La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Can I suggest you start by looking up the following Ben Gurion Lohamei Herut Israel (Stern gang) Haganah Zionism I mean these recent attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 I think that Israel has actually reasonably treated its Arab minorities - other than a disgraceful, racist land law recently brought it. They have full democratic rights etc. Though the Arabs afre understandably fixated of the issue of Israelis taking their land. I do wonder what the Palestinians do hope to achieve from attacking Israel. Terrorism is not going to yield many concessions if successful. Is it just Hamas who are making these recent attacks? The Palestinians hope to achieve the opening of their borders so they can let enough food into the region to live on. also to raise their economy by trading their products, which unfortunately they haven't been able to do for 18 months since israel blocked their borders. Recent attacks?? do you mean the shelling off the coast of gaza that has been going on daily since the "ceasefire" by the IDF? Can you also stop calling them terrorists LDV, as i have already stated they were democratically voted into power. Certainly not by a coup, which is what the israli propaganda machine has been firing out!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Recent attacks?? do you mean the shelling off the coast of gaza that has been going on daily since the "ceasefire" by the IDF? Can you also stop calling them terrorists LDV, as i have already stated they were democratically voted into power. Certainly not by a coup, which is what the israli propaganda machine has been firing out!! Yes, I am just curious as to what the Palestinians belief they can achieve from these forms of attacs since the ceasfire. As far as I am aware Hamas members are firing weapons into Israeli territory for the purpose of killing civilians. Whether democratically elected or not, it is terrorism. Don't get me wrong, the Israeli government is terrorist in its behaviour. But I understand your point, I should also refer to the Israeli armed forces as terrorists equally as I do Hamas. But probably better dropping the term altogether in referring to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Recent attacks?? do you mean the shelling off the coast of gaza that has been going on daily since the "ceasefire" by the IDF? Can you also stop calling them terrorists LDV, as i have already stated they were democratically voted into power. Certainly not by a coup, which is what the israli propaganda machine has been firing out!! Yes, I am just curious as to what the Palestinians belief they can achieve from these forms of attacs since the ceasfire. As far as I am aware Hamas members are firing weapons into Israeli territory for the purpose of killing civilians. Whether democratically elected or not, it is terrorism. Don't get me wrong, the Israeli government is terrorist in its behaviour. But I understand your point, I should also refer to the Israeli armed forces as terrorists equally as I do Hamas. But probably better dropping the term altogether in referring to them. They want the borders open!!! The people of Gaza have been backed into a corner. Contrary to popular belief, mainly fuelled by Israli propeganda, it was not Hamas who actually broke the ceasefire, it was Israel. By this time, Gaza had not been able to trade for 18 months, what else could they have done? When you realise Israel had built a replica city exactly the same as Gaza and had been training there for 18 months, you then realise they must have started training there as soon as they closed the borders. This was a very much pre-meditated attack, Israel must have thought they were ready and capable to start the genocide after these 18 months. Unfortunately for them, they obviously weren't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Recent attacks?? do you mean the shelling off the coast of gaza that has been going on daily since the "ceasefire" by the IDF? Can you also stop calling them terrorists LDV, as i have already stated they were democratically voted into power. Certainly not by a coup, which is what the israli propaganda machine has been firing out!! Yes, I am just curious as to what the Palestinians belief they can achieve from these forms of attacs since the ceasfire. Btw, it's Israel doing the shelling off the Gaza coast, thereby breaking the ceasefire, not the Palestinians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 Can I suggest you start by looking up the following Ben Gurion Lohamei Herut Israel (Stern gang) Haganah Zionism I mean these recent attacks. Sorry.. there's a difference?? Historical or not... state sponsored or not The Zionists used terrorism for political means hence the current strife, hence the double-standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 yes, it's legal as a 'smokescreen' but very much illegal if you drop in on a densely populated civilian area, as the IDF did. Where in the Geneva Convention does it state you can't drop a smokescreen in a densely populated area? Oh dear. It doesn't. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magneto Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 ya.. ya.. its a 'Smoke Screen' White phosphorus is covered by Protocol III of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons, which prohibits its use as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations or in air attacks against enemy forces in civilian areas. The US - unlike 80 other countries including the UK - is not a signatory to Protocol III. The Yanks got away with using it in Falluja.. its only right their sock-puppets should use it too rather interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 As has already been stated ad infinitum (yawn!) WP is banned by the Geneva Convention for anti-p use. It is allowed for "quick smoke". So all you pedantic wankers, what is the difference between deploying WP as a "quick smoke" option (because there are others) as opposed to it's use in an anti-p role? Did you say "None at all"? Well done, that's the right answer. But then nobody said the Geneva Convention couldn't have loopholes... Actually from the pictures I've seen it doesn't look like WP. Well, not the WP as used by the British Army. Because even in an anti-p role I don't see why you would use a proximity - because it's exactly that. I'm not in the least bit surprised (and no-one else with even the slightest glimmer of intelligence should be surprised either) that the US would not sign away advanced weapon use. Their policy has always been to protect their troops using overwhelming firepower and if they have the money and nous to develop clever stuff to keep their guys alive why sign it away when the opposition will never have it anyway? It's not exactly rocket science. Errr - thinking about it, actually it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tameelf Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 pk the clever stuff is also made to kill others. and be sold to the likes of sadam who in turn is hanged for using it/ i take it the not so clever stuff is the du that eventuly kills both sides and future ofspring of returning troops who will be led a merry dance AGAIN for truth and compensation. ldv without the yannkie taxpayer funding the war of attrition placed upon the palastinians ever since the brit goverment gave their land to the zionists there might be no mid east wars certinly alot less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 DIME munitions are there to replace DU. Never mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 DIME munitions are there to replace DU. Never mind... oh an they are miles safer aren't they!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 24, 2009 Share Posted January 24, 2009 oh an they are miles safer aren't they!!!! I think you'll find that the "safety" aspect depends on if you are at the delivery end or the receiving end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted January 24, 2009 Author Share Posted January 24, 2009 oh an they are miles safer aren't they!!!! I think you'll find that the "safety" aspect depends on if you are at the delivery end or the receiving end... Guns don't kill people, the .50 cal round I just fired from the gun kills people. Like you say safety is all a matter of perspective. My perspective is usually looking down the sights. Hamas never did themselves any favours. If all their Arab mates joined in they may have had a chance of getting rid of the Zionist Invaders (can't they just call them Israeli like everyone else?) but they didn't and Israel gave them a spanking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 oh an they are miles safer aren't they!!!! I think you'll find that the "safety" aspect depends on if you are at the delivery end or the receiving end... I think you'll find the "safety" aspect depends on how it deals with the civilan population, because as you have already stated P.K the IDF have been using the DIME bomb so as to "limit as far as they can civilian casulties" (P.K's words). So P.K, can you please tell me how DIME bombs "limit as far as they can civilian casulties", as opposed to WP??? Beacause my understanding is that the shrapnel in the DIME bomb is made from HMTA, which actually distrupts the body's biochemestry, damages the immune system, rapidly causes cancer, and distrupts your D.N.A breakdown. So in effect, is probably more dangerous than DU???? Please explain P.K how this is "an attempt to limit as far as they can civilian casualties. As Hamas views the deaths of the citizens it's supposed to be protecting as a win/win it deliberately fires rockets from densley populated areas. DIME munitions are the best way of dealing with them." Would keeping the ceasefire not been a better way of "dealing with THEM" for Israel?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.