Israel kills 32 in air strikes, including 15 children

[Norlamand]

Yes if you took it that far. Anything with chemicals that where weapons could be described as chemical weapons, but if you where familiar with geneva convetion rulings and debates regarding this then you wouldn't cast such a flippant remark.
And thanks for the sarcasm it really adds to the debate.

The Geneva Conventions are an insane attempt to regulate the humanity of war. The rules themselves are ridiculous. You can shoot a man with a .45 cal round legally, but a .50 cal round cannot be used against personel. However you can drop a 2000 lb bomb on him. You can't use white phosphorous but you can shred them alive with cluster bombs. You can't use hollow point rounds that expand on impact but you can use high velocity full metal jacket rounds the fragment on impact. The list goes on and on. Attempting to make rules about how combatants are allowed to kill each other is just plain stupid. Prohibiting the use of chemical poisons and the like is reasonable, but do you really think that it is more humane to blow someones limbs off with a cluster bomb than to shoot them with a .50 cal round?

 

[nock371]

Before Israel was founded in 48, there were many car bombings carried out by zionist groups. If the shoe was on the other foot i.e. no Israel the jews would be as oppressed as the palestinians...

Its a messy situation that will not be solved easily, I think they (both sides) should just try to avoid WWIII...

Will either escalate into something really nasty or just die down and leave more feelings of hate on both sides, so much a no win situation...

Is an endless tit for tat conflict, Israel claim it started with the kidnapping of the soldiers but that incident was in retaliation for the shelling of a Gaza beach not long ago and the shelling of the beach would have been in retaliation to something that Hamas may have done.

Even when things die down there is still tension, before the intifata of 2000 (Sharon's walk on the Temple mount that sparked a palestinian uprising) there was progress being made in the occupied territories, but at the same time Hezbolah was causing problems for Israel in South Lebanon.

The only thing that seems to be a given is that there is always conflict over there. I do not agree with either side that they are Lily white and the other is totally to blame (the Israeli and US media blame the arabs, and the arabs and persians constantly blame Israel), two wrongs never make a right (i.e. suicide bombings vs sledge hammer air strikes with American provided military hardware)

Oh well lets hope it dies down, lets keep the conflicts on our computer screens i.e. civilization and out of the real world!

 

[boarder]

The Geneva Conventions are an insane attempt to regulate the humanity of war. The rules themselves are ridiculous. You can shoot a man with a .45 cal round legally, but a .50 cal round cannot be used against personel. However you can drop a 2000 lb bomb on him. You can't use white phosphorous but you can shred them alive with cluster bombs. You can't use hollow point rounds that expand on impact but you can use high velocity full metal jacket rounds the fragment on impact. The list goes on and on. Attempting to make rules about how combatants are allowed to kill each other is just plain stupid. Prohibiting the use of chemical poisons and the like is reasonable, but do you really think that it is more humane to blow someones limbs off with a cluster bomb than to shoot them with a .50 cal round?

While I see your points and even agree with a lot of them, I still think that even during wartime there should be some methods so grotesque in there capabilites that they are banned. If only to keep a sense of humanity in what is otherwise a inhumane environemnt. Thats just my opinion though of course.

 

[Norlamand]

While I see your points and even agree with a lot of them, I still think that even during wartime there should be some methods so grotesque in there capabilites that they are banned. If only to keep a sense of humanity in what is otherwise a inhumane environemnt. Thats just my opinion though of course.

In principle we agree. Only the specifics divide us. I suspect that we would easily come to an understanding. I have always found the phrase "rules of war" oxymoronic. I had the opportunity to see the rules in play and their consequences. They do little to make war humane.

 

[boarder]

Actually not quite correct. Here is the Protocol for your pleasure:



Please note the bold and underlined portions. White Phosphorus used as a smoke/screening agent is most certainly allowed by the protocol even though it may have secondary burning effects due to the nature of WP. In Fallujah, the rounds used by the US Military were designed solely for smoke and screening purposes and thus conformed to the Protocol even though the USA is not a signatory to it.

Also please note the complete lack of mentioning White Phosporus directly in the protocol. It is meant to cover any and all types of incendiary devices designed for use against people - like the old Napalm bombs of the Vietnam Era. Thats not how White Phosphorus is used.

Oh..and btw, Isreal is not a signatory of Protocol III either. http://www.icrc.org/eng/party_ccw

Class dismissed.

So if I am reading this right, while they can be used on tanks etc and as a smoke screen its ok under the convention and if its used against people it isnt?
So then I guess if thats correct, what was Israel targetting when it used it, which is kind of irrelevant anyway as they are not signatorys according to your link, but would be interesting to find out what they used it against all the same.
What about the vacuum bombs?

 

[boarder]

In principle we agree. Only the specifics divide us. I suspect that we would easily come to an understanding. I have always found the phrase "rules of war" oxymoronic..

Agreeing to much makes for bad forums though

I had the opportunity to see the rules in play and their consequences. They do little to make war humane.

Not something I would want to see first hand.

 

[Norlamand]

Agreeing to much makes for bad forums though

Not to worry. I'll find something to be contrary about in no time.

 

[MobBoss]

So if I am reading this right, while they can be used on tanks etc and as a smoke screen its ok under the convention and if its used against people it isnt?

Not quite. It prohibits munitions specifically designed for use against human targets. Please note the word designed. Undoubtedly some people could be burned from a WP smoke round, but as the smoke round uses small felt wafers with WP in them, they are not specifically designed as a anti-personnel device.

So then I guess if thats correct, what was Israel targetting when it used it, which is kind of irrelevant anyway as they are not signatorys according to your link, but would be interesting to find out what they used it against all the same.

Who said they used it? I havent seen a single story saying this so far. A link would be nice.

What about the vacuum bombs?

A vacuum bomb is a misnomer. What I think you are talking about is a Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) bomb. It releases a cloud of aerosol gas prior to explosion so that when it goes off it creates a huge air pressure wave concussion.

 

[boarder]

Mobboss, thanks for the info, interesting.
I posted a link in post number 92 of this thread.
Theres no evidence that they have been used, only reports from the press and the Lebanese goverment have accused Israel of using them which isnt in that link but i recall reading a article last night where the goverment also make the claim.

 

[FeelGood]

As I said , the Israelites try to make sure that they do not kill civilians . The civilians that do get killed are due to errors , and this killing is regretted by both the parties , the Israelites as well as the Palestinians . The Israelites try to use the most humane means they can . But when the semi-statal Hizbullah and the statal Hamas organise terrorist attacks against Israelite civilians , it is very clear that they ( the Israelites ) have to react in a manner capable of teaching the organistions concerned not to do it again , and it is my opinion they have reacted appropriately.

It`s your opinion btw. They can claim that but nobody can know for sure they`re not lying. In war, the truth will always be the victim. Well, propaganda is so sweet!

As for the car example, we can say that it is intentional since we know racing in a (busy) street means that you are bound to hit something very likely. Just like killing when you`re drunk!

BTW, Israel and the US are not signing that protocol! Then, they should not use them in any way!

 

[El_Machinae]

The fact that they've killed Canadian citizens kinda proves that they're not being very careful

 

[IglooDame]

The fact that they've killed Canadian citizens kinda proves that they're not being very careful

Actually, it does not.

 

[Tulkas12]

I think we should offer an ultimatum to both sides. If you do not accept peace in the area we will launch a space shuttle and nuke you both from orbit. If you as whole populations chosse to fight endlessly we will erase both populations. I have no need to care for populations that are so violent in nature. God I wish nukes didn't pollute so much. . .but then again we probably would have duked it out with russia and I wouldn't be here o well.

Seriously though? They both suck, and to avoid pointing fingers. . .one side sucks slightly more than the other.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Nice idea. I suggested something like that a little while back; plagues. Not quite as polluting as nukes. Give a year's warning and sprinkle death dust over the whole land. Then it'll be the Holy Land indeed; only God living there.

The plague can be tailor-made to not spread or be infectious past the specified area.

 

[El_Machinae]

One poster suggested seeding the land with zombies. I really thought that was the best I've heard in awhile.

Igloo: I'll bite. How does hitting civilians not prove you're were being careful enough?

 

[IglooDame]

One poster suggested seeding the land with zombies. I really thought that was the best I've heard in awhile.

Igloo: I'll bite. How does hitting civilians not prove you're were being careful enough?

Because if "careful enough" is going to be a reasonable standard, it must have been achieved at some point in recent history in an operation of roughly similar magnitude. Since no nation has ever undertaken military operations of this sort and size without killing a few civilians (Canadian or not), "careful enough" cannot mean "no Canadian citizens killed".