White phosphorus used on Gaza civillians by Israel provided by US

[bascule]

B.T.W. you still haven't answered my question regarding why Hamas (but not Israel) gets a pass on inhumane behavior

 

Who is arguing Hamas should be given a pass on inhumane behavior? That's a total strawman.

 

I have a greater interest in Israel's inhumane behavior because they're perpetrating it with weaponry provided by the United States, which happens to be the country I live in, and also the topic of this thread.

[Reaper]

I appreciate the reply.

 

Yes, I think Amnesty International is often wrong.

 

Interestingly enough, most of the criticism around Amnesty International revolves around the fact that they tend to be pro-U.S. in general; that it, they often are very selective and biased (as in this case it as well too...) and care more about their image rather than genuine human rights.

 

Counterpunch gives a full critique of the organization around its stance in the Palestine-Israeli conflict: http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij10132004.html

 

 

Just reaffirms my notion that there are no good guys anywhere in this world...

[The Bear's Key]

I didn't understand how getting elected was against international law.

Its not. But please stop overlooking the evil Hamas perpetrates just because they often fail to acheive the destruction they desire.

I'm not. But it seems Hamas got a chance to prove themselves in government, but couldn't, as immediately the Bush Administration and Israel demanded they renounce having gotten elected. They immediately put into motion steps for bleeding Hamas dry of funds so their government couldn't operate, which reulted in Palestinians suffering for their election choices. Who set the tone for conflict afterwards?

 

So then Hamas gets a pass for any and all wrong behavior? Don't you think Hamas "aught to know better"? Doesn't a lack of standards indicate they should be criticized because otherwise they will never "know any better"?

If an industry official or White House high-ranker were caught vandalizing property/vehicles, dropping rocks from a bridge onto cars, lighting house steps on fire at night, and a gang leader were caught doing the same in the next town, who'd catch more national flak? (and/or possibly international?) Let's even say they were doing it in retribution to the gang leader (whose family is just collateral damage), the flak against them would remain the same.

 

Yes, certain people or groups should know better. And certain of us won't accept for our government to be run by people who'd lower themselves to the level of the "bad guys".

 

Our nation is like it is precisely because we don't resort to the same tactics. If you want a government like that: the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, etc.

 

1. How do you illuminate a night battlefield without using star shells?

2. How do you create a smoke screen to hide your troops without using smoke shells?

1. Night vision.

2. Flour? Dry Ice? Streamed down from overhead.

 

Flour Fight

 

See, happy crowd. Not coughing up intestines.

 

Many of the alternatives would seem, at a glance, to be worse.

I'm fairly certain that coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin isn't worse than melted skin.

[SH3RL0CK]

Who is arguing Hamas should be given a pass on inhumane behavior? That's a total strawman.

 

I have a greater interest in Israel's inhumane behavior because they're perpetrating it with weaponry provided by the United States, which happens to be the country I live in, and also the topic of this thread.

 

Its not a strawman because I'm not arguing they should. But it appears, to me, that this is really the case. Maybe it is media hype, but there are many more stories about Israeli "atrocities" than those committed by Hamas. But when I do some research, it becomes clear to me that the Israeli "atrocities", as in the case here, are debateable. But there are no doubts about the Hamas atrocities, which are greatly underreported. The same is true with AI condemnation; Israel = bad, Hamas = ? And even on this site, there are many threads with titles regarding the evils of Israel, but none on Hamas. There is a very clear double standard here.

 

Back to the main point, where did you think the weaponry would be purchased? After all, WP is not in itself, a banned article. And even common household items can be used in an inhumane way. Where do you draw the line regarding what we should sell or not sell to them? Bullets? Knives? Dental Floss?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If an industry official or White House high-ranker were caught vandalizing property/vehicles, dropping rocks from a bridge onto cars, lighting house steps on fire at night, and a gang leader were caught doing the same in the next town, who'd catch more national flak? (and/or possibly international?) Let's even say they were doing it in retribution to the gang leader (whose family is just collateral damage), the flak against them would remain the same.

 

 

This is not an equivalent analogy to the situation between Israel and Hamas.

[iNow]

The IDF could just toss lit cigarettes over to make a smokescreen. Doesn't mean they should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's what technology should be used in battle zone densely populated by citizens to minimize casualties.

 

IMO, WP may, depending on the circumstances, be the best choice to minimize casualties both for the IDF and for the civilians as it permits the IDF to operate quickly and then get out, rather than get entangled in a long, drawn-out firefight.

 

Thank you. That is clearly one of the better arguments that I've heard. I tend to agree. If you can save more lives by potentially harming a much smaller number of them, then it certainly seems worth it.

 

 

 

With that said, I kept reading and found this next argument even better:

 

 

The question's been asked before but I'll ask it again. Like what?

 

Let's be specific here.

1. How do you illuminate a night battlefield without using star shells?

2. How do you create a smoke screen to hide your troops without using smoke shells?

 

1.

Night vision

.

2. Flour? Dry Ice? Streamed down from overhead.

 

Flour Fight

 

See' date=' happy crowd. Not coughing up intestines.

 

 

 

 

Many of the alternatives would seem, at a glance, to be worse.

 

I'm fairly certain that coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin isn't worse than melted skin.

[Saryctos]

I'm fairly certain that coughing, irritation of the eyes or prickling of the skin isn't worse than melted skin.

 

It is however much harder to avoid breathing in smoke than it is to avoid contact with the sparse glowing hot phosphorous. That, and the area of coverage of the smoke is larger, so you would be affecting a larger group of people with an inescapable irritant. Certainly the argument can be made that this is of a lesser cause for alarm, but there are reasons that the phosphorous would be more desirable.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm not. But it seems Hamas got a chance to prove themselves in government, but couldn't, as immediately the Bush Administration and Israel demanded they renounce having gotten elected. They immediately put into motion steps for bleeding Hamas dry of funds so their government couldn't operate, which reulted in Palestinians suffering for their election choices. Who set the tone for conflict afterwards?

 

I didn't much like that either. They should at least have given Hamas a chance to do something bad in office, before condemning them IMO. That just smacks of disrespect for the Palestinians and for democracy, and it smells like picking a fight. Though admittedly I have no idea whether that would have just resulted in better funded missile attacks. But at least then they'd still have the threat of withdrawing all support if they misbehaved.

 

If an industry official or White House high-ranker were caught vandalizing property/vehicles, dropping rocks from a bridge onto cars, lighting house steps on fire at night, and a gang leader were caught doing the same in the next town, who'd catch more national flak? (and/or possibly international?) Let's even say they were doing it in retribution to the gang leader (whose family is just collateral damage), the flak against them would remain the same.

 

The "good guy" would get more media time and the "bad guy" more jail time?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Still though, anyone have any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Israel, or are we still dealing with speculation and casualties?

[iNow]

I thought we were originally saying that an investigation was warranted, and then we had to respond to comments that investigations were wrong and that Amnesty International is of questionable character.

[Pangloss]

I think if you guys want to refute the technical realities you're going to have to do better than suggesting that the Israelis throw pillows at Hamas terrorists.

 

War machinery is funny that way -- it doesn't care a whole lot about ideologies or politics. The stuff either works or it doesn't. And I still haven't seen any evidence here that they've specifically chosen this particular equipment because it hurts people more than equally effective alternatives.

[Sisyphus]

I thought we were originally saying that an investigation was warranted, and then we had to respond to comments that investigations were wrong and that Amnesty International is of questionable character.

 

No, the opening post asked:

 

Why are we giving military aid to countries perpetrating war crimes?

 

Which is several steps ahead of "an investigation is warranted" from the get-go.

[SH3RL0CK]

And I still haven't seen any evidence here that they've specifically chosen this particular equipment because it hurts people more than equally effective alternatives.

 

I don't think it has been established that there even are equally effective alternatives.

[iNow]

I don't think it has been established that there even are equally effective alternatives.

 

Also, it's not our job to find alternatives when all we want to do is investigate if they properly used existing tech.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Which is several steps ahead of "an investigation is warranted" from the get-go.

Point taken. I've been trying to focus on "let's investigate and find out," and didn't realize I was not even discussing the OP anymore (which assumed the wrong-doing as granted). My bad. Thanks for the reminder.

Edited February 25, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[SH3RL0CK]

Also, it's not our job to find alternatives when all we want to do is investigate if they properly used existing tech.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

Point taken. I've been trying to focus on "let's investigate and find out," and didn't realize I was not even discussing the OP anymore. My bad. Thanks for the reminder.

 

Agree completely.

[bascule]

I don't think it has been established that there even are equally effective alternatives.

 

As far as I'm able to ascertain there aren't but I don't think that's the right question to be asking here. I mean, there aren't equally effective alternatives to nuclear weapons either, but you don't see anyone suggesting we should use nukes over conventional bombs because the latter aren't as effective.

 

The more important question to ask is whether or not it's humane to use white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas. My answer to that question (and the answer of Amnesty International) is clearly no, but obviously others have different opinions.

 

It's all well and good to bring up that it's war and war is ugly, but this is a war taking place on the doorsteps of countless innocent civilians, not on a battlefield.

[Pangloss]

I guess that's fair enough (to both iNow in #62 and bascule in #64).

[JohnB]

As far as I'm able to ascertain there aren't but I don't think that's the right question to be asking here. I mean, there aren't equally effective alternatives to nuclear weapons either, but you don't see anyone suggesting we should use nukes over conventional bombs because the latter aren't as effective.

Rubbish. The effectiveness of a given munitions is guaged by what you want to achieve. If you want to blow away a city without caring about civillian casualties, then a nuke is the most effective weapon.

 

If you want a smokescreen to hide your troops, then a smoke shell is the most effective weapon.

It's all well and good to bring up that it's war and war is ugly, but this is a war taking place on the doorsteps of countless innocent civilians, not on a battlefield.

That sentence explains where your worldview departs from reality. More often than not, battles do occur on the doorsteps of civillians.

 

Everybody would prefer it otherwise, but it isn't. Your lack of acceptance of reality is not a basis for accusations of war crimes.

 

You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties. You've been shown this is not true.

 

You've alledged war crimes and the best you can do in proof is that you disagree with the use of smoke shells in built up areas.

 

You've claimed that alternative munitions are available yet have failed to provide any proof of this claim.

 

In a military operation you always try to minimise civillian casualties, however the safety of your own forces while accomplishing your mission is paramount. Does this mean that the life a Palestinian civillian is worth less than the life of an IDF member? To an IDF commander, the answer is and must be "Yes". Any other answer makes him unfit for command.

 

This is true for every military commander. What would you think of a US commander who sacrificed his own troops rather than maybe injure enemy civillians? How many body bags would it take before you wanted his head?

The more important question to ask is whether or not it's humane to use white phosphorus in densely populated civilian areas.

No, the important question to ask is "Where do you get the silly idea that war is in any way humane?"

[Mr Skeptic]

This is why in civilized countries we require military bases to be outside of populated areas. That way if someone was to wage war on us, the battlefields would be wherever the military bases are rather than in the city. Of course, Hamas did not do that and in fact hid among civilians and wore civilian clothes, so the battles were fought in the cities against enemies dressed as civilians, so Israel is to blame for all the civilian casualties. Yup, Hamas is in no way responsible since all they did was provoke an attack and hide among civilians and shoot from populated areas.

[SH3RL0CK]

This is why in civilized countries we require military bases to be outside of populated areas. That way if someone was to wage war on us, the battlefields would be wherever the military bases are rather than in the city. Of course, Hamas did not do that and in fact hid among civilians and wore civilian clothes, so the battles were fought in the cities against enemies dressed as civilians, so Israel is to blame for all the civilian casualties. Yup, Hamas is in no way responsible since all they did was provoke an attack and hide among civilians and shoot from populated areas.

 

 

In light of this, I think it is also important to note that the Israeli military bases are, AFAIK, set apart from their cities. Yet Hamas is launching their missiles towards the cities rather than the military bases. JohnB is incorrect in stating the everyone would prefer fighting not occur near civilians as Hamas is an exception. It would be better worded to state instead that all legitimate and legal combatants prefer fighting occurs away from civilians.

[blike]

Arm-chair generals are generally hilarious when they analyze the technical aspects of what works and what doesn't in war, what should have been used and what shouldn't have in war, and of course, their expertise in analyzing alleged still photos and short videos of improper use of ordinances.

[bascule]

That sentence explains where your worldview departs from reality. More often than not, battles do occur on the doorsteps of civillians.

 

Do you think war should be waged differently on civilian doorsteps than in areas where it's a purely military-on-military conflict?

 

You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties. You've been shown this is not true.

 

When did I do that? Please stop strawmanning.

 

You've claimed that alternative munitions are available yet have failed to provide any proof of this claim.

 

Actually I did that way back in the beginning of the thread

 

But since you seem apt to strawman me and stick words in my mouth let me point out I never claimed similar levels of effectiveness.

 

No, the important question to ask is "Where do you get the silly idea that war is in any way humane?"

 

If there is no regard for the enemy's humanity in war, why don't we simply nuke all of our enemies into glass?

 

As you said:

 

If you want to blow away a city without caring about civillian casualties, then a nuke is the most effective weapon.

 

If war isn't in any way humane, why give civilian casualties any regard? Why not just nuke them all?

[DrP]

JOHNB WROTE: You've claimed the weapons contravene treaties. You've been shown this is not true.

 

BASCULE WROTE:

When did I do that? Please stop strawmanning.

 

You claimed they were guilty of war crimes for using WP, were shown that it was not the case or hasn't been proven and then you still cary on with the same argument. That's when.

 

 

You've claimed that alternative munitions are available .....

 

 

Actually I did that way back in the beginning of the thread

 

yea... and all those alternatives were discussed and proven unsuitable for the senario by JBs post.

 

If war isn't in any way humane, why give civilian casualties any regard? Why not just nuke them all?

 

[Reaper]

Arm-chair generals are generally hilarious when they analyze the technical aspects of what works and what doesn't in war, what should have been used and what shouldn't have in war, and of course, their expertise in analyzing alleged still photos and short videos of improper use of ordinances.

 

Indeed.

 

Armchair politicians and philosophers are equally hilarious, especially around here...

[Pangloss]

And yet, somehow blike found a nicer way to put it than you did....................

[Reaper]

Perhaps wars should be fought this way then?

 

 

It would certainly reduce casualties to null...

[Pangloss]

If you keep posting like that, that's gonna be me on the left and you on the right.

 

BE NICER!