough too really want peace, the whole world should step aside and let them at it.
A few thousand dead on each side will bring them to there senses, any war mongering politicians in charge when that happens will be gone over night. The people will demand peace on both sides.
The world has got to be cruel to be kind, when enough have died, those who are left will demand peace.
This conflict of a few hundred dead each year will go on forever, politicians will be able to spin to suit there agenda.
500 dead every year and the status quo remains the same until the end of time, but 10,000 dead in one year will be the end of it. The world will demand peace.

You mean genocide should be allowed to happen. This isnt a fair fight, that is clear. A man with a stone is no match for a man with a gun

steveblack

Warper wrote: »

. This isnt a fair fight, that is clear. A man with a stone is no match for a man with a gun

If the world let them at it, how long do you think israel could keep this level of fighting going if the USA was not resupplying them with weapons?

NufcNavan

Any credible sources to verify the use of white phosphorus by the IDF?

BlaasForRafa

steveblack wrote: »

If the world let them at it, how long do you think israel could keep this level of fighting going if the USA was not resupplying them with weapons?

Israel has, by necessity, developed one of the biggest armaments industries in the world, most of it's spending is on weapons developed and made in Israel, hell the Irish army has bought drones from Israeli companies.

Manic Moran

steveblack wrote: »

If the world let them at it, how long do you think israel could keep this level of fighting going if the USA was not resupplying them with weapons?

It's to the point that Israel Military Industries is the only approved foreign supplier of ammunition for the US Army. Things have progressed a long way since the 1973 war when the Israelis were dependent on US munitions deliveries. Indeed, that dependency back then is precisely why the Israelis decided to become self-sufficient. It would take a full scale regional war before the Israelis start to run out of ammo.

Manic Moran

NufcNavan wrote: »

Any credible sources to verify the use of white phosphorus by the IDF?

No reason to believe it's not true. They'll use it if they feel it required, no laws against it.

NufcNavan

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason to believe it's not true. They'll use it if they feel it required, no laws against it.

I know that, but the only report I've seen is from an Iranian station and a few claims on twitter. There have been journalists in Gaza tweeting all day about the bombing etc. but no one has mentioned white phosphorous.

Gringo180

Manic Moran wrote: »

No reason to believe it's not true. They'll use it if they feel it required, no laws against it.

No laws against using a highly toxic gas on a civilian population?

seanaway

Gringo180 wrote: »

No laws against using a highly toxic gas on a civilian population?

No. But as I said before it wasn't being used as a gas. It is an element of creating smokescreens to assist troop movements.

The IDF also stated they would take white phos out of their shells.

Where is the proof of this alleged use?

People need to be careful to avoid trotting out allegations. There is enough horror in Gaza as it is without people throwing half truths around.

R P McMurphy

seanaway wrote: »

No. But as I said before it wasn't being used as a gas. It is an element of creating smokescreens to assist troop movements.

The IDF also stated they would take white phos out of their shells.

Where is the proof of this alleged use?

People need to be careful to avoid trotting out allegations. There is enough horror in Gaza as it is without people throwing half truths around.

I would say that distinction would be lost on the people vomiting the linings of their throats and lungs up

Gringo180

seanaway wrote: »

No. But as I said before it wasn't being used as a gas. It is an element of creating smokescreens to assist troop movements.

If it was used as a smokescreen how come people died from inhaling it, its a poor excuse imo, as a self proclaimed democracy I think the Israeli's should be a bit more responsible in there choice of weaponry.

WakeUp

Manic Moran wrote: »

I said "shooting anyway", not "shooting them anyway." The difference being that in the first case the intended target would be something else, such as the shipping container which according to some reports was what they were shooting at to begin with, or maybe some other reason which was not within the knowledge of witnesses, the other implies that the individuals themselves were the intended targets.

Ok as far as I'm aware there are universal laws of war but individual armies also have their own rules of war,? is that correct or incorrect?..you seem versed on the rules of war I'm wondering who's rules they are? can you provide a link please or some sort of material so I can have a look where you're coming from. I'd like to read it please.

BlaasForRafa

NufcNavan wrote: »

I know that, but the only report I've seen is from an Iranian station and a few claims on twitter. There have been journalists in Gaza tweeting all day about the bombing etc. but no one has mentioned white phosphorous.

Last time around presstv claimed an Israeli F-15 was shot down. It never happened.

The Iranians and palestinians know how much of a fuss is created in west about WP so they're just itching for the IDF to actually use it so they start firing out propaganda.

WakeUp

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Last time around presstv claimed an Israeli F-15 was shot down. It never happened.

The Iranians and palestinians know how much of a fuss is created in west about WP so they're just itching for the IDF to actually use it so they start firing out propaganda.

The Israelis have already committed a number of warcrimes in Gaza use of wp will just add to the list. Have you seen the video on the thread over in afterhours of the civilian in a green top looking for his family in the rubble being butchered by the brave IDF? what say you is that a war crime or not?...

Manic Moran

Gringo180 wrote: »

No laws against using a highly toxic gas on a civilian population?

For starters, it's an incendiary. Its purpose is to burn things, not poison people. Its alternate purpose is to create a smoke screen, not to poison people.

Oh, and the fumes aren't "Highly toxic". They're catergorised as an irritant. US Army Field Manual 4-02.285:

Symptoms. Field concentrations of the smoke may irritate the eyes, nose, and throat. Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations.
[...]
Treatment. Generally, treatment of WP smoke irritation is unnecessary. Spontaneous recovery is rapid.

.

So, no, no laws against it with the two aforementioned exceptions: As an incendiary it may not be delivered by aircraft over an urban area, and the normal rules applicable to all munitions about having a valid primary military purpose which merits the risk to population. Oh, and, I guess you can't use it against personnel for the irritant effect, but as the irritant effect is so minor anyway, there's little point to it. Besides, the burning is far more effective.

WakeUp wrote: »

Ok as far as I'm aware there are universal laws of war but individual armies also have their own rules of war,? is that correct or incorrect?..you seem versed on the rules of war I'm wondering who's rules they are? can you provide a link please or some sort of material so I can have a look where you're coming from. I'd like to read it please.

There are, I guess, two levels. The only "Laws of War" are those created by international treaty such as the Hague or Geneva Conventions. All signatories are bound by them. That said, some unwritten laws have come about.

The next level is national policy. A number of countries which are not signatories to the conventions have declared that their position will be to abide by the regulations anyway. The general purpose for this is so that if they're engaged in operations against a signatory that various rules will be followed anyway, sortof an agreement of honor. Legal enforcement, however, is internal to the nation's military, effectively as a rule of engagement.

A rule of engagement is a limitation placed upon a military by its own chain of command, almost always for political purposes. RsOE will never be more permissive than the laws of war allow. (At least, they shouldn't be. If they are, adherence to RsOE cannot be relied upon as a defense to a charge of a violation of the laws of war). RsOE can be changed by any commander of sufficient granted authority, usually a theatre commander. For example, US Army RsOE in Afghanistan were set by the senior US Commander in Afghanistan. Violation of an ROE is not a war crime, but it may be a chargeable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Queen's Regulations, or similar, as disobedience of a direct order at the very least, possibly more depending on the situation. However, RsOE almost always have a loophole at the end, along the lines of "Nothing in the above restrictions should be considered as preventing a soldier from taking any actions he deems necessary to preserve his life, that of a colleague, or an innocent third party"

For further reading on the US side of things, see The Law of War Handbook ( http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-war-handbook-2005.pdf ) which is a reference book put out by the JAG school (military lawyer school), and for what the average soldier needs to know, look for US Army manual FM 27-10, "The Law of Land Warfare", http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law_warfare-1956.pdf , and the Cliff's Notes version, FM 27-2 "Your conduct in combat under the laws of war"
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/conduct-in-combat-1984.pdf

The US military has taken the position of "If we issue it to you, you can use it however you like as long as it doesn't violate the above handbooks". As a result, a soldier need not concern himself with the technicalities of if he is actually authorised to use the exploding 20mm round from his AA gun against infantry if he happens to come across them, or if he can legally fire his Smoke-WP against the enemy in that building over there to burn them out. It is unreasonable to expect a soldier to know every single detail, and the Army simply takes the approach of trying to avoid the problem in the first place.

Both sides are in the wrong as is mostly the case

Royal Irish

Its completely legal to use white phosphorus as a smoke screen but in 2008 they did use it as an incendiary in Gaza which is a densely populated area which is against the Geneva convention.

hatrickpatrick

I honestly find it impossible to understand how anyone could support the Israeli side of the Israel/Palestine conflict. I've tried very hard but I genuinely don't understand it - I've never heard a single coherent argument to justify the continued theft of land from defenseless civilians, and as far as I'm concerned without being able to justify this fundamental issue, it's impossible to support the Israeli side in any other capacity.

Manic Moran

Royal Irish wrote: »

Its completely legal to use white phosphorus as a smoke screen but in 2008 they did use it as an incendiary in Gaza which is a densely populated area which is against the Geneva convention.

No, it's not, as it was artillery delivered.

If you think it is against the Geneva Convention, go find me the citation. I'll get you started: http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

I'll give you another hint. You're probably not thinking of the Geneva Convention anyway, you're thinking of Article two, protocol III of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Which is predominantly a stupid article anyway, as it's illegal to make civilian populations the target of -any- weapons, incendiary or otherwise. The only thing it adds is the prohibition on air delivery.

wes

Israel-Gaza conflict: The myth of Hamas’s human shield

Independent.co.uk investigates Israel claims about Hamas using Human Shields, and doesn't find any evidence to supports Israel assertion.

Now considering the various murderous outrages the media have witnessed committed by the IDF, the appalling number of civilians being murdered, the use of flechettes in tank shells in densely populated area like Gaza.

The only reasonable conclusion is that the IDF, are not engaged in a targeted campaign, but rather best case scenario are being indiscriminate in there assault, if not out and out shooting anything that moves, and the murder of the 4 children on a Gaza beach would speak to that conclusion.