[ICTHUS]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...orus-civilians

Those Israelis sink to ever-new lows.

For those who don't know, white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon banned (at least for use on personnel) under international law - for good reason. Once burning white phosphorus comes into contact with skin it cannot be put out except by depriving it of oxygen or letting the fuel (the phosphorus in this case) exhaust itself. It often results in burns that go clean through to bone.

*edit* After more reading on the subject, Israel is apparently raising the defense that it is 'not being used improperly or illegally'. This remains to be seen. However, using such a dangerous incendiary material in one of the most densely populated areas in the world (full of civilians, to boot) is at the very least reprehensibly irresponsible.

[Ridley's Own]

I saw this the other day and held off until my anger subsided. Channel 4 news reported tonight that the UN people on the ground (I hopI get this right) are calling for a war crimes investigation into the deaths of two children at teh UN compound taht was attacked the other day.

Not good.

[JerryLove]

I know nothing about this particualr action other than that it happened (I don't know what Isreal was attempting to do or why), and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't white phosporous most commonly used for obscuring smoke (though it is certainly deadly if it gets on you during deployment).

[Demon_Hunter]

I hadnt heard about this until I read that article.

Then again, i dont watch, or read much news. So i am incredibly behind.... I hear we won that revolution thingy though.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I know nothing about this particualr action other than that it happened (I don't know what Isreal was attempting to do or why), and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't white phosporous most commonly used for obscuring smoke (though it is certainly deadly if it gets on you during deployment).

Yes, white phosphorus is considered by the international community as permitted for its use as smokescreen - when used to intentionally injure humans, it is not allowed.

While it may have been grossly unethical to unleash these weapons on the confined Gaza population, I don't know if Israel can stand trial for war crimes, given that it seems to have followed international agreements by the book.

That said, I'm saying all this to indicate that I support Israel - or Palestine.

I am confused on why Israel has restricted reporters...if they're in the right, what worry do they have?

[KaiserZr]

personally I can't see exactly how any weapon can be deemed illegal....it is war...is it a good thing...no it isn't but it is what it is....I mean it took 2 nuclear bombs to end world war 2....a lot of people suffered for it, but it saved a lot more lives that would have been lost if it came to a invasion of the Japanese islands....

the thing that is killing Israel right now is the fact that they are fighting an enemy that use gorilla tactics while using the city and its civilians as shields....it is impossible to attack that type enemy without collateral damage....while I find it as a coward stunt by them it is the only tactic that would be effective....they have no chance against a normal assault...

I still back Israel on this one....

[athanatos]

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

personally I can't see exactly how any weapon can be deemed illegal....it is war...is it a good thing...no it isn't but it is what it is....I mean it took 2 nuclear bombs to end world war 2....a lot of people suffered for it, but it saved a lot more lives that would have been lost if it came to a invasion of the Japanese islands....

Which is better, to destroy your enemies' weapons, or to kill the soldiers? To infiltrate a base, or to burn civilians to ashes? In all cases, it is effective at defeating the enemy. To say that "it's a war, anything is permissible" is to say that ethics are out the window somewhere along the line.

[KaiserZr]

Originally Posted by athanatos

Which is better, to destroy your enemies' weapons, or to kill the soldiers? To infiltrate a base, or to burn civilians to ashes? In all cases, it is effective at defeating the enemy. To say that "it's a war, anything is permissible" is to say that ethics are out the window somewhere along the line.

sadly being a Christian I have had to struggle with this question....I have members that serve/d in the military and I used to have a fascination almost borderline obsession with war and military concepts......I used to feel that you do anything in your power to destroy your enemy while losing the least amount of soldiers....but after coming to believe in Christ and his message I have come to fight this whole thought process every time here about America in another war or conflict....for two reasons.....one I believe that Christ doesn't want to see the bloodshed that goes on....and two I would have to agree with the tactics that the terrorist are using though it is also morally wrong, but it is the best way for them to attack.....my answer to you, is this war is a terrible thing, but as a leader I think you have to make decisions which may be morally wrong in order to lead your army to victory.....but I would never want to have to make that decision...I don't think I could live with the guilt...

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

.... but as a leader I think you have to make decisions which may be morally wrong in order to lead your army to victory.....but I would never want to have to make that decision...I don't think I could live with the guilt...

So which is more desireable? Morality, or victory? It would seem that Israel is choosing 'victory.' Although that too is debatable, because I believe their tactics to be faulty.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

For those who don't know, white phosphorus is an incendiary weapon banned (at least for use on personnel) under international law - for good reason. Once burning white phosphorus comes into contact with skin it cannot be put out except by depriving it of oxygen or letting the fuel (the phosphorus in this case) exhaust itself. It often results in burns that go clean through to bone.

*edit* After more reading on the subject, Israel is apparently raising the defense that it is 'not being used improperly or illegally'. This remains to be seen. However, using such a dangerous incendiary material in one of the most densely populated areas in the world (full of civilians, to boot) is at the very least reprehensibly irresponsible.

Can Israel be prosecuted for violating a law that they are not held accountable to?

I agree that firing heavy artillery into an area that is full of a civilian population is reckless and irresponsible, however even if Israel is using WP as a weapon against Palestine, it seems that the case against Israel would be weak at best.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I know nothing about this particualr action other than that it happened (I don't know what Isreal was attempting to do or why), and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't white phosporous most commonly used for obscuring smoke (though it is certainly deadly if it gets on you during deployment).

Yes. and it is quite effective, not that I should know,

I don't know. I didn't read any reports of people getting truly screwed by it, and believe me, if Israel was not playing it by the book with some skill, Hamas would have perfect propoganda photos supplied for them by the Isrealis.

That said, I have a hard time knowing how Israel could do better given the Hamas problem.

Imagine that in your city, a group of wackjobs which do not represent the views of the populace, who called themselves, violence, were setting off bombs and firing rockets at random, killing civilians. How would you stop it? Its truly a no win situation for the Palestinians who in all honesty, are likely not Hamas sympathizers, but the current Isreali policies might turn them into supporters as they are so cruel.

But Israel's Hamas problem is equally troublesome.

The only real solution would be some sort of peace, but it would require faction leaders calling for genocide on all sides to stop. And I do not see that happening. Though, in all fairness, I don't think anyone saw it coming in a few other places of the world.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

personally I can't see exactly how any weapon can be deemed illegal....

Well. You see a bunch of people get together... usually people with big armies, and they decide "it's illegal".

it is war...is it a good thing...no it isn't but it is what it is....I mean it took 2 nuclear bombs to end world war 2....a lot of people suffered for it, but it saved a lot more lives that would have been lost if it came to a invasion of the Japanese islands....

So by that logic there's nothing wrong with the genocide and mass-rapes in Ruwanda. It is, after all, war.

Similarly, there's notrhing wrong with terrorism... it's war too. There was nothing wrong with the Japanese treatment of civiliians, or the Vietnamese torture of American troops. It's war.

For that matter, the deliberate infective of civillian populations with smallpox was OK too.

It's interesting that you see "victory" is higher than any other priority in eternity. Not what I would expect from a believer in a just god and eternal life.

the thing that is killing Israel right now is the fact that they are fighting an enemy that use gorilla tactics while using the city and its civilians as shields....it is impossible to attack that type enemy without collateral damage....while I find it as a coward stunt by them it is the only tactic that would be effective....they have no chance against a normal assault...

But gurilla tactics are fine. (pretty much everyone has done that) as are human shields, according to what you said above. You aren't calling human shileds "illegal tactics" are you? You can't see exactly how any tactic can be deemed illegal... it's war.

Where have I heard that before.

You can't have that blatent a hypocracy. Perhaps you can explain how your defense of "any weapon" and then condemnation of a tactic go hand in hand?

I still back Israel on this one....

And I still don't care what you arbitrarily choose to back.

[Jeffrey]

the thing that is killing Israel right now is the fact that they are fighting an enemy that use gorilla tactics while using the city and its civilians as shields....it is impossible to attack that type enemy without collateral damage....while I find it as a coward stunt by them it is the only tactic that would be effective....they have no chance against a normal assault...

I still back Israel on this one....

Perhaps if Palestinian land wasn't forcibly taken away from them, after years of Britain defending Arab sovereignty, they wouldn't feel compelled to fight like this. If they fight on Israeli terms, they stand no chance of maintaining their identity.

Imagine that the E.U. and China carve a large section of Texas, from Dallas down to Austin and San Antonio, and give it back to the Comanche and Tonkawan. After all, it was their ancestral land and plays a role in their religious beliefs.

Do you think Texans would accept this? Do you think they would stick to the conventional rules of warfare? Do you think nearby American states wouldn't lend aid to the Texans?

In the American Revolution, the colonists used quasi-guerilla tactics - surprise attacks on the British, abandonment of the battlefield to melt into swamps and forests, tar-and-feathering of non-violent loyalists, etc.

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

sadly being a Christian I have had to struggle with this question....I have members that serve/d in the military and I used to have a fascination almost borderline obsession with war and military concepts......I used to feel that you do anything in your power to destroy your enemy while losing the least amount of soldiers....but after coming to believe in Christ and his message I have come to fight this whole thought process every time here about America in another war or conflict....for two reasons.....one I believe that Christ doesn't want to see the bloodshed that goes on....and two I would have to agree with the tactics that the terrorist are using though it is also morally wrong, but it is the best way for them to attack.....my answer to you, is this war is a terrible thing, but as a leader I think you have to make decisions which may be morally wrong in order to lead your army to victory.....but I would never want to have to make that decision...I don't think I could live with the guilt...

So you think a leader, someone in power in the State, is immune to the statutes of God? I would like to rebuke you on this. There is no basis for granting exemption to those in power.

Deuteronomy 20 established rules for the Hebrews outside of God-ordered wars against particular Canaanite tribes. They forbid collateral damage, even of trees. I don't see Christian or Jewish nations abiding by this - just in the opposite, in fact, since Israel has destroyed many aged Gaza groves, laying waste to cultivated land.

Then you have the New Testament, where Matthew 5 calls for a principle of peace, and later in the Gospels where Christ orders His disciples to obtain a sword so He could fulfill a prophecy by being counted among sinners, and then when one wields that sword He tells them that anyone who live by the sword will die by the sword.

Originally Posted by KaiserZr

personally I can't see exactly how any weapon can be deemed illegal....it is war...is it a good thing...no it isn't but it is what it is....I mean it took 2 nuclear bombs to end world war 2....a lot of people suffered for it, but it saved a lot more lives that would have been lost if it came to a invasion of the Japanese islands....

So the ends justify the means? The elderly and infant Japanese we killed -- along with American POW's -- were worth less than others?

I don't think the Bible allows you to count an individual life as less than infinitely valuable.

What you advocate here is an "ends justify the means" standpoint. I hope you are consistent -- after all, forcing a woman to give up nine months of her productive and personal life in order to bear a rapist's child forces inconvenience on a situation, just as an invasion would have done so. Is inconvenience or hardship our standard for right or wrong?

Advocating the use of nuclear weaponry in WWII reminds me of a police department firebombing an apartment complex because a known mass murderer is hiding inside.

But there's more to it. The atomic deployment of the United States was not as clean and tidy as the history textbooks suggest.

[KaiserZr]

Originally Posted by mulletman

So which is more desireable? Morality, or victory? It would seem that Israel is choosing 'victory.' Although that too is debatable, because I believe their tactics to be faulty.

if you are a military leader/general I believe victory should be the top priority....you are not there to be a politician, but to figure out the best quickest way to defeat your enemy by using military force...

[KaiserZr]

first of all I never said any tactics should be deemed illegal...yes I think hiding behind a shield of innocents is cowardly, but that is different from saying it should be illegal

as for my thoughts about the use of nuclear weapons during world war 2.....do you know how many people were probably going to die if the U.S. tried using a conventional landing on the Japanese main lines......the predicted number was much greater than Normandy.....yes our military sacrificed the lives of civilians to save lives of millions of American soldiers....what would you have rather them do...send in our boys to have them die in masses......


"So you think a leader, someone in power in the State, is immune to the statutes of God? I would like to rebuke you on this. There is no basis for granting exemption to those in power.

Deuteronomy 20 established rules for the Hebrews outside of God-ordered wars against particular Canaanite tribes. They forbid collateral damage, even of trees. I don't see Christian or Jewish nations abiding by this - just in the opposite, in fact, since Israel has destroyed many aged Gaza groves, laying waste to cultivated land.

Then you have the New Testament, where Matthew 5 calls for a principle of peace, and later in the Gospels where Christ orders His disciples to obtain a sword so He could fulfill a prophecy by being counted among sinners, and then when one wields that sword He tells them that anyone who live by the sword will die by the sword.
"

you are talking about the same God who told Saul to butcher everyone in a kingdom, and rebuked him through Samuel when he kept the king alive and some of the goods and live stock....



"So by that logic there's nothing wrong with the genocide and mass-rapes in Ruwanda. It is, after all, war."

I never said there wasn't anything wrong with certain acts....just like the Holocaust was horrible act by a evil man....what I am saying is there are times when you have to kill 10 or 20 people to save millions.....

you can question my beliefs in Christ because I have my own beliefs about war and combat, but honestly I don't answer to you or anyone else on this board....I will leave it to God to judge me one day..,

I already said I have had to pray about my own personally beliefs....I didn't come here to argue on a Christian forum with my brothers and sisters in Christ.....