dub

you were the one making comments about it, i figured you had made some research since you had an opinion about it. do you usually give opinions on issues you do not know about? here is some information on the dismissal.

i will let the conclusion of the report reply to that:

you're not making sense. the IDF has not commissioned an independent group to investigate any of these matters. instead, they do their own investigations which normally lead to nothing. the IDF did not allow media or human rights groups to enter gaza during the conflict. have you heard otherwise?

it's a google search away. you do your own work. stop being so lazy. why don't you google it? since the window was already open, here it is: WND settles $165 million libel case Out-of-court agreement ends 7-year-old suit Posted: February 13, 2008 7:17 pm Eastern MEMPHIS, Tenn. – A 7-year-old, $165 million defamation case against WND springing from a series of stories about then-presidential candidate Al Gore has been settled. look at what else WND was forced to publish: "Discovery has revealed to WorldNetDaily.com that no witness verifies the truth of what the witnesses are reported by authors to have stated. Additionally, no document has been discovered that provides any verification that the statements written were true. the WND likes to talk out of its ass. i can see why DoP likes to quote from WND.

it doesn't matter if the IDF was there or not. where the WP shells were fired is what is important. they used the WP in areas where there were civilians present including a UN school and a hospital. the IDF knew that there were civilians hiding at the UN compound and they knew the hospital was treating patients, yet they still hit them with WP, more than once and despite calls to the IDF officers by the UNRWA asking the IDF to stop. there is more, a lot more: these are just a few people who were interviewed by HRW. there were no conflicting stories from the eyewitnesses. besides the eyewitnesses, there are shells, burnt buildings, dead victims and many burnt victims that prove the indiscriminate and illegal use of WP by the IDF.

it depends where the palestinian sources are coming from. the palestinian human rights groups are more trustworthy than the IDF who has, in numerous times, been caught lying or trying to cover up incidents. just like i wouldn't trust hamas investigating the legality of its own activities, i wouldn't trust IDF doing it. this is why the IDF is not allowing an independent israeli investigation.

there was no 'settlement' in scott ritter's case. in fact, the case was dismissed. the WND case was not dismissed. it was settled out of court, kind of like how michael jackson settled his child molestation out of court. you're wrong again.

interpretation of which one of the evidence is wrong?

they do publish bullshit. they wouldn't have "settled" out of court if they didn't believe what they wrote wasn't bullshit. scott ritter's case was not only different, but it was thrown out and there was never a "settlement".

all of the people who were "smoked" were muslim terrorists?

the conclusion is based on evidence. evidence that shows that they used WP illegally. you want to keep calling it amateurish opinions, go for it. it doesn't change all the evidence showing israel used WP illegally.

who said they were convicted of libel?

? framed or not framed, he was never convicted of being a child molester. so what you're sharing here is misinformation and dishonest.

since dancer is avoiding the following, i will paste it again: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/2...phosphorus-gaza

i would like to apologize for my harsh tone. i do agree with you in regards to outlawing WP and many other weapons, however, the title of this thread is: "israel's unlawful use of WP in gaza" israel first claimed that it didn't use WP, but then it changed its stance and said it was used, but it was used legally. HRW did an independent investigation and reported that israel used it illegally. we need to follow the guidelines and punish those who do not in order to reduce civilian casualties. we have guidelines like the geneva convention which, most countries including israel are signatory to. it's not like both hamas and israel used WP and i'm sitting here scorning only israel. if that was the case, then i would be showing partisanship. the issue here is that israel used WP illegally and they should be condemned for it. if you want to create a "shooting rockets into civilian areas", i will gladly support you in condemning hamas for doing it.

yes. WP is not illegal, but how, where and when it is used can be illegal. in the case of hitting the UN building and in a few other cases, israel used WP illegally. this has been determined after an independent investigation by HRW.

you post an article from WND, one of the slimiest after making comments about the web site common dreams? i guess you have no limits in your hypocrisy. this is a web site that has a reputation of publishing BS. BS which led to the following: regardless, this is another example of smear campaigns that took place during the bush administration where some with outspoken views of the war were targeted. at the end, no charges were laid because scott ritter is not a child molester. "Anybody who doesn't believe that Ritter was specifically targeted on account of his political activities needs to seek help: that sort of naivete can be terminal, and the patient probably shouldn't be trusted to cross the street unattended. " so, how many more lies are you going to try to spread? so far, you've falsely claimed that ritter is a child molester and let us not forget your laughable claim that scott ritter is "not an expert". you are a dirty and dishonest person DoP. shame on you.

if he had intended, he would be convicted. conclusion, you're an idiot.

has he been convicted of being a child molester? where is the proof DoP?

what are you babbling about? he says scott ritter is a child molester. lets see the proof or he's an idiot.

proof or you're an idiot.

"your honour. i would like to deem all the evidence worthless, including the medical reports, photos, videos, and the investigations into the proximity of the incidents ........ because i say so. i am the winner."

looks like both of you are going to continue avoiding making any comments in regards to the evidence provided and this conclusion and instead you're going to go into your diversion tactics. again: you are either having a hard time understanding the simple language used by HRW or you choose to avoid this conclusion and the evidence given in the report: And if the purpose was to obscure military maneuvers, the IDF could have achieved similar obscuring effects through use of smoke artillery without causing the same degree of civilian harm. Israel has not asserted that it used white phosphorus as a weapon, but the apparent absence of nearby Hamas fighters in cases investigated by Human Rights Watch, as well as the legal limitations placed on the use of white phosphorus weapons in populated areas, would not justify its use in this manner. That would remain true even if Hamas forces were deployed among civilians or using civilians as “shields,” as Israel has asserted, because Israel would still have a duty to attack Hamas in a more discriminate way so as to minimize civilian casualties.

true. same as mccain. didn't you support mccain? if you supported mccain and he was part of the keating 5, why do you have something against riegle?' can you show me some information on scott ritter being a 'child molester'? has he been charged as one or was that one of your dirty and cheap comments? scott ritter is not an expert? i'm not sure what your definition of expert is, but scott ritter has: - served 4 years as a marine - then he was commissioned as an intelligence officer where he served for 12 years - then he served as an advisor to schwarzkopf - he served as a UN weapons inspector from '91 to '98 DoP: you're a very dishonest person.

you missed the whole point again Rue. perhaps you should pay attention a little more to the exact topic of discussion without drowning it out in your long winded commentaries that you love to hear yourself talk about. the question is whether israel used WP legally and illegally. according to HRW and all the evidence provided, they used it illegally.