BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:40 PM

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/
Amnesty

HAARETZ


BRUTALITY


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7949152/Israeli-soldier-puts-photos-of-blindfolded-Palestinians-on-Facebook.html
Shades of Camp Zero

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:48 PM

the "principled" army
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 17 - 01:52 PM

MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:07 PM

By whom?

By people who know a fuck of a lot more about warfare than a couple of Jew haters on a folk music forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:11 PM

Well there you have it! Weasel words without backup! Come on, sonny - who said it? Bibi?? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:16 PM

Jim,
A defence of pointing to others is totally mindless to defend Israel by doing so just shows that Israel is as bad as the worst – Saudi and Syria currently

No, because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling.

Before the danger was known by anyone, how can you blame Israel, and only Israel, for not knowing it either.

Saudi, Syria and Russia are still using. That makes them much worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 02:26 PM

Think it was Colonel Richard Kemp:

On October 16, 2009, British Colonel Richard Kemp testified regarding Israel's behaviour in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead (Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip in 2008-9 ), as part of the UN's evaluation of the Goldstone Report.  Colonel Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, who served with the UN and NATO, commanded British troops in Northern Ireland, led UK forces in Bosnia and Macedonia, participated in Gulf War 1, spent considerable time in Iraq during Gulf War 2,  and served on the UK's joint international commission on terrorism

I would imagine that he does know what he is talking about, certainly more so than Shaw or Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:42 PM

Isn't it wonderful after a week away to find Woodcock still spitting out his bile and venom.

Had you blood pressure checked recently Teriblossom?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 17 - 04:46 PM

Ah nice to see the hyena's, or is it the lapdog has arrived safe and sound.

What bile and venom are you referring to Raggy? Don't think that pointing folks towards facts counts.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 17 - 05:29 PM

The danger to innocent civilians from cluster munitions has been glaringly obvious since time immemorial. This "they stopped using them once they realised the danger" is just about the biggest load of hilarious bollocks I've ever read here, which is saying something.

Nice appeal from authority from Teribus. Is that really the best you can dredge up?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:28 AM

What's the matter Shaw still chaffing at the fact that you cannot refute a single thing I have said?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:48 AM

"No, because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling."
I take it you mean "shelling" - Israel has a major weapons industry- they profit out of death as well as use them to slaughter civilians
They did not give up using them out of compassionate motives, they continued until to do so until they no longer needed to
Gaza remains an untried war crime and Israel has demanded the closing down of the international courts rather than face justice
They also used chemicals and anti-personnel weapons such as flechette missiles
These are serious war criminals comparable to the Assad regime.
"Colonel Richard Kemp:"
Kemp is a soldier and he gave a soldier's excuse for the killings - that the civilian deaths were a result of mistakes rather than war crimes - an excuse for massacres and needless slaughter that is as old as history.
Hi is a known associate of Mossad and what he said is as dependable as that fact indicates it to be.
Trust me - I'm a soldier - I don't think so.
In orer to be proven innocent Israel has to stand trial - and it would rather see the destruction of the international justice system than submit itself to international examination.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:41 AM

I just tell you what I think. Teribus. I don't subscribe to the Keith 'n' Bill Chuckle-free Brothers' game of go-on-quote-me-and-refute-me-if-you-dare. In any case I can leave it to you to get so tied up in your own bombast that you refute yourself without realising it all over the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 04:58 AM

Another claim with no substantive back up Shaw? God but you are so predictable.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:51 AM

Silly Billy.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:57 AM

Steve
This "they stopped using them once they realised the danger" is just about the biggest load of hilarious bollocks I've ever read here, which is saying something.

You are wrong and easily shown to be wrong. Munitions are by definition dangerous, but the specific danger of these to civilians was not at first recognised.
That is why no objection to them was ever made, and no militaries refused them until that danger was made evident.
There was then and only then a campaign against them and decent countries like Britain and Israel stopped using, stockpiling or supplying them.

Jim,
No , because when their danger to civilians was recognised, Israel stopped using and UK stopped selling."
I take it you mean "shelling" -

No. I meant selling.

Gaza remains an untried war crime.

Says who? Only enemies of Israel, gullible one.

They also used chemicals and anti-personnel weapons such as flechette missiles
They used no illegal weapons.

These are serious war criminals comparable to the Assad regime.
Says who? Only enemies of Israel, gullible one, and their record is far worse.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:05 AM

"Another claim with no substantive back up Shaw? God but you are so predictable."
As predictable as your refusal to respond to given and well substantiated facts in defence of your own 'makie-ups'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:10 AM

Tell me Jom when have the Israelis deliberately targeted civilians with cluster munitions?

But here is something for you military geniuses to consider:

1 - In Gaza after all those thousands of unguided rockets and mortars had been fired indiscriminately at Israeli civilians did the IDF attack Gaza?

2 - Did those attacks involve IDF incursions into Gaza?

As we know the answers to both of those questions is YES then common sense will tell you that you do not litter the area you are about to send your troops into thousands of bomblets - to do that you'd have to be a complete and utter f**kin idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:14 AM

What "makie-ups" Jom? I can point to many of yours, and have done so in the past, you, Jom, have yet to identify one of mine and guess what? In this exchange you will remain true to form and fail once again to produce one single example.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:20 AM

So you drop a bomb that scatters mines over half a square kilometre, timesing that by the number of bombs you drop, and you "fail to realise that this presents mortal danger to innocent civilians" until one day the light dawns, eh? So the fact that 7000 civilians in Vietnam, mostly in the few years after the war, way before the invasion of Lebanon, were blown to pieces by unexploded cluster munitions (to quote just one example) never alerted the US and Israel that they were a menace to innocent civilians? You really are taking denial and fantasy to new heights, Keith. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 06:49 AM

"So you drop a bomb that scatters mines over half a square kilometre, timesing that by the number of bombs you drop"

Now why would you do that Shaw? Where would you do it?

Armed forces use a wide variety of munitions, they all have specific applications, "cluster munitions" have a number of functions

1 - Use against runways and airfields
2 - To deny an area to an enemy
3 - To obstruct or direct an enemy by firing them in front of your enemy's advancing troops

See that neither yourself, Shaw, or Jom have come up with any instances of the IDF using them against civilians.

As to Kemp giving "a soldiers answer"? Any chance he simply reported what he observed?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:21 AM

"I can point to many of yours, "
You keep saying that - none so far
You refuse toi link to anything you say so, on the basis of your track record, it is obvious you make them up as youi go along
You even caimed sniper ammuntion which Britain had supplied to Assad was 'the wrong size" after yo had denied the shipment and in spite of the fact that no ammunition sizes had ever been specified - a spectacular double "makkie up"
We know from Medecins Sans Frontieres reportsthat Israli oficers instructed hospital patients to remain where the were then opened fire of the hospital
We know that felchettes, and other fragment missed, along with white phosphorus, were regularly used on civilians, yet you produce the opinions of a soldier implicated with the Israeli regime to claim there were no atrocities
You ignore the comparisons of deaths and of military capability and continue to argue that Israel is the victim in all this
You ignore the fact that even the Imperial maps that were foisted on Palestine bear no resemblance to today's borders after expansion
Your whole argument is an agenda generated makie up
Now - want to have another try at producing mine?
This time try not to confuse those who disagree with you our as telling lies - it's a sign of your obvious megalomania
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 07:47 AM

"Any chance he simply reported what he observed?"
This is a summery of what Kemp "observed"
"I was in Israel for much of the summer 2014 Gaza conflict, specifically from 14 July – 8 August and from 27 August – 5 September. During these periods I met, was briefed by and questioned Israeli political leaders, senior officials and Israel Defence Force (IDF) soldiers from general officer down to private soldier. I spent a considerable amount of this time close to the Gaza border where I also met, was briefed by, questioned and observed many IDF officers and soldiers immediately before and after they had been in combat.

I was in Israel also for much of the Gaza conflict in 2012. I visited IDF units and held meetings with many IDF officers, government officials and political leaders before and since then. I have been acquainted with the IDF and the Israeli intelligence services for many years, both during and after my military service."

Lorra lorra balance and neutrality there, I would say!!!
The Times of Israel described Kemp as "supportive" - he certanly chose his informants carefully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:32 AM

Some findings from an assessment of the 2014 Gaza conflict by a panel of MILITARY experts:

We   can   be   categorically   clear   that   Israel's   
conduct in the 2014 Gaza Conflict met and in
some respects exceeded the highest standards
we set for our own nations' militaries.    It is our
view that Israel fought an exemplary campaign,
adequately conceived with appropriately limited
objectives,   and   displaying   both   a   very   high   
level of   operational capability as well as a total
commitment to the Law of Armed Conflict.

It is further our view that in the overall conduct of
its campaign, the IDF not only met its obligations
under the Law of Armed Conflict, but often
exceeded them, both on the battlefield and in
the humanitarian relief efforts that accompanied
its operation.

In many cases where the fighting
was concerned, this came at significant tactical
cost to the IDF. It fought under restrictive Rules
of   Engagement and it is obvious that instances
existed throughout the conflict where the IDF did
not attack lawful military objectives on account
of a deliberate policy of restraint.

It further
used its formidable intelligence capability in an
effort to contain its action as closely as possible to
Hamas's assets and protect the civilian population
amid which these were purposely and unlawfully
embedded. Intelligence is not infallible however,
nor is it possible to preclude completely preclude
civilian casualties through precautions enacted in
compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict

Despite the regrettable loss
of   innocent life and the damage to infrastructure
in Gaza our findings are clear in that the overall
outcome   of    the   campaign   in   Gaza   is   entirely   
consistent with the conduct of a professional armed
forces operating within the parameters of the Law
of Armed Conflict when faced with a scenario such
as Israel did in confronting Hamas.

Hamas not only flagrantly disregarded the
Law of Armed Conflict as a matter of course
as part of   its terrorist-army hybrid strategic
concept, but rather it abused the very protections
afforded   by   the   law   for   military   advantage,   
putting the civilian population of Gaza at great
risk.      Situating   its   operational   headquarters   
in   Gaza's   main   hospital,   the   entire   military
machinery of   Hamas was embedded in civilian
locations,   private   homes   and   a   plethora   of   
sensitive sites such as medical facilities, mosques
and schools.
These included facilities run by
the United Nations in multiple instances, from
which it must be concluded that the relevant
UN agencies are either compromised in their
relationship with Hamas or have temporarily lost
control of   the security of   their facilities.

Many
of   Hamas's actions clearly amount to serious
violations of the Law of Armed Conflict,
including war crimes identified by the United
Nations such as the summary execution of those
it accused of   collaborating with Israel.    Hamas
further engaged in actions that were designed to
interfere with the humanitarian assistance to its
own population.

Hamas not only indiscriminately targeted Israeli
civilians throughout the conflict with extensive
rocket fire, but willfully sought to draw the
IDF into a prepared stronghold amid Gaza's
civilian population. It is important to note that
Hamas actively sought the death of   its own
civilians as an advantageous reinforcement of its
strategic concept aimed at the erosion of Israel's
legitimacy.

No country would accept the threat against its
civilian population that these rockets present to Israeli
population centres.    Members of   the High Level
Military Group, many of whom had never visited the
country prior to our fact-finding visits were united
in   their   view   that   Israel's   efforts   were   entirely   
justified, appropriately conceived and lawfully carried
out, and necessary in the defence of   that country's
national security.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:07 AM

What military experts?



I didn't say they used them against civilians. I am saying that they are careless as the likely effects on civilians. Hundreds of civilians, including large numbers of children, have been killed or injured by cluster bomblets in southern Lebanon and continue to be so to this day. Last I heard, Lebanese mums and dads don't let their kids play on runways or airfields. Many of the injuries have occurred on farmland. The Israeli regime didn't give a shit, did they?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:12 AM

Your UNLINKED report came from unidentified "military experts" whose qualifications are totally unspecified, issued by the Israeli Government and published in 'The Jerusalem Post - neither their neutrality or their background research is identified
They could have been local milkmen and newspaper delivery boys, based on the information given.
Which is, of course, why you have not bothered providing a link
It is basically saying "Wot us - war criminals - not us Guv"
It makes the Kahan Whitewash Report on Sabra Shatla look like a ten year study - it doesn't even try to prove anything
First Richard Kemp - now this farce - you have to ne joking!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:18 AM

What military experts?

General Klaus Dieter Naumann (Germany) is the
former Chief of Staff of the Bundeswehr, the German
armed forces and served as Chairman of the NATO Military
Committee from 1996 to 1999.

General Vincenzo Camporini (Italy) is the former
Chief of Defence Staff of Italy. He served as Deputy Chief
of Defence General Staff and President of the Italian Centre
for High Defence Studies before being appointed Chief of
Staff of the Italian Air Force and subsequently Chief of
Defence General Staff.

Lieutenant General David A. Deptula (United States)
was the principal attack planner for the Desert Storm coalition
air campaign in 1991, served as Director of the Combined
Air Operations Center in Afghanistan and served as the first
Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance (ISR), Headquarters Air Force.

Admiral José María Terán (Spain) serves in the Office
of Strategic Assessment of the Minister of Defence of
Spain. A former Chief of the Joint Staff and Chief of the
Strategic Analysis Group, he has also served as Director for
Reorganisation of the Spanish Intelligence Service.

Major General Andrew James Molan (Australia)
served as the Chief of Operations for the Headquarters
Multinational Force in Iraq. He is a former Commander
of the Australian Defence College and has served as Adviser
to the Vice Chief of the Australian Defence Force on Joint
Warfighting Lessons and Concepts.

Lieutenant General Kamal Davar (India) served as
the first Director General of the Defence Intelligence Agency
of India. A former Director-General, Mechanised Forces
at Army Headquarters, he has held a large number of high
ranking command posts in the Indian Army and served on
the Indian Military Training Team in Iraq.

Brigadier General Alain Lamballe (France) served
in the General Secretariat for National Defence as head of
the Southeast Asia and Europe sections as well as heading
the Central Liaison Mission for Assistance to Foreign
Forces. He is the former Director of the Department of
Security Cooperation of the OSCE Mission in Bosnia
and Herzegovina.

Colonel Richard Kemp (United Kingdom) was
Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan and has
served in Iraq, the Balkans, South Asia and Northern
Ireland. He has led the international terrorism team at
the UK's Joint Intelligence Committee and served as
chairman of the strategic intelligence group for COBRA,
the UK national crisis management committee.

Colonel Vincent Alcazar (United States) served as a
fighter pilot in Operations Desert Storm and Southern Watch
as well as various other post 9/11 theatres. He subsequently
served in strategic roles at the Pentagon, the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency and at the U.S. embassy, Baghdad, Iraq.

Colonel Eduardo Ramirez (Colombia) is an
Advisor to the Congress of Colombia who served with the
Colombian National Police from 1987 until 2013. He was
formerly the Chief of Security Staff for President Uribe
of Colombia, as well as Chief of Section at the Judicial
and Criminal Directory of the National Police.

Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper (United States)
was Ambassador-at-large in charge of the US Secretary of
State's Office of War Crimes Issues. A former Presidential
envoy and adviser to the National Security Council he was
previously a war crimes prosecutor for the United Nations
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

Rafael L. Bardají is the Executive Director of the
Friends of Israel Initiative and National Security Advisor to
Former President, José María Aznar. He formerly served in
the Government of Spain as the National Security Adviser
and in leadership positions in the Ministry of Defence.

Davis Lewin is the Rapporteur of the High Level Military
Group. He is the Deputy Director and Head of Policy and
Research at The Henry Jackson Society, a London based
Foreign and Defence Policy think tank.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 10:41 AM

Hi there bobad. That surely is the most impressive list of "local milkmen and newspaper delivery boys" that I've ever clapped eyes on. Quite a few seem to have had "hands on" combat command experience - their delivery rounds must have been in some rough neighbourhoods. In any event they would all certainly have been able to recognise what they were there to observe - more so than our resident clowns Shaw & Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:12 AM

There is not a shred of evidence in this "report" as to who was asked and how the investigation was carried out
The "independence" of the enquiry is firmly established by the inclusion of Richard Kemp - who, by his own admission, has submitted a similar whitewash while interviewing only members of the Israeli armed forces and Israeli politicians, and who has, again by his own admission, has had a long term relationship with Mossad.
There is no indiaction that they have been selected on their knowledge of the conflict, only on their connection with Israel
The statement opens by making clear that the committee are intentt on exonerating Israel
"No country would accept the threat against its Civilian population that these rockets and tunnels present to Israeli population centers.ا"
The enquiry was supposed to be how the incursion was conducted and whether       the Israelis were guilty of committing war crimes NOT THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF THE PALESTINIAN CONFLICT yet they state qqite clearly that they are not independent (as claimed), on this issue, but have taken Israel's side from day one.
The enquire had no business to expand its brief to include the ongoing conflict, but it made it the first statement of the report.
About as "Independent" as Richard Kent, I would say
The local milkman might have done a better job in covering his tracks
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:29 AM

Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:37 AM

So what organisation were these experts working for? Who commissioned the report? Which of the people in your list contributed what? Why are you being so evasive about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:44 AM

"Ah yes, the bold red screaming of cultivated indignation makes it's appearance once again as his lies and deceit are laid bare."
I assume we cross posted
Answer the points?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 17 - 11:45 AM

Steve and Jim,
"To this I might add that the IDF, recognized as being the most moral army in the world..."

By whom?

You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries.
Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous.
Can you produce any credible sources who challenge their view, or is it just you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:03 PM

I'm not challenging anything. I'm asking who commissioned the report, what their umbrella organisation was and which of them wrote what. The report has no credibility until those questions are properly answered. The fact that the report was published in the Jerusalem Post requires those questions to be answered so that we can be sure there is no bias. Are you arguing with that? If you are, what have got to hide?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:04 PM

you got to hide

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 12:40 PM

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 07:21 AM

Complete and utter bullshit Jom - your stock in trade.

Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad.

The Truth is: They did no such thing.

Your claim: You refuse to link to anything.

The Truth is: Links were supplied related to the following:

1: Details of types of weapons used by the Syrian Armed forces and Syrian Police units (They are Russian, former Warsaw Pact and Chinese)

2: Details of 7.62mm ammunition used by NATO (L1A1 SLR, AG3, LMG, GMPG) and details of 7.62 ammunition used in the AK-47 and its derivatives (The NATO round is 12mm too long for the AK-47 magazine and chamber)

3: News paper articles referring to an export licence being issued in 2009 but nothing related to any shipment ever having been made subsequent to the licence being issued.

Your Claim: That the "weapons" supplied by the British Government were being used to kill civilians in Homs in 2012.

The Truth is: No weapons sold, ALL export licences related to trade with Syria were revoked in the Autumn of 2010.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold chemical weapons materials to Assad.

The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics were sold to two companies in Syria. Investigation by BIS into those export orders showed that the manufacturing records of the products made by those companies tallied with the quantities of chemical supplied - which means that none of the chemicals supplied could have been syphoned off and used to make chemical weapons.

Your Claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold electrical equipment to Assad that was used to torture opponents of the regime. You also claimed that this had been stated in a report by NGO.

The Truth is No such equipment was supplied and there was no mention of British supplied equipment being used to torture prisoners of the Assad regime. Copies of the specific report referred to by Carroll were linked to and the relevant extracts cut'n'pasted into the text of the post refuting his claims.
   
"We know from Medecins Sans Frontieres reportsthat Israli oficers instructed hospital patients to remain where the were then opened fire of the hospital"

We know nothing of the sort. I have searched for this incident and found nothing even remotely like it. I did find a report of an incident where a MSF spokesperson detailed a fictitious account of IDF soldiers firing on civilians waving white flags - a report that MSF had to publicly retract. MSF operates inside Gaza and it says exactly what Hamas tells it to say same as UNRWA.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Protective Edge in 2014.

We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012.

We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 and that "Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was technically legal under existing international humanitarian laws" (Mark Cantora examining the legal implications of the use of white phosphorus munitions by the IDF, published in 2010 in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law). The IDF have not used it since.

Flechettes have been used since the First World War. They are a recognised and "legal" anti-personnel weapon:

"During the invasion in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, numerous human rights groups documented the IDF'S use of flechette munitions and declared this use to be against international humanitarian law, due to the imprecise nature of flechettes. According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, IDF tanks fired six anti-personnel munitions at the town of Khuz'a on July 17, resulting in the injury of one Palestinian woman"

"You ignore the comparisons of deaths and of military capability and continue to argue that Israel is the victim in all this"

Damn right, as previously stated war is not an exercise in equivalence. Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response - It really is as simple as that

"You ignore the fact that even the Imperial maps that were foisted on Palestine bear no resemblance to today's borders after expansion"

And you ignore the fact that by rejecting the 1947 UN Two State Plan there are no recognised borders.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:06 PM

I see that the findings of the members of the High Level Military Group are not being challenged which is as it should be as the facts of the conflict as presented are mostly a matter of public record. As to which side was or was not operating within the parameters of the Law of Armed Conflict, familiarizing yourself with said Law would be more germane to the discussion than trying to dig for something with which to discredit the report.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

We've been over this over and over again
None of this has been subtantiated as "lies"
Typical is this
"Your claim: Britain (i.e. The British Government) sold weapons to Assad."
No I did not Keith said "a few sniper rifles" when I had specified ammunition
Made up bullying shit
Your links were supplied to claims that had not been made
Nobody ever specified what type of ammunition was sent just that it had been licences
You baseed your entire argument on unstated size - then you went on to invent five more seasons
"We know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
We "now nothing of the sort - just tat Israel makes a HABIT of using the stuff
You are setting up arguments that have not been made
Britain ws internationally condemned fro selling Chemicals to Assad
The fact you coundn't find a reference to the hospital incident is your obvious unfamilarity to finging links as you don't do it often
I produced the report of it at the time complete with links
I'm fucked it I'm going to succumb to you playing Keith's card an denying already given evidence
Go fuck yourself
Is there really any point in continuing this load of makie ups?
NoThere is not one single lie here as thee wasn't lat time you rehashed old arguments you had been shot down in flames on
"You have been given an impressive list of senior military experts from many countries."
And you have been given the facts that they produced a totally biased report in favour of Israel by stating their bias in the first sentence
You may find that "impressive"
"Challenging their credibility just makes you look ridiculous."
They challenge themselves by letting the cat out of the bag in the first line
That's what I call "ridiculous"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 01:46 PM

Hey Raggy - Example of Jim Carroll spitting out his bile and venom.

Jim Carroll - 14 May 17 - 01:35 PM

Bet you don't comment on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:20 PM

"We know that white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Cast Lead 2008/2009 "
AND AGAIN
one more time
wWe know that no white phosphorus munitions were used during Operation Pillar of Defence in 2012."
PILAR OF DEFENCE
"The Truth is: Between 2004 and 2009 chemicals required in the manufacture of toothpaste and cosmetics"


BRITAIN SELLS SARIN TO ASSAD

Don't know much, do you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:27 PM

One of the things I love about you pair is you don't seem to mind humiliating yourselves in public
It saves the rest of us a hell of a lot of effort
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 17 - 02:54 PM

"Had there been no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli response"
Just the continuation of land stealing - except of course, attacks on Palestinians started the day Britain steamed out
You have been given Einstein's comments on the massacres of civilians - fated 1949 - no rockets then - just people crouching in their homes as hand grenades were thrown through the windows.
Poor, defenceless Israel eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:03 PM

Ehmmm Jom I do wish that you would read the newspaper articles you provide links for.

On the 14th May, 1948 five Arab nations declared war on Israel - Israel DID NOT declare war on them. Could that possibly have had any bearing on those attacks you mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:32 PM

He has become completely crazed by his hatred, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 17 - 03:50 PM

Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 05:42 PM

Who commissioned the report, what organisation were they working for and which of them wrote what? Why was it published in the Jerusalem Post? Was it published anywhere else? Why are you being evasive?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 17 - 08:08 PM

Nope, not evasive at all. You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report. It's not my fault if you are too lazy or incompetent to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 17 - 09:05 PM

Why can't you tell this forum who commissioned the report and why it was released to the Jerusalem Post? Where else was it published, if anywhere? Why have you provided no link to this report? Who were these military experts working for? How were they selected, and by whom? You went to some lengths to provide the biographies of the soldiers in question, so why can't you answer these really simple questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 May 17 - 02:42 AM

"Jom - The Daily Record - AKA - Scotland's National Comic"
The report appears is available from MANY SOURCES
Must be humiliating to find that "Scotland's National Comic" knows more than you do
"You have all the information required to find everything available pertaining to the report."
Yup, the fact that they are biased employees of the Israeli regime being the most significant
I can't blue clickie this statement from Israeli soldiers on the ground who have now formed themselves into an opposition to the regime (Breaking the Silence) so I may as well put it up in full.
I'm sure each and every one of them must be "self-hating Jews".
Jim Carroll

'FIRE AT EVERY PERSON': ISRAELI SOLDIERS REVEAL THEY WERE ORDERED TO SHOOT TO KILL IN GAZA COMBAT ZONES – EVEN IF TARGETS MAY HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS
Israeli campaign group Breaking the Silence interviews more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers
The Israeli military deliberately pounded civilian areas in the Gaza Strip with incessant fire of inaccurate ordinance during last year's war against Hamas and was at best indifferent about casualties among the Palestinian population.
Those are the conclusions of a report complied by Breaking the Silence, an Israeli group that has spent the eight months since the end of the war, known as Operation Protective Edge, interviewing more than 60 members of the Israeli army, air force and navy, including soldiers and officers up to the rank of major.
The service personnel paint a picture that runs counter to official Israeli military claims that the surgical operation – which became a full-blown conflict after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and murdered in the occupied West Bank - took great care to avoid civilian casualties and that Gaza's already fragile infrastructure was not unnecessarily targetted.
International critics of Israeli tactics during the seven-week conflict have argued that the army, the IDF, and the country's other forces, responded disproportionately to rocket attacks from groups such as Hamas. This, they say, led to 2,220 Palestinians being killed, according to UN figures, the vast majority of them civilians.
There were seven civilian deaths on the Israeli side of the border as a result of rockets fired from inside the Gaza Strip by militant groups. A total of 66 Israeli military personnel were killed. Those Palestinian militants firing rockets across the border could not possibly have known where they were going to land.
This latest report by Breaking the Silence comes not only from within Israel itself, but includes more than 100 testimonies from soldiers who took part in the campaign.
The testimonies include examples of the acts of individual soldiers, including the shooting dead of civilians where those providing evidence say a more measured approach could have been taken. Others talk of incidents where confusion in the midst of a military campaign led to lethal decisions being made when there were other courses of action. A large number of soldiers maintain that the way in which the war was conducted was reasonable, but have decided to speak out against particular decisions or practices.
More worryingly, the report which runs to 240 pages, also details policies and norms – some of which came directly from IDF high command, which Breaking the Silence claims are systematic and led explicitly to greater loss of life and more damage.
"While the testimonies include pointed descriptions of inappropriate behavior by soldiers in the field, the more disturbing picture that arises from these testimonies reflects systematic policies that were dictated to IDF forces of all ranks and in all zones," the report says.
"The guiding military principle of 'minimum risk to our forces, even at the cost of harming innocent civilians,' alongside efforts to deter and intimidate the Palestinians, led to massive and unprecedented harm to the population and the civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip. Policymakers could have predicted these results prior to the operation and were surely aware of them throughout."
Chief among Breaking the Silence's findings is that the IDF watered down the rules of engagement such that any person in a combat zone was considered an enemy threat.
"Many of the soldiers testified that the rules of engagement they were provided with before the ground incursion into Gaza were unclear and lenient. The soldiers were briefed by their commanders to fire at every person they identified in a combat zone, since the working assumption was that every person in the field was an enemy," Breaking the Silence claims.
One solider, a First Sergeant in the IDF's engineering unit who was sent to Gaza City, said: "The briefing on rules of engagement was [to open fire at], 'Anything you think you should [open fire at]… Anyone you spot that you can be positive is not the IDF.' The only emphasis regarding rules of engagement was to make sure you weren't firing at IDF forces, but other than that, 'Any person you see.' From the very start they told us, 'Shoot to kill.' As far as the IDF was concerned, there wasn't supposed to be any civilian population there."
The Israeli air force dropped thousands of leaflets on areas it was preparing to attack, but according to the testimonies, it was assumed that once these leaflets had been distributed, anyone left would be from Hamas, or one of the other militant groups that took part in the war.
Another first sergeant, from an infantry division operating northern Gaza, said that he was told that, "if it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: You're in a motherf***ing combat zone. A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there's anyone there who doesn't clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person."
A captain, who didn't want his unit to be publicised, said: "During the briefing with the battalion commander on the night of the incursion, he was asked what the rules of engagement were, how we conduct ourselves, whom we shoot and whom we don't. What he said was – and this was the general gist of things – 'We are entering a war zone.' Meaning, what we prepared for during training – combat in urban areas. The IDF distributed flyers informing the residents of the areas we were entering, and that anyone remaining in the area was in effect sentencing themselves to death. That's what was said."
Gaza, measuring about 40km by 10km, is one of the most densely populated areas on Earth with about 1.8 million residents. It is inconceivable that, even at a time of war, entire civilian populations could move to different areas of the strip. Moreover, the crossings between Gaza and Israel, and Gaza and Egypt, were for the most part closed to civilians during the war, meaning that civilians were unable to leave the enclave.
Another central claim by the Israelis was that buildings targetted by its bombers received a "knock at the door," before they were destroyed. In practice, this was a small missile that caused only marginal damage to a building. The suggestion was that places being used by Palestinian fighters as command centres would receive a warning before they were destroyed, allowing civilians to leave.
During this war, this policy was lauded by the Israelis as a sign that civilian casualties were being kept to a minimum.
"I do remember there was this one house of five or six stories in Khirbet Khuza'a. I remember there was 'hot' intel [sic] data on a meeting between militants there," said one of the soldiers quoted in the report.
"The head of the cell was there for sure, and a decision was made to 'knock on the building's roof,' … and then immediately after that drop a bomb on it."
Asked by Breaking the Silence what he means by "immediately," the soldier replied: "Not enough time for everyone to leave. Somewhere between 30 seconds and one minute."
The bombing began on 8 July last year, nine days before Israeli forces entered the Palestinian enclave. Whole areas of Gaza, particularly Shuja'iyya and Beit Hanoun, were flattened during the campaign. Other military personnel interviewed by Breaking the Silence admit that this was part of a deliberate effort by the IDF, and say that inaccurate weapons were used to bombard neighbourhoods before ground troops arrived. "… shells, shells, shells. A suspicious structure, an open area, a field, a place where a tunnel shaft could be – fire, fire, fire. There was a period of about five days from the moment when we were first called in for duty until there was a ground incursion. Throughout that entire time, fire."
Breaking the Silence has specifically condemned the IDF for the use of what it describes "statistical weapons" – mortars and other artillery that are almost impossible to aim accurately. In such a densely populated area, and where homes are built on top of each other, collateral damage was inevitable, the group argues.
In pictures: Israel-Gaza conflict - summer 2014
"In practice, during the preliminary shelling, the army pounded populated areas throughout the Strip with artillery shells in order to scare off enemy combatants who were in the area, and at times also to urge the civilian population to flee," Breaking the Silence say.
Israel won plaudits from its allies in London and Washington for the war was conducted. General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the US joint chiefs, the United States' most senior military officer said in November last year that, "Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties".
Last week, in an interview with the Jewish Chronicle newspaper, David Cameron made one of his strongest defences of the Israeli position yet.
Using a phrase that was coined by Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister said that it was "important to speak out" about standing by Israel and said there was an "important difference" between Israel's use of weapons to defend itself and Hamas' use of them "to defend its weapons".


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/fire-at-every-person-you-see-israeli-soldiers-reveal-they-were-ordered-to-shoot-to-kill-in-gaza-even-10223427.html

Subject: RE: BS: Uk Labour Party discussion II
From: Teribus
Date: 15 May 17 - 03:02 AM

UN Watch - a Geneva-based non-governmental organization whose stated mission is "to monitor the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter". It is an accredited NGO in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council and an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.

Their report was presented to the UNHCR.

Not just the Jerusalem Post Shaw. Commentary from the group has appeared in BBC (Human rights and wrongs at the UN), Al Jazeera (Debate rages over UN rights council), Reuters (UN urges China to protect human rights), Washington Post (Speaking Truth to the UN Human Rights Council), Agence France-Presse (UN Rights Council divided over Sri Lanka), Voice of America (UN Human Rights Council Candidates raise concerns), The Jerusalem Post (Gold v Goldstone), Fox News (US taxpayers pay millions to keep despots safe at the UN), JTA (UN Watchdog slams religious defamation resolution), and others.