Political Crossfire Forums

[superskippy]

Quote: Not the point, illegal or not, war or no war they cause burning to the flesh and should be outlawed like other chemical weapons.

So now your arguing that Israel should be condemned because these weapons should one day become illegal? So they cause burning to the flesh, an explosion does the same thing, a mortar round can rip your legs off, war is always horrible.

[Nico]

bunny wrote:

Wow, name calling with no evidence seems like the thing to do around here


No, name calling is strictly against forum rules. There's a report post feature you can use if you see it..

[Nico]

Which reminds me, Thread warning. Trolling and name calling will stop. Those of you I've PMed take stock and stay within forum rules.

[cap'n queasy]

bunny wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: So I gather "bunny" is the new anti-semite


WTF?


Semite |ˈsemīt| noun a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs


Wow, name calling with no evidence seems like the thing to do around here


you guys are cool!

It might be more helpful if you used the definition for the actual word used.

Quote: an‧ti-Sem‧ite  /ˌæntiˈsɛmaɪt, ˌæntaɪ- or, especially Brit., -ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, especially Brit., -see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemite

[bunny]

cap'n queasy wrote: bunny wrote: Rankor and Pissing wrote: So I gather "bunny" is the new anti-semite


WTF?


Semite |ˈsemīt| noun a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs


Wow, name calling with no evidence seems like the thing to do around here


you guys are cool!

It might be more helpful if you used the definition for the actual word used.

Quote: an‧ti-Sem‧ite  /ˌæntiˈsɛmaɪt, ˌæntaɪ- or, especially Brit., -ˈsimaɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[an-tee-sem-ahyt, an-tahy- or, especially Brit., -see-mahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun a person who discriminates against or is prejudiced or hostile toward Jews.





http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/antisemite

If the term Semite includes Jews & Arabs... then so does the term Anti-Semite; include Jews & Arabs.

[programmusic]

Saracen wrote:
Most Arabs are actually not anti-Semitic, but use the phrase "Yahudi" to mean "Zionist", not "Jew", which is its literal meaning.

haha, yeah right. So when they say jew, they really mean zionist, not jew?

lol

[MoscowMatt]

bunny wrote: [b]Some experts believe that phosphorus munitions should be termed Chemical Weapons (CW) because of the way the weapons burn and attack the respiratory system. As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon.

The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of "incendiary weapons," with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.

Pathetic


:ah:

Yes, pathetic is exactly how I would discuss your argument. Personally I don't care what Israel fired at Hezbollah as long as it was killing them!!

It's not like they were using Sarin or something is it! Want to know about a Middle Eastern country that HAS used chemical weapons. Just ask your buddies from Iraq!! :lol:

Honestly your anti- Israel posts are lame and quite frankly embarrassing. At least others in your camp can come up with a structured argument.

[slitedeviance]

MoscowMatt wrote: Personally I don't care what Israel fired at Hezbollah as long as it was killing them!!

Seriously, you wouldn't have an issue with them using VX Gas?

[superskippy]

I would. Though VX would probably kill them faster and incapicitate them before they knew what was going on and thus much less painful, but of course I still oppose anyone using chemical or biological weapons.

[nrhy]

MoscowMatt wrote: bunny wrote: [b]Some experts believe that phosphorus munitions should be termed Chemical Weapons (CW) because of the way the weapons burn and attack the respiratory system. As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon.

The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of "incendiary weapons," with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.

Pathetic


:ah:

Yes, pathetic is exactly how I would discuss your argument. Personally I don't care what Israel fired at Hezbollah as long as it was killing them!!

It's not like they were using Sarin or something is it! Want to know about a Middle Eastern country that HAS used chemical weapons. Just ask your buddies from Iraq!! :lol:

Honestly your anti- Israel posts are lame and quite frankly embarrassing. At least others in your camp can come up with a structured argument.

:h Most of the victims were women and children...

BBC claims they are banned by the geneva convention... :-|


Quote: The Geneva Conventions ban the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6075408.stm

[mendosan]

nrhy wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: bunny wrote: [b]Some experts believe that phosphorus munitions should be termed Chemical Weapons (CW) because of the way the weapons burn and attack the respiratory system. As a CW, phosphorus would become a clearly illegal weapon.

The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of "incendiary weapons," with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.

Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol.

Pathetic


:ah:

Yes, pathetic is exactly how I would discuss your argument. Personally I don't care what Israel fired at Hezbollah as long as it was killing them!!

It's not like they were using Sarin or something is it! Want to know about a Middle Eastern country that HAS used chemical weapons. Just ask your buddies from Iraq!! :lol:

Honestly your anti- Israel posts are lame and quite frankly embarrassing. At least others in your camp can come up with a structured argument.

:h Most of the victims were women and children...

BBC claims they are banned by the geneva convention... :-|


Quote: The Geneva Conventions ban the use of white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6075408.stm


That means you cant intend to kill civilians with it, according to the Geneva convention you can't kill civilians with a stick either.

White Phosphorus is fine for use against military targets, and definatly reduced infantry casulties in Iraq (for example), because its scary s**t, I gaurantee it wouldn't even have been mentioned if it didn't contain the word "Phosphorus" which even an idiot can identify.

[MoscowMatt]

slitedeviance wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Personally I don't care what Israel fired at Hezbollah as long as it was killing them!!

Seriously, you wouldn't have an issue with them using VX Gas?

Well they are hardly going to use that when dealing with militants who hide amongst civilains now are they!!! :roll:

You'll notice also I said fired not fire which is a key difference in context.

[slitedeviance]

MoscowMatt wrote: You'll notice also I said fired not fire which is a key difference in context.

Okay, let me rephrase...

You wouldn't have had an issue with them using VX gas?

Quote: Well they are hardly going to use that when dealing with militants who hide amongst civilains now are they!!!

...and this doesn't answer my question. :roll:

[b.scheller]

Isn't it ironic that as soon as Israel is found using chemical weapons that cause great damage to the flesh. There are call for sanctions, cutting foreign aid, international condemnation and so on and so forth, but when Russia or even the United States uses similar weapons, the amount of focus on these states is relatively little as compared to the amount of criticism and anger the Israeli policies seem to always create.

To state some facts as to what I'm saying, it has been reported that the Russians have used banned weapons in their campaign on Chechnya. Or the US' use of depleted uranium in peacekeeping operations.

[slitedeviance]

b.scheller wrote: Isn't it ironic that as soon as Israel is found using chemical weapons that cause great damage to the flesh. There are call for sanctions, cutting foreign aid, international condemnation and so on and so forth, but when Russia or even the United States uses similar weapons, the amount of focus on these states is relatively little as compared to the amount of criticism and anger the Israeli policies seem to always create.

To state some facts as to what I'm saying, it has been reported that the Russians have used banned weapons in their campaign on Chechnya. Or the US' use of depleted uranium in peacekeeping operations.

Very good point. I would say in particular for this forum the reason Israel is focused on is because that is where the main interest lies for most of the posters (Israel / Lebanon / Palestine). However it is very unfair for Israel to be pushed towards sanctions and condemnation when the same is not done for Russias reprehensible behaviour in Chechnya, or the US and UK use of DU in civilian areas.

[MoscowMatt]

slitedeviance wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: You'll notice also I said fired not fire which is a key difference in context.

Okay, let me rephrase...

You wouldn't have had an issue with them using VX gas?

Quote: Well they are hardly going to use that when dealing with militants who hide amongst civilains now are they!!!

...and this doesn't answer my question. :roll:

If it kills Hezbollah I don't care what it is! Seeing as part of Hezbollah''s realm of operation is in amongst civlians Israel would not use such a weapon so the question really is irrelevant!

[Venom]

Quote: Isn't it ironic that as soon as Israel is found using chemical weapons that cause great damage to the flesh
The weapon in question is not deemed a chemical weapon.

Quote: There are call for sanctions, cutting foreign aid, international condemnation and so on and so forth, but when Russia or even the United States uses similar weapons, the amount of focus on these states is relatively little as compared to the amount of criticism and anger the Israeli policies seem to always create.
They used banned weapons, fair enough. This only goes to show the political battle rather than military battle that the IDF is in.

[unclesamual]

b.scheller wrote: Isn't it ironic that as soon as Israel is found using chemical weapons that cause great damage to the flesh. There are call for sanctions, cutting foreign aid, international condemnation and so on and so forth, but when Russia or even the United States uses similar weapons, the amount of focus on these states is relatively little as compared to the amount of criticism and anger the Israeli policies seem to always create.

Sure, let's call for cutting foriegn aid to the U.S. like the calls for cutting military aid to Israel. Ohh, wait, what aid? Hugo Chavez's oil for the poor in america?

Quote: In November 2004 the U.S. Army used phosphorus munitions during an offensive in Faluja, Iraq. Burned bodies of civilians hit by the phosphorus munitions were shown by the press, and an international outcry against the practice followed.

The United States was condemned back in 2004. It is Israel's turn with the issue (well, comdemned individually as much as the U.S. and Israel can be differentiated as seperated entities...they probably used U.S. fighter jets for these phosphorous bombs).

There is also the straw that broke the camels back phenomena going on here with Israel. The call for sanctions and stopping foriegn aid is not a reaction to just this incident, but of this and everything previous that has occured.

I also want to highlight that they lied about it first, saying they didn't have this practice with the WP. They also tried to cover up expansion in the settlements because it would create a crisis with the U.S. over it because they told the U.S. they would stop expansion. Yet, through all this, people still take Israel's word at face value.

As far as the hiding among civilians issue for Hezbollah. Israel uses undercover troops.

[nrhy]

Quote: That means you cant intend to kill civilians with it, according to the Geneva convention you can't kill civilians with a stick either.

White Phosphorus is fine for use against military targets, and definatly reduced infantry casulties in Iraq (for example), because its scary s**t, I gaurantee it wouldn't even have been mentioned if it didn't contain the word "Phosphorus" which even an idiot can identify.

Phosphorus bombs have been used on civilians during the previous israeli invasion of lebanon, and have affected several during the latest conflict. [/quote]

[Venom]

Quote: Phosphorus bombs have been used on civilians during the previous israeli invasion of lebanon, and have affected several during the latest conflict.
So not the IDF is not allowed to use a legal weapon?

Quote: As far as the hiding among civilians issue for Hezbollah. Israel uses undercover troops.
The fact of having "undercover troops" is like Hezbollah using all of southern Lebanon as a civilian mask? I don't believe most people will agree with this.

What are these undercover troops used for? What have they done?