BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:37 PM

"The port was under blockade, and Israel has the right to prevent MORE illegal ( according to Geneva Convention)"

Once you start to claim "Geneva Convention protection for your actions", refusing to abide by all of them just makes you a hypocrite - also probably just another hypocritical bullying armed thug.

And you are thus also claiming now that this is legitimate "War" under International Conventions, so now there is no excuse to not apply the other proper appropriate Conventions, feeding, not starving civilians 'under your control', etc. :-)

Only a hypocrite wants (needs) it both ways....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:32 PM

"If Customs inspectors stop your ship, and come on board armed"

In International Waters, that is called Piracy, irrespective of what nation is trying to play God, and what term they wish to call their armed warriors - defending yourself with weapons is considered acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Peace
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:59 PM

I wish to apologize to the clone I was rude to. I had NOT recalled posting as Peace after the time Joe wrote that Guests were no longer allowed on the thread. My first `Peace` post was accidental, and the second was necessary.. That said, the clone might have pointed me to or quoted the post. Jeri suggested that I KNEW I wasn`t allowed to post as Guest. That just ain`t so. And, THAT said, I will reiterate:

SSDD

I thank Bobad for takin` care of business when I asked for his help, and I`m sorry if it caused you any difficulty, bobad. To my half dozen or so other friends, many thanks. I was NOT aware that I was breaking protocol--or orders from the top.

Guest,999

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:50 PM

"The number I have seen as best estimate is 640,000"

Take it up with the UN Bruce!

Also I did say that I was well aware of the movement of Jews into Israel from the surrounding Arab counties during the conflict

but then I'm not attempting to minimize their situation!

I have given references for the figures I quoted BB - perhaps you could do the same - regarding the situation of Palestinian Christians too?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:29 PM

"So if someone drops fully armed onto your boat in international waters would it be wrong to defend yourself with a club?"

If Customs inspectors stop your ship, and come on board armed, AND YOU ATTACK THEM, YOU WOULD BE KILLED. The port was under blockade, and Israel has the right to prevent MORE illegal ( according to Geneva Convention) rockets from coming in.



"During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel
-United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine. "
( The number I have seen as best estimate is 640,000)

Which overlooks the population of the Mandate Palestine declared in 1923 to be the Jewish Homeland- THOSE territories were captured by Egypt and Jordan. ONLY the Jews and Christians were removed from those areas.



And the 820,000 Jews driven out of Arab countries? THAT was the vast majority - YET YOU IGNORE THEM. A LARGER NUMBER, but since they were just Jews, I guess they have no significance to you.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM

So, if I attack you with a club, and you have a gun, it would be wrong of you to use the gun??

So if someone drops fully armed onto your boat in international waters would it be wrong to defend yourself with a club?


The history of the Palestinian refugees, like most historical accounts, depends on who is writing it; history is usually written by the 'victors'

However I don't think I have ever come across such a blatant misrepresentation as that presented by BB!


During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, around 750,000 out of 900,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from the territories that became the State of Israel
-United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine.

As Wiki states

"The causes and responsibilities of the exodus are a matter of controversy among historians and commentators of the conflict

Whereas historians now agree on most of the events of that period, there remains disagreement as to whether the exodus was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Zionist leaders, was the result of a plan designed before or during the war by Arab leaders, or was an unintended consequence of the war.

Between December 1947 and March 1948, around 100,000 Palestinian Arabs fled. Among them were many from the higher and middle classes from the cities, who left voluntarily, expecting to return when the Arab states took control of the country.
When the Haganah went on the offensive, between April and July, a further 250,000 to 300,000 Palestinian Arabs left or were expelled, mainly from the towns of Haifa, Tiberias, Beit-Shean, Safed, Jaffa and Acre, which lost more than 90 percent of their Arab inhabitants.
Expulsions took place in many towns and villages, particularly along the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem road and in Eastern Galilee.

About 50,000-70,000 inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle were expelled towards Ramallah by the Israel Defence Force during Operation Danny and most others during operations of the IDF in its rear area

During Operation Dekel, the Arabs of Nazareth and South Galilee were allowed to remain in their homes.
Today they form the core of the Arab Israeli population.

From October to November 1948, the IDF launched Operation Yoav to remove Egyptian forces from the Negev and Operation Hiram to remove the Arab Liberation Army from North Galilee during which at least nine massacres of Arabs were carried out by IDF soldiers. These events generated an exodus of 200,000 to 220,000 Palestinian Arabs. Here, Arabs fled fearing atrocities or were expelled if they had not fled. After the war, from 1948 to 1950, the IDF expelled around 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs from the borderlands of the new Israeli state.
Many of these figures are from research by Israeli historian Benny Morris who basically claimed that all the Israeli historiography that preceded his book and several other writings was completely fabricated, a series of untrue myths designed to serve the Zionist need for legitimacy.


"As for Palestinian Christians, refugees and non-refugees, they are found mostly in urban areas of the Middle East but many have opted to leave to far away lands such as the USA, Central and South America, Australia and Canada.

The dispersal of Palestinians since 1948 has spared no one family or group.
The demographics of Palestinian Christians is as much shaped by the politics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as it is the demographics of Palestinians in general.

Palestinian Christians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip belong to fifteen different denominations, the largest of which are the Greek Orthodox (51 percent), and the Roman Catholics (32 per cent.) Some smaller denominations, such as the Copts who are originally from Egypt, do not number more than a score of families. Yet each denomination or community maintains a rich tradition of rites and rituals, beside educational and other institutions, that speaks of its long presence and attachment to the land called holy"
- Bernard Sabella Associate professor of Sociology Bethlehem University

p.s. Of course I'm also aware of the number of Jewish people that immigrated into Israel from the surrounding Arab countries too during this conflict but then I'm not attempting to minimise or dispute this!

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:43 PM

You are the one who makes it a 'Jewish' thing - that's the second toime you've done it.
My grouse is with the Israelis, not the Jews.
But you continue crouching behind the dead of Auzwich if it makes you feel any more justified in your defence of human rights abuses.
As I said earlier, the greatest friends of anti-Semitism today are the Israeli thugs and their apologists.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:14 PM

And I note you do not address ANY of my questions.


I guess my assumption that you hate Jews more than you care about people is true.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:09 PM

The flaw in your analogy is that the Israelis have aimedd their savagery at non-combatants, a fact which you and your fellow apologists consistently avoid.
As I said earlier, no civilised society kills hostages, even if the claims that what they are is true.
I'm sure that the Israelis participated in the Sabra and Shatila massacre because they believed that the refugee camps were crawling with militants - I don't think.
Still no comment on civilian atrocities I see - as silent as our parrot friend who seems to have taken flight.
And you come back when you cease to be a Zionist- fanatic mouthpiece and give us a hint on what you think on human rights abuses.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:24 PM

Jim,

So, if I attack you with a club, and you have a gun, it would be wrong of you to use the gun??

The Arabs invaded the Jewish Homeland in 1948. SOME of the Palestinian Arabs, who wanted to get ALL the land ( as promised to them by the Arab League) got out of the way of the invading army, and became refugees.

The larger number stayed in Israel, became citizens, and live in peace. ISRAEL settled the Arab Jews that were driven out of Arab nations- TELL ME why the Arab nations did not settle the Palestinian Arabs who fled?


And tell me what happenned to the Jewish population ( and the Christians) of the West bank from 1948 to 1967?

Or do you only support the rights of Non-Jews?

When I hear you express regret at the Palestinians using bruning tire of gasoline to execute political rivals, I might listen to the rest of your comments: Until then, I have to think you care more about condemning Israel than about the lives of Palestinian Arabs.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:02 PM

I ignore nothing Bruce - my position on the politics of the affair is limited as stated.
My involvement of this thread has been on the basis of the aggressive attitude by the Israelis to anybody who gets in their way, which moves me to believing them to be the agressors - but whether that is true or not - their bombastically vicious attitude to non-combatants - which you and your faction appear to either support or ignore, is what concerns me.
Whatever the Palestinian's overall aim might be, primitive rocket launchers against a well armed (nuclear) state strikes me as being defence, or at most, retaliation, and measure up somewhat pathetically against the tanks, planes, and heavy weaponry, including chemical missiles (whatever you and your apologists try to disguise them as) of Israel.
How about you andf youir friends giving us your wisdom an the war crimes and abuses committed by the Israelis and their refusal to participate in the United Nations enquiry, or their participation in the Sharila and Sabra massacres - won't hold my breath though.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 02:20 PM

So, since in 1968 the Protestants were firmly entrenched in NI, There can be NO allowing of any change to give that area back to Catholics- since it had been YEARS since they controlled it.

You ignore that FACT that the LAST borders accepted by the Arab nations was the 1923 split of Mandate Palestine into the TWO Homelands, with 77% going to the Arab Homeland of TransJordan, with Jews forbidden to settle, and 23% becoming the Jewish Homeland.

YOU claim that the invaded have the right to remove the invaders.

YOU claim that they can do anything needed to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM

Since the Six Day War Israel has forcibly expanded into Palestinian Territory; in some cases they have been forced to withdraw, or appear to withdraw, but its policy remains expansionism.
As I said, I don't fully understand the rights and wrongs of the territorial dispute; my main concern is their fascist behaviour towards non-combatants, from ordinary citizens to those attempting to bring relief to a besieged people.
Keith said the matter is complicated - this aspect is probably the least complicated of the whole dispute. If Israel wishes to be treated like a responsible, humane state it must behave like one. There can be no possible excuse for the way it treats non-combatants.
It is said that Israeli troops behave the way they do towards civilians because Hamas uses them as shields - even if this were true (and I believe it to be only fractionally so and mostly an excuse to terrorise the Palestinian people as a whole) - but even if it were true NO CIVILISED SOCIETY KILLS OR ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF HOSTAGES. He described Israel as "a tiny country that has had and is still having to fight for its very survival"; a 'weird description for a militaristic nuclear power, deeply into the use of assassination, espionage and simple bully-boy tactics in its expansionist pursuits.
It has some international support, mainly due to its economic and political clout, but it is widely regarded as a terrorist state - if a reactionary country like Turkey can walk away from it as being beyond the pale, something must be coming adrift for them.
Nobody has commented on their refusal to co-operate with the United Nations enquiry into human rights abuses - if their behaviour is so impeccable, why?
Israel appears not to care how it is considered by the rest of the world and is blatent in its human rights abuses, which makes the lickspittle apologists who would turn weapons capable of poisoning, maiming and killing into 'smoke bombs", lethal weapons carried in acts of piracy into "paint-bomb pistols" (and - on another thread, three days of street rioting in Belfast into "skirmishes") so disgusting.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Roberto
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:40 AM

A question for Jim. Some posts before, you've definied Israel "the invader". May I ask on what part of the soil that makes up the state of Israel you wouldn't call Israel "invader"? Where would you say that Israel is at home?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 08:06 AM

"not used illegal or chemical weapons"

Sigh - it's nice to redefine terms in the middle of a discussion....

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:15 AM

You seem to need to bee seen to the extent that your postings come in pairs.
Say something original rather than bouncing off what others have said,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:19 AM

Every little helps.
Chilling.

Jim says he is a pacifist.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:07 AM

To Jim, everything is childishly simple..
Israel bad, Hamas good.Believe everything of one, nothing of the other.
Israel is a tiny country that has had and is still having to fight for its very survival.

He states "What is not in question is Israel's brutal behavior; the act of piracy, the slaughter of refugees, the use of weapons, chemical or otherwise, on civilians, the destruction of homes, hospitals and schools, the open attempts at humiliation and persecution of the ordinary citizens of Gaza, the failure of the Israelis to meet the basic standards of conflict"

Every accusation IS questioned and disputed. None is simple fact.
It has not used illegal or chemical weapons Jim.
The rules say you must not attack civillians with any weaponry, but if your enemy attacks you using civillians as a shield, you are expected to show restraint but you can attempt to deal with the enemy. If you take reasonable steps it is legal even if people die.

Using civillians as a shield is a war crime.
The incursion was only launched to try and stop another war crime.
No dispute. The rockets are intended to kill and maim ordinary people, adults and children.
A war crime that Jim condones. "Evey little helps."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:28 AM

As Emma B rightly points out - the Israeli-Palestine question is a complicated one, far too complicated to be satisfactorily disscussed here - certainly by me.
What is not in question is Israel's brutal behavior; the act of piracy, the slaughter of refugees, the use of weapons, chemical or otherwise, on civilians, the destruction of homes, hospitals and schools, the open attempts at humiliation and persecution of the ordinary citizens of Gaza, the failure of the Israelis to meet the basic standards of conflict agreed upon so that humanity does not descend into bestiality and its refusal to even participate, never mind adher to the findings of the UN Human Rights Committee investgation.
That issue is ongoing, with more examples every day - stories that could have been ripped out of the pages of Martin Gilbert's oral history, 'Holocaust', the parellels are so obvious.
It is this that the Israeli apologists have totally failed to address and continue to ignore - their deafening silence says it all far more eloquently than any of us possibly could.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:08 PM

"The statements by Palestinians is anti-Jewish"

True - as is the reverse:

"The statements by Jewish elements is anti-Palestinian"

QUOTE
The typical pure intellectual fanatic position(s). Held identically by their Opposition who also wish to have an equivalent state.

Pragmatists realise this blind pigheaded madness ends only in death and destruction on both sides.

But the narrow minded fanatics on both sides use the resultant carnage against them to incite more hatred for their opponents and increase the carnage they inflict on their opponents,

Ireland would still be war torn if both sides had not moved away from this sort of rigid position of stupidity.

UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:14 PM

The statements by Palestinians is anti-Jewish. It seems you forgot to remind them of a difference.

The entire area that has been given to those refugees was a part of the Mandate Palestine intended to be a Jewish Homeland- the invasion by Arabs was in 1948, and that war has not yet been completely resolved.

To blame the Israelis for defending themselves is a bigotted viewpoint- LOOK at what thee Arabs did to those areas they had control over from 1948 until 1967- and tell me that the Israelis do not treat Palestinians better than the Arabs treated Jews, or even those Palestinian Refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:08 PM

Bruce the 20th C history of the Middle East is very complex and the British and French have a lot to answer for but - I don't think the resident Arab population of the area that includes Gaza and the West Bank could by any description, or stretch of the imagination, be called 'invaders' although many are the children of refugees.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:56 PM

"Or do you only let Arabs have that right, and deny it to Jews?
Don't you mean Israelis - it is they who are committing the war crimes, not the Jewish people.
In terms of this discussion, the Israelis are the agressors and their treatment of civilians places them beyond having any rights; would you argue the same right for the Third Reich?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:39 PM

Jim,

You have not answered the question- do you stand behind your statement that "The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs. "

Or do you only let Arabs have that right, and deny it to Jews??


YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:20 PM

Apart from the fact that (as ludicrous as it sounds) 'civilised' nations have surrounded themselves with a set of rules in which to regulate behaviour in war - which the Israelis have exceeded - making themselves war criminals, no, I don't believe that Palestinian civilians are a legitimate target for Israeli brutality.
I believe the Israelis have committed war crimes and I also believe that they know it, hence their refusal to co-operate with a UN independent enquiry.
Once again they are insisting that they will give themselves a 'fair trial' and find themselves 'not guilty' no doubt.
As I said - fascist thugs (with somewwhat pathetic hangers-on).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

"The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs.
"

So you agree the Israelis can do whatever they like, according to your standards for the Palestinians?

YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:45 PM

"So the Israelis are entitled to use anything they wish on those who attack them,"
Am I mistaken in believing that phosporus is a forbidden substance for use where non combatants are likely to be affected, whereas iron bars are not?
There is something very sad about the fact that the most persecuted people in the world have produced a group of persecutors who have taken up many of the practices of their persecutors for their own use. But there is something pathetic aout their hangers-on-from afar running around like headless chickens trying to prove what is and what is not a chemical weapon not ulike the jarveys her who now have to run behind their horses sweeping up the shit.
"You are condoning war crimes by one side while raging about possibly illegal actions by the other."
The invaded are entitled to take action against the invader, especially those who behave like fascist thugs.
Still no comment on war crimes and failure to co-operate with the UN enquiry - ah well, at least Keithie has somebody to do his thinking for him again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:57 PM

BTW, the 1923 borders ( the last accepted by the Arabs) were the ones for the Jewish Homeland AFTER 77% of the Mandate was given to the Arabs, and Jews forbidden from settling there. So, it was the 23% of the Mandate that was supposed to be the Jewish Homeland. The Arabs accepted those borders in 1923, but wanted the entire region in 1948 and attacked the new state of Israel.

So the Israelis are entitled to use any weapons they wish on the invaders, on the West Bank and in Gaza.

Glad you admit that the Palestinians should ALL pack up and move to the ARAB homeland of Jordan, to allow for peace in the region.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:17 PM

Jim, regarding the rocket attacks against Israeli civillians you said,
"Every little effort to remove the fascist invader will do nicely."

You are condoning war crimes by one side while raging about possibly illegal actions by the other.

Can you not see why I felt the need to inject a little balance?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:51 PM

"attempting to eject armed invaders with whatever comes to hand is not."

So the Israelis are entitled to use anything they wish on those who attack them, within the area of Mandate Palestine ( as accepted by the Arabs in 1923)?


YES OR NO:

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:35 PM

"Every little (death) helps was what you said."
Don't put words into my mouth again
Every little effort to remove the fascist invader will do nicely.
Phosphorus spraying down on civilians is chemical warfare and is a war crime, attempting to eject armed invaders with whatever comes to hand is not.
I can't help but notice that nobody has addressed the fact that Israel is commiting war crimes and is backing out of the UN evquiry on human rights.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 12:31 PM

Jim, Jim, Jim...

You are now playing with words - The IRON rods the "peacefull protestors attacked the IDF with were CHEMICAL ( made of chemicals) - They can severely damage and can kill .

It is a war crime to use it on IDF forces and the Palestinians have used it in such a manner; therefore, whatever word games you are now attempting to play, the Palestinians are war criminals.

The use of random mass area bombardment anti-personnel rockets are a violaytion of the Geneva conventions, and the Israeli incurance was to stop those war crimes from continuing. I will take your protests to mean that you do not approve of actions to stop war crimes.

Unless of course you think Jews are not human enough to get the same protection under law that you want the Palestinians to have. Then your statments make sense- that Jews cannot under any circumstances defend themselves, and their attackers ( in a state of war NOT of Israel's choosing) should have the protection of the laws that you will not give the Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:49 AM

White Phosphorous as a weapon Gaza CNN News

"WP munitions are very common -- particularly as smoke grenades for infantry; loaded in defensive grenade dischargers on tanks and other armored vehicles; or as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars.

However, white phosphorus has a secondary effect.

While much less efficient than ordinary fragmentation effects in causing casualties, white phosphorus burns quite fiercely and can set cloth, fuel, ammunition and other combustibles on fire.

It also can function as an anti-personnel weapon with the compound capable of causing serious burns or death.

The agent is used in bombs, artillery, and mortars, short-range missiles which burst into burning flakes of phosphorus upon impact.

White phosphorus is commonly referred to in military jargon as "WP". The slang term "Willy(ie) Pete" or "Willy(ie) Peter", dating from World War I and common at least through the Vietnam War, is still occasionally heard.

White phosphorus weapons are controversial today because of their potential use against civilians.

While the Chemical Weapons Convention does not designate WP as a chemical weapon, various groups consider it to be one.

In recent years, the United States, Israel, and Russia have used white phosphorus in combat"

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:33 AM

In the interest of balance, Human Rights Watch state that those who launch the rockets from Gaza into Israel, and those who give the orders, are guilty of war crimes.
That does not excuse israel if its actions are shown to be illegal, but it needs to be said.
You Jim refused over and over again to say that those war crimes were wrong, or that they should stop.
Every little (death) helps was what you said.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:47 AM

"The above definition from Wiki shows that there is one type of white phosphorus "
There is one type of WP from which different types of device can be made.
Give it up jim.
You were wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:37 AM

"Incendiary/anti personel, smoke and illuminating."
Funny you should say that - the article I just pasted gives a link to a Haretz article containing a photograph of phosphorus pieces raining down on houses in Gaza - wonder where they got that one.
The above definition from Wiki shows that there is one type of white phosphorus which has the effect of burning, maiming and possibly killing which is also used to produce smoke.
But don't let facts get in the way of your defending your war criminal friends.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:00 AM

Jim, there are 3 main kinds of WP munitions.
Incendiary/anti personel, smoke and illuminating.
That is what i was referring to, and that has been made clear throughout this thread.
Are you clear on that now?
I said I saw the news video like everyone else, and recognised it as smoke.
You should have dragged it down jim.

I never suggested smoke was harmless. In fact I said all along that it should not have been used and may have been illegal.
Drag that down too Jim.
And you said from the beginning of your latest reopening that it was a chemical weapons attack, and I refuted it form the beginning.
And Emma and I were right about that, and you were wrong again Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:31 AM

Or perhaps you would prefer it from the Horse's Mouth; From the American Magnes Zionist:
Jim Carroll

Last summer I published a post in which I charted the different stages of Israel's cover-up of the illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Op. You can read about it here. First, there was total denial of use; then the IDF admitted use but claimed that it was legal. When Breaking the Silence published clear testimonies of its illegal use, together with the physical evidence and testimonies of the Gazans, the response was to shoot the messenger.
Well, now, ribono shel olam, Israel has finally admitted to illegal use of white phosphorus in the Gaza Campaign in its reply to the Goldstone Report. We are even told what officers gave the commands, and that they were "reprimanded."
How many chances does the IDF get to change its story before people stop taking it seriously? And at each stage the Hasbara moonies parrot whatever happens to be the current version!
Will somebody explain to me why anybody should give any credence to what the IDF spokesperson says – even if it happens to be true?
By the way, there is evidence that there were other cases of use of white phosphorus besides the one referred to here

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:25 AM

"All I ever challenged you on was that Israel did not use chemical weapons."
Er no, you suggested there were two types and that the Israelis were using the safe ones; you also said that you got your information from a press report "like everybody else" - want me to drag it down for you or can you find it yourself?
"Jim was wrong again."
"On March 25, 2009, USA Based Human Rights Organization Human Rights Watch published a 71 page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal."
Amazing stuff this phophorus - in Gaza it is a smoke bomb - in Fallujah, it is a weapon, but it is ok to use it as was a battle situation - in the hands of Saddam Hussain it was a war crime serious enough to be one of the reasons for invading Iraq.
Can you buy it at Woolworths?   
Whatever it is it maims and burns and is capable of killing, which makes Israelis' use of it on civilians a war crime.
Doesn't the use of this shit on civilians bother you at all or have you got your head shoved so far up Israel's arse that it doesn't effect you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:21 AM

Thanks Emma.
The British Army only uses WP smoke and illuminant.
I knew USA had got rid of its napalm, so it is odd if they have kept WP anti personel ammunition.

I only wanted to clear up the issue of whether chemical weapons were used in the incursion.
They were not.
Jim was wrong again.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:52 AM

"but armies of democratic countries only use it in smoke and illuminant munitions."

Armies of those countries who are signatories to the "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." agreed in 1980, which covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons." have agreed to be restricted in their use of incendiary weapons

Neither the United States or Israel have ratified Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons, Protocol IV on Blinding Lasers, and Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War.
Neither have approved an amendment that extends the convention's application beyond just interstate conflicts to intrastate conflicts.

Israel has signed, but not ratified, the Chemical Weapons Convention; it has not signed the Biological Weapons Convention


Keith, the Pentagon has admitted to the use of WP incendiary weapons in Iraq against insurgents on the basis that their use against military targets is not prohibited.

'Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Barry Venable said this week that WP had been used, "to fire at the enemy" in Iraq. "It burns... it's an incendiary weapon. That is what it does." '
The Independent 17 November 2005

From the Israeli newspaper Haaretz 22.10.06

"Israel has acknowledged for the first time that it attacked Hezbollah targets during the second Lebanon war with phosphorus shells.
White phosphorus causes very painful and often lethal chemical burns to those hit by it, and until recently Israel maintained that it only uses such bombs to mark targets or territory.

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.

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."

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:08 AM

Emma, WP smoke is a war fighting munition.
WP can be used in anti personel weapons, but armies of democratic countries only use it in smoke and illuminant munitions.
These are dangerous but not in comparison to munitions designed to cause casualties.
Do I need to say again that I deplored its use here and said it might have been illegal?

Jim, I have not backpedalled or changed my argument at all.
All I ever challenged you on was that Israel did not use chemical weapons.
Do you now accept that I, and Emma, were right about that and you were wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:45 AM

To break down the analysis by Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News ......
ref as above

WP - THE ARGUMENTS

So WP itself is not a chemical weapon and therefore not illegal. However, used in a certain way, it might become one. Not that "a certain way" can easily be defined, if at all.

The US can say therefore that this is not a chemical weapon and further, it argues that it is not the toxic properties but the heat from WP which causes the damage. And, this argument goes, since incendiary weapons are not covered by the CWC, therefore the use of WP against combatants is not prohibited.

Critics claim that the US used chemical weapons in Falluja, on the grounds that it is the toxic properties which cause the harm. The UK's Guardian newspaper for example said: "The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it."

There is an intense debate on the blog sites about this issue. "It's not a chemical weapon" says Liberal Against Terror. "CONFIRMED: WP is a CW if used to cause harm through toxic properties," says Daily Kos.

Update 22 November: I have received an e-mail from a reader who points me to a reported US army document from 1991** which refers to WP as a chemical weapon. The document reports the possible use of WP by Iraq against the Kurds who rose up after the Gulf War. It says: "Iraq has possibly employed phosphorous chemical weapons against the Kurdish population."

The reader said this was proof that the US viewed WP as a CW.

I have also been contacted by Gabriele Zamparini of the Cat's Dream blog who appears to have published this document first. He makes the same point that the US Defense Department itself called WP a "chemical weapon." I offer these comments as part of the debate "

** the document I quoted from in a previous post


TACTICAL USE OF WP

The other argument is about the use of WP as a weapon.

The initial denials from the Pentagon suggest a certain hesitation, embarrassment even, about such a tactic. Some decisions must have been taken in the past to limit its use in certain battlefield scenarios (urban warfare for example). It is not used against civilians.

However the United States has not signed up to a convention covering incendiary weapons which seeks to restrict their use.

This convention has the cumbersome title "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons." Agreed in 1980, its Protocol III covers "Prohibitions or Restrictions on use of Incendiary Weapons."

This prohibits WP or other incendiaries (like flamethrowers) against civilians or civilian objects and its use by air strikes against military targets located in a concentration of civilians. It also limits WP use by other means (such as mortars or direct fire from tanks) against military targets in a civilian area. Such targets have to be separated from civilian concentrations and "all feasible precautions" taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Notwithstanding the US position on the Convention, the use of WP against insurgents within Falluja does at least bring the issue into discussion, though one should note that the soldiers who wrote the Field Artillery article do say that their unit "encountered few civilians in its attack south".

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:36 AM

"The witness, cited by Emma, explained how they found WP effective for "screening," "flushing", and "psycholgical" effects.
For inflicting casualties they used weapons."

Please don't 'skip' what I said Keith

The article I quoted from written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage

"This tactic of forcing opponents out of cover is not new and should not really have come as a surprise. An article looking back at the Vietnam war published in 1996 by a US armoured unit (1st Battalion, 69th Armor) referred to "Willie Pete" weapons and their use in getting North Vietnamese troops to leave their positions:

"Our normal procedure was to fire these things at a hillside as soon as possible in order to get them out of the fighting compartment."

One wonders of course if, in Falluja, WP was used more directly to kill insurgents and not just to flush them out. In battle, soldiers take short cuts and this seems an obvious one.

Evidence that this happened in Falluja comes from an article by a reporter, Darrin Mortenson of the North County Times in California, who was embedded with US marines there.

He wrote about a mortar unit receiving coordinates of a target and opening fire:

"The boom kicked the dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call 'shake 'n bake' into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week."

The tactic therefore seems to have been not to flush them out first but to bombard them simultaneously with the two types of weapons.

THE DEBATE ABOUT WP CENTRES PARTLY THOUGH NOT WHOLLY ON WHETHER IT IS REALLY A CHEMICAL WEAPON. SUCH WEAPONS ARE OUTLAWED BY THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES IS A PARTY. "

Even if it is NOT classified as a Chemical weapon the debate continues..................

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:26 AM

You started this theme off rather spectacularly by inventing two types of phosphorus - lethal and non lethal, claiming (without corroborating evidence) that the Israelis were using the non-lethal type.
You have been forced to back-pedal desperately, and are now claiming that they were only using smoke bombs (despite the injuries to civililians - no propaganda needed, the filmed evidence speaks for itself, as does your appalling apologist attitude).
The Independent article I cited carries some horrific photographs of the injuries inflicted by your 'smoke bombs'. The film footage of the bombardment of Gaza shows clearly the burning phosphorus fragments raining down on built-up areas - two and two makes chemical weapons being used on civilians, whatever colour you care to paint it.
Today's news says the indications are that Israel will refuse to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Committe on the piracy enquiry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:43 AM

Statements by doctors showed how bad it actually was.
Your describing it, wrongly and deceptively, as a chemical attack was an attempt to make it sound far worse than it actually was.
Blatant propaganda.

Falluja was a battle. Fighters on both sides were trying to kill each other.
The witness, cited by Emma, explained how they found WP effective for "screening," "flushing", and "psycholgical" effects.
For inflicting casualties they used weapons.

We are not a million miles apart.
This whole argument was just caused by your dishonesty.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:54 AM

So the statements by doctors treating wounded civilians (including the elderly, women and children) from phosphorus fragments during the incursion into Gaza, as reported by independent observers and as seen on the BBC documentary on the incursion were "to make the incident seem far worse than it actually was."
You have cited the people who carried out the Falluja atrocity as witnesses for your claim that phosphorus is not a chemical weapon - it seemed to have worked quite efficiently for them.
You really are an apologist for atrocities, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:31 AM

Jim, thank you for pointing out that phosphorus is a CHEMICAL.
So is every other substance in the world Jim.
Every explosion is a chemical reaction, so all weapons are chemical weapons. Right?

That is just sophistry Jim. By calling the smoke used in Gaza a chemical weapons attack, people would assume you meant chemical weapons as understood internationally.
A deliberate and cynical deception to make the incident seem far worse than it actually was.

By all means discuss the Mid East conflict, but be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:21 AM

Emma, I am sorry.
To be honest, I only skim read your posts looking for the salient points.
Honestly Emma, most people do not read long posts at all, but I know I criticised you before for selective editing and you are trying your hardest to be fair and balanced.

In my defence, you have never challenged Don or Jim for calling it a chemical weapon, and they have only attacked me for refusing to. You did seem to be supporting their position.

I have never denied that smoke munitions can cause injury, and said its use here was deplorable and possibly illegal.
Don pointed out that a direct hit, or a few feet away, will cause serious injuries.
Conventional munitions are effective over a much greater range.
WP smoke would not be deployed to cause casualties because it would cause vastly less casualties than conventional weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: New Israeli atrocity: attack on Gaza aid
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:15 AM

The effects of "non-chemical phosphorus", as used by a country that "doesn't manufacture, use or supply chemical weapons"
The article comes complete with photographs.
Jim Carroll

The Independent
08 November 2005

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
The IRC estimates that at least 60% of the people killed in the assault of Fallujah are women, children and elderly.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: "US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein's alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988."
The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: "The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons."
In December the US government formally denied the reports, describing them as "widespread myths". "Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used 'outlawed' phosphorus shells in Fallujah," the USinfo website said. "Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.
"They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters."
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster's 24-hours news channel, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.
A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: "A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact."
The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.