"No I have not."
"Jim, re your description of flechettes.
"The "twist" being that they hurl thousands of two centimetre darts into anybody within range"
Replace the word "darts" with "fragments" and you have a description of the kind of shell in use since Napoleonic times.
They are considered legal weapons but like all weapons can be used illegally."
The above is what has been used against the civilians of Gaza - here you have described their use as permissible because they are legal (in fact they are not in the use against civilians), but beside the point - in declaring them legal and refusing to condemn their use, you are approving of them - unless, of course, you will condemn their use by the Israelis as an inhuman act, which you will not.
After all, six of these missiles measure small against the facilitating of the massacre of 3,500 refugees, which the Israelis dis, and you defended.
Or the use of flesh-burning chemicals on civilians, which the Israelis did, and you described as "harmless fireworks" - the Israelis have been found to b using white phosphorus again, and you will no doubt defend that fact again.
You have refused to comment on the us of DIME missiles, that are in use in Gaza, and have been found to have biological effects on their victims - no doubt, when put to it, you will defend their use.
You denied the destruction of hospitals on the basis that "it would have been front page news" - it was then and it certainly is now - you now support it - was there ever any doubt you would?
This argument has polarised into humanitarians who have take no side in this conflict, but are appalled at the inhuman and criminal way it is being conducted, and a band of (mainly) three fanatics who have entered into some sort of weird blood pact with Israeli fascism.
Creepy or what?
Jim Carroll