UN - Israel’s Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza

dub · March 27, 2009

Israel accused of indiscriminate phosphorus use in Gaza
In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".

It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:

• Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.

• It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.

• In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/2...phosphorus-gaza

dub · March 27, 2009

here is the 71 page report from the UN including israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

M.Dancer · March 27, 2009

here is the 71 page report from the UN including israel's Shifting Statements on White Phosphorus

*****ZZZzzzzzZZZzzzsnorezzzZZZZZZZ*****

White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza –

According to the report, if accurate ( :lol: ) 12 people were killed by WP.

As far as collateral casualties go...that is very little. I believe the allies killed thousands of French on DDay....

dub · March 27, 2009

*****ZZZzzzzzZZZzzzsnorezzzZZZZZZZ*****
According to the report, if accurate ( ) 12 people were killed by WP.

As far as collateral casualties go...that is very little. I believe the allies killed thousands of French on DDay....

never knew someone who laughed at people being killed.

you're an odd person.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2009

never knew someone who laughed at people being killed.
you're an odd person.

I was laughing at the accuracy of HRW, given they get their numbers from those known to fabricate their casualties.

dub · March 27, 2009

I was laughing at the accuracy of HRW, given they get their numbers from those known to fabricate their casualties.

to me it looked like you were laughing at the number of people killed because for some reason, you compared it to world war 2.

but anyway, how is HRW inaccurate?

how far will you go in your denial?

DogOnPorch · March 27, 2009

to me it looked like you were laughing at the number of people killed because for some reason, you compared it to world war 2.
but anyway, how is HRW inaccurate?

how far will you go in your denial?

Nah...he's laughing @ u like I r

dub · March 27, 2009

Nah...he's laughing @ u like I r

okay. laugh away.

it won't change the fact that white phosphorus was used unlawfully by israel.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2009

okay. laugh away.
it won't change the fact that white phosphorus was used unlawfully by israel.

It's a fact eh? Actually it's an accusation. A weak on...that someone pulled out of the arse.

If it was a fact there would be 100s of dead, not 12 (if that) Really, how could non WP munitions used legally kill 20 times the number of killed alledgedly by WP, alledgedly used illegally?

The whole WP hoopla is designed to get the panties of halfwits in a knot.

Nothing to se here except fake outrage.

dub · March 27, 2009

It's a fact eh? Actually it's an accusation. A weak on...that someone pulled out of the arse.
If it was a fact there would be 100s of dead, not 12 (if that) Really, how could non WP munitions used legally kill 20 times the number of killed alledgedly by WP, alledgedly used illegally?

The whole WP hoopla is designed to get the panties of halfwits in a knot.

Nothing to se here except fake outrage.

yep. just an accusation which involves a 71 page report which details video proof, photo proof, reports by palestinians and non-palestinians witnessing and experiencing the tickling feeling of WP on their skin and the autopsy of those who died from WP.

this photo sure looks like an accusation: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardi...sphorus-001.jpg

how far will you go to deny the facts?

tango · March 27, 2009

It's a fact eh? Actually it's an accusation. A weak on...that someone pulled out of the arse.
If it was a fact there would be 100s of dead, not 12 (if that) Really, how could non WP munitions used legally kill 20 times the number of killed alledgedly by WP, alledgedly used illegally?

The whole WP hoopla is designed to get the panties of halfwits in a knot.

Nothing to se here except fake outrage.

Why bother to jump into this topic now like a halfwit, with absolutely no information and your panties in a knot?

Obviously weren't interested in following the events as they were happening.

If you were, you would know about the WP.

There's plenty of evidence with all the people who were burned by it.

M.Dancer · March 27, 2009

Why bother to jump into this topic now like a halfwit, with absolutely no information and your panties in a knot?
Obviously weren't interested in following the events as they were happening.

If you were, you would know about the WP.

There's plenty of evidence with all the people who were burned by it.

Speaking of half wits Cash, the HRW report said 12 people were killed.

EOS

tango · March 27, 2009

Speaking of half wits Cash, the HRW report said 12 people were killed.
EOS

I expect that's true. My point was there is no use in denying it as the evidence exists.

I'm curious why you weren't aware of it.

Edited March 27, 2009 by tango

M.Dancer · March 27, 2009

I expect that's true. My point was there is no use in denying it as the evidence exists.
I'm curious why you weren't aware of it.

Do you know what it is you think you might be talking about?

tango · March 27, 2009

Do you know what it is you think you might be talking about?

The thread topic.

dub · March 28, 2009

Speaking of half wits Cash, the HRW report said 12 people were killed.
EOS

"only" 12 people were killed. so what? what's your point?

what part of using WP on civilians is a war crime don't you get?

M.Dancer · March 28, 2009

"only" 12 people were killed. so what? what's your point?
what part of using WP on civilians is a war crime don't you get?

I swear, it's like trying to explaining the 4 seasons to a 4 year old.

First off, under international law (GC) it is legal to attack the enemy even if there may be civilian casualties. That's a fact.

Secondly, there is zero evidence that WP was used as a weapon or used against civilians....the extremely small number of dead ascribed to WP bears that out.

Don't your panties ever get bunched over Sinhalese war crimes or do you save your mock hysterics for joos only?

dub · March 28, 2009

I swear, it's like trying to explaining the 4 seasons to a 4 year old.
First off, under international law (GC) it is legal to attack the enemy even if there may be civilian casualties. That's a fact.

Secondly, there is zero evidence that WP was used as a weapon or used against civilians....the extremely small number of dead ascribed to WP bears that out.

Don't your panties ever get bunched over Sinhalese war crimes or do you save your mock hysterics for joos only?

thanx for the definition. unfortunately for you and your personal definition, it's already been determined that they used the WP illegally.

tango · March 28, 2009

I swear, it's like trying to explaining the 4 seasons to a 4 year old.
First off, under international law (GC) it is legal to attack the enemy even if there may be civilian casualties. That's a fact.

Secondly, there is zero evidence that WP was used as a weapon or used against civilians....the extremely small number of dead ascribed to WP bears that out.

Don't your panties ever get bunched over Sinhalese war crimes or do you save your mock hysterics for joos only?

ya right ... it's ALL just anti-semitism. :rolleyes:

(scuse me while I puke on your shoes.)

... 1300 ... 13 ... ya ... right!

"Israel's response was disproportionate."

So ... once again ... how many of the 12 killed by WP were children? women? elders?

And how many were horribly maimed?

(It's like explaining humanity to a post.)

Keep in mind ... according to the IDF command, everyone in Gaza was a terrorist ... because they were still there. You don't have to defend the IDF by denying their war crimes. If there were no civilians in Gaza, just terrorists, then nothing Israel did was a war crime.

At least that was their reasoning then ... and certainly that is the way they conducted the assault.

Not sure how well it'll hold up in court, but Israel is never wrong ... right?

Of course ... I guess it's possible that all those IDF soldiers were lying too.

Is that what you are saying? The Israeli soldiers lied about the orders they were given?

You have two possible positions ... the Gazans were all terrorists (thus deserved to die) or the Israeli soldiers are liars.

Edited March 28, 2009 by tango

M.Dancer · March 28, 2009

keep in mind ... according to the IDF command, everyone in Gaza was a terrorist ...

Cite

You have two possible positions ... the Gazans were all terrorists (thus deserved to die) or the Israeli soldiers are liars.

Thise are the only possibilities if you having a learnig disorder. My sympathies...

M.Dancer · March 28, 2009

thanx for the definition. unfortunately for you and your personal definition, it's already been determined that they used the WP illegally.

Your opinion doesn't count. Deteriminations are made in court, everything else is an unproven or hysterical allegation.

ironstone · March 28, 2009

There is debate and soul searching from within Israel about alleged war crimes and the number of Palestinian casualties.Has there been any similar reaction among Palestinians regarding the consequences of their own actions toward Israelis?I have seen nothing in the papers I read concerning this.Does this show just how much of a gulf there is between Israelis and Palestinians?This speaks volumes about attitudes on both sides.To be fair,any Palestinian that supports non-violence will likely meet his end from AK-47,so perhaps it's best to keep quiet.

DogOnPorch · March 28, 2009

There is debate and soul searching from within Israel about alleged war crimes and the number of Palestinian casualties.Has there been any similar reaction among Palestinians regarding the consequences of their own actions toward Israelis?I have seen nothing in the papers I read concerning this.Does this show just how much of a gulf there is between Israelis and Palestinians?This speaks volumes about attitudes on both sides.To be fair,any Palestinian that supports non-violence will likely meet his end from AK-47,so perhaps it's best to keep quiet.

Let's see what Hamas has to say re: your comments.

JB Globe · March 28, 2009

I was laughing at the accuracy of HRW, given they get their numbers from those known to fabricate their casualties.

Except when they issue reports about Hamas or Saddam Hussein, then their numbers magically become accurate enough to be used by the Bush Administration as part of their case for the Iraq War, for example.

I'm interested to know why there's no issue with Human Rights Watch and their claims about Hamas' violations of human rights, but all of their claims about Israel are false - especially when the follow the exact same methodology when compiling their reports.

DogOnPorch · March 29, 2009

Except when they issue reports about Hamas or Saddam Hussein, then their numbers magically become accurate enough to be used by the Bush Administration as part of their case for the Iraq War, for example.
I'm interested to know why there's no issue with Human Rights Watch and their claims about Hamas' violations of human rights, but all of their claims about Israel are false - especially when the follow the exact same methodology when compiling their reports.

Pallywood again. Why trust liers?