Israel Acknowledges for 1st Time that it Used Phosphorus Bombs During War
Israel has admitted for the first time that it used phosphorus bombs during its war on Lebanon but said they were only used against Hezbollah targets.
Reports during the fighting said several Lebanese civilians carried injuries consistent with attacks by phosphorus, which burns when it comes into contact with air. Many corpses were "entirely shriveled with black-green skin" due to phosphorus.
The third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons, of which Israel and the United States are not signatories, restricts the use of "incendiary weapons" including phosphorus.
israel just admitted to war crime... oh i love it... foot meet mouth.
the use of phosphorous as a weapon is banned, beit used on hezbollah or the civillians, its defensive use (smoke screens, nighttime illumination) are legal.
but they are not signatory to it the convention, and thusly is not considered illegal (by the countries/leaders using them, which are not a signatory) and thusly... but murder is murder no matter how you slice it. and if were using this logic to begin with then no-one can possibly say that NK can't have nukes and even can't use them fot that matter as that are not a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation act... but there a gross double standard in the world today... israel and the US have been allowed to litterally get away with murder. whereas other countries are demonized and threatened for simply having nuclear power ambitions and a willing to have adequete defense against the countries threatening it. one set of rules for the US and whomever they wish to extend their fringe benifits to and another set of rules for rest of the world.
"Edery also pointed out that international law does not forbid the use of phosphorus and that "the IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law." i'm confzed as to why this is "a big deal" its no different then hezbollah comming out and saying we used XXXXXXX to launch at civilian targets in israel
as i pointed out phosphorus is not illegal, a defensive or stategic device, IE smoke screen and illumination... it is however banned as a weapon.
its the same as nuclear power... it legal to have and use nuclear power, non-offensively, however used as a weapon is strictly forbidden the world over.
Alot of what you have said may be true in principal. However I don't think you can compare the use of phosphorous to nukes, or the possibility of developing nukes under the guise of nuclear power. I'm not entirely familar with phosphorous weapons but I'm sure they are nothing in comparison to nukes.
Nukes, illegal or not are a much larger threat and regardless of my nationality or what treaties are signed I think its in everyones best interest that everyone attempt to keep an eye on things from getting too out of hand. Be it illegal or not.
So everything in context I am much more worried about the realistic dangers of nuclear development in insecure or untrustable nations than someone commiting a disputed war crime. Both should be taken care of both, but I think the priorities are in the right place at the moment.
Which reminds me....where do war crimes stand with US use of depleted uranium? I'm not positive but after seeing that in action I can't imagine an incendiary bomb being worse.
“…if were using this logic to begin with then no-one can possibly say that NK can't have nukes and even can't use them fot that matter as that are not a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation act...”
Not true. They are very much members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clinton made an agreement with the N. Koreans during his presidency. Within that agreement, N. Korea benefited with millions upon millions of dollars in financial aid. You didn’t think that the aid was being offered without stipulations, did you? In 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an "Agreed Framework" bringing North Korea into full compliance with its non-proliferation obligations under the NPT. North Korea affirmed its NPT member status and committed to allow implementation of its IAEA safeguards agreement.
“israel and the US have been allowed to litterally get away with murder. whereas other countries are demonized and threatened for simply having nuclear power ambitions and a willing to have adequete defense against the countries threatening it.” Many countries have become nuclear powers within the past couple of decades. Nobody has raised a stink with these countries, either. Why? Because they weren’t threatening to wipe other countries off the map as they were amidst development. India and Pakistan have openly been hostile for a while. But even during their nuclear weapons development, there was a military respect for one another and neither made threats of creating a mushroom cloud within the other’s borders. Compare their demeanor with that of Kim Jong-il’s and Iran’s loony president and you’ll see how the leaders of those countries set the stage for world opinion.
Phosphorous (As flares, GOOD. As incendiary, BAD) Furnaces (As heat source, GOOD. In concentration camps, BAD) Pliers (To pull out nails, GOOD. Nails of prisoners, BAD) There is always an acceptable conduct in Geneva Conditions. But maybe Israel is working to Bush's Geneva guidelines?
Okay, we've accepted all this is f*cked up. Let's see what the UN gonna do about it. And let's see how they vote on this.
www.un.org: Lets seem them write a 'strongly worded' remonstration on this.
Interesting Quote: "but said they were only used against Hezbollah targets" aka. "shrivelled corpses are far too charred for you to tell if it was Hezbollah or old man" - or - "We only fired into Hezbollah region. Yeah we can really precision bomb our billowing clouds of phsophorus that burn on contact and get carried by the wind. The non-Hezbollah district DOWNWIND won't be affected."
I found some links and photos about casualites of the Phorphorous attacks in Lebanon. But they were too ugly as the website was clearly meant to enrage and disgust. It worked on me; too many charred pieces the size of small children being pulled from the rubble by ambulance men.
"Alot of what you have said may be true in principal. However I don't think you can compare the use of phosphorous to nukes, or the possibility of developing nukes under the guise of nuclear power. I'm not entirely familar with phosphorous weapons but I'm sure they are nothing in comparison to nukes."
i wasn't comparing one two the other i was comparing the logic over an unsigned nation using banned weapons "legally".
"Nukes, illegal or not are a much larger threat and regardless of my nationality or what treaties are signed I think its in everyones best interest that everyone attempt to keep an eye on things from getting too out of hand. Be it illegal or not."
oh i agree... but again i wasn't comparing one to the other.
"So everything in context I am much more worried about the realistic dangers of nuclear development in insecure or untrustable nations than someone commiting a disputed war crime. Both should be taken care of both, but I think the priorities are in the right place at the moment."
nukes are far less likely to be used by anyone as there is no tolerance for it... phosphorus on the other hand is a banned weapon that the US has already gotten away with using, and thusly israel sees they can get away with it... and with approaches on law like that the wrong message is being sent... the message being you can get away with it. nukes are a greater threat if used, i agree, however no political leader is crazy enough to use nukes with the world stance one them... even if the US used them the world would quickly turn on them more viciously than ever before.
"Which reminds me....where do war crimes stand with US use of depleted uranium? I'm not positive but after seeing that in action I can't imagine an incendiary bomb being worse."
well the use of radioactive weapon is a war crime and DU being radioactive would have to fall into there. incidary are worse in the immediate timeframe, DU is worse in the long run. as far as the US with war crimes... i doubt it will take, and if it does the time of it will make outcome virtually irrelevant and the damage will have been long since done , and the perpetrator of such either out of people or deased... the UN is impotent
white phosphorus kills indiscriminately white is the primary reason its banned.
"true. They are very much members of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clinton made an agreement with the N. Koreans during his presidency. Within that agreement, N. Korea benefited with millions upon millions of dollars in financial aid. You didn’t think that the aid was being offered without stipulations, did you? In 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an "Agreed Framework" bringing North Korea into full compliance with its non-proliferation obligations under the NPT. North Korea affirmed its NPT member status and committed to allow implementation of its IAEA safeguards agreement."
might wanna check that again... they are one of very few nations that didn't sign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/ "North Korea claims to possess nuclear weapons, and it is widely believed to have a substantial arsenal of chemical weapons (deliverable by artillery). North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but withdrew in 2003, citing the failure of the United States to fulfill its end of the Agreed Framework, a 1994 agreement between the states to limit North Korea's nuclear ambitions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/ "Many countries have become nuclear powers within the past couple of decades. Nobody has raised a stink with these countries, either. Why? Because they weren’t threatening to wipe other countries off the map as they were amidst development. India and Pakistan have openly been hostile for a while. But even during their nuclear weapons development, there was a military respect for one another and neither made threats of creating a mushroom cloud within the other’s borders. Compare their demeanor with that of Kim Jong-il’s and Iran’s loony president and you’ll see how the leaders of those countries set the stage for world opinion."
compare that the the US threatening to nuke iran and threatening to attack north korea for the last few years... though iraq has been their main and most active front.
such acts prove that Israel is the terrorist. Israel got all this army and arsenal because they know that they'll always be attacked and hated due to their acts. I would never be able to accept a country that raped my land and killed my people.
The use of incendiary weapons is not a war crime. True, its use is restricted -- as are many other weapons. But has not been banned, provided its intended use is against military targets.
Geneva Convention Protocol III, Article II states that such weapons CAN be used against military personnel and targets, but prohibits its intentional use against civilians. The key word, here, is “intent”. In order for this to be classified as a War Crime, it must be proven that Israel knowingly and intentionally used such weapons against civilians. Civilian casualties are a nasty consequence of war, but intent is what differentiates a casualty-of-war from a War Crime. Provision 3 allows for civilian deaths/casualties provided “precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”
UD isn’t defined within the Geneva Convention. There was a proposal submitted, in 2003, to review the use of UD and its possible ban. Nothing has become of this proposal. It’s unlikely larger munitions will be affected by any new protocols, which is what the US uses UD for – for tipping armor piercing munitions. As with the incendiary provision, exceptions are made for munitions designed to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities, such as armour-piercing projectiles. As in the case of incindiary weapons/munitions, such are not considered "incindiary" weapons and are exempt from the provision.
“might wanna check that again... they are one of very few nations that didn't sign” They did sign. Let’s take a look at this quote from your source: “North Korea was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty…” To become a member, you must sign. There are no implicit members. You either sign and become a member, or don’t and opt out.
The following quote is where the controversy of N. Korea’s NPT status begins: “…but withdrew in 2003…” They withdrew after the US stopped sending them money and thus begins the debate over the legality of N. Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty. When I purchased my home and cars, I had to sign a contract/agreement. Within these contracts are stipulations and agreements that must be met (ie – must maintain homeowners insurance on the house, must maintain full-coverage insurance on the vehicles, terms and conditions of the loan, interest rates, payment penalties, etc…). If I decided in a few years that I no longer liked the terms of my agreements/contracts, I can’t simply walk away and make my own adjustments to the agreements. The fact my signature was signed to the agreement makes it legally binding. Many argue the same for N. Korea and their signature to the NPT. Can you legally say that your previous commitments are now void and null without any such provision that allows you to? This is where many argue that N. Korea is still member of the NPT; they just simply refuse to abide by the agreement. The world doesn't turn that way... not legally, anyways.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ What's good for one side is good for the other. Are you arguing that the US had no right to withdraw from this treaty and should still be bound by it?
“Are you arguing that the US had no right to withdraw from this treaty and should still be bound by it?”
Not at all. If anything, the article you present gives an example of how such withdrawals are to be conducted.
1) This treaty was between the US and Russia. 2) Prior to withdrawing, Bush consulted and discussed the possibility of withdrawal with all parties involved in the treaty (which happens to be Russia) 3) Such said consultations weren’t “last minute”. According to your article, Bush and Putin discussed this for a year prior to withdrawing. 4) According to Article 15 of the treaty, either party can withdraw from the treaty provided that the other party is given notice 6 months in advance of such withdrawal. 5) Bush gave the Russians 6 months notice. Your article states, “the US ambassador in Moscow delivered a formal document informing the Russian Government of the decision and invoking Article 15 of the treaty, which gives Russia six months' notice before the treaty expires.” 6) Both parties discussed the withdrawal and both parties were comfortable with the conditions and actions of such an action.
From what I read of your article, Bush took all steps necessary to make such a withdrawal legal. Putin concurs with this.
Compare this to what the N. Koreans did, and you’ll see the difference is night and day.
"Mr Bush says that states like North Korea and Iran are ambitiously pursuing weapons of mass destruction and proposes a missile defence system to combat the threat.
Mr Putin has been firmly opposed to the system, saying it would destroy the existing nuclear balance and create a new arms race.
He has said it could eventually undermine the Russian nuclear deterrent. "
by putin's and bush's own admission they don't want north korea to have a means to defend themselves against a nuclear threat.
I’ve never seen a picture of war where people are in the middle of a war-zone having a banquet. I’ve never seen one where they’re popping champagne and toasting to each other. I’ve never seen one where confetti is being tossed around and a big band is marching up a street while bombs are going off around them.
The fact of the matter is war is cruel, devastating, and ugly. The pictures in your link were very disturbing, to say the least. Behold: the product of war. If Hezbollah had not started the war, these pictures would not exist. If Hezbollah didn’t use their fellow citizens as meat-shields, these pictures wouldn’t exist. If Hezbollah would attempt to broker peace, instead of promoting war and hate, these pictures would not exist.
Your link does not mention how Israel took every reasonable step in avoiding civilian casualties. Remember the millions of leaflets that were dropped into residential areas warning the residents to flee because they intended to bomb the area? The Israeli Defense Forces went as far as to telephone people to get out! http://www.shortnews.com/ Many people in the past have mistaken anti-Hamas and anti-Hezbollah posts for being pro-Israel. I’m neither pro nor anti Israel. I’m simply anti-Dumb Sh!t.
Before committing yourself to being sympathetic with these terrorists, ask youself… “Do I know what their goals and objectives are? Do I fully understand the doctrine they preach from? Do I realize what these people promote and believe in?”
I’m not going to post links to propagandist sites, in response to your link -- only those that hide from the facts and truth lean on propaganda. Instead, I’m going to help educate you about the group you seem to defend…
As I said, your link provided a gruesome and one-sided depiction of the inadvertent civilian casualties of war. Now, lets take a look at the devastation and horror wreaked on the other side of the border… when innocent civilians are INTENTIONALLY targeted.
http://www.youtube.com/ I’ll allow you to take in these images before continuing your education…
Brigitte Gabriel, Lebanese activist and author of “Because They Hate”, tells of how Lebanese want peace with Israel but how Hezbollah is bent against it. http://www.youtube.com/
Who Are Hizballah & Hamas? And how have they directly contributed to the civilian casualties in Lebanon? http://www.youtube.com/
Why are these terrorists upset about the dead children? Because it yields fewer potentially recruitable suicide-terrorists. Three videos used to promote (brainwash) martyrdom to kids… (KoQ, do you own any of these?) http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/
How effective have these videos been on the impressionable youth? I’m not sure, but something is affecting the psyche of those children. In this video, several pre-adolescent girls talk about how martyrdom is their goal and how they believe Shahada (martyrdom) is better than peace and rights for the Palestinian people. http://www.youtube.com/ More disturbing images and voice of hate… from young children. http://www.youtube.com/ Perhaps the videos simply strengthen their resolve. This video interview of a former Lebanese terrorist tells how children are brought up to hate Jews, Christians, and everything western. KoQ, can you relate with what this guy is saying? I only ask because your last post indicates that you think kidnapping is “no big thing” and is relative to “peace”. http://www.youtube.com/
“We are a nation that drinks blood, and we know there is no better blood than the blood of Jews,” spews this Hamas member. http://www.youtube.com/
Arm yourself with knowledge. Educate yourself with information on both sides. Only then, can you make a true assessment and judge for yourself…
@carnold: That's very nice. The emotive music, the corpses.
1000 Lebanese, mainly civilians. 100 Israeli, mainly troops. You images don't take into account the sheer randomness of the 'precision' phosphor shells.
It would be whining to complain about children taught to hate the 'enemy'. Maybe you didn't see the Israeli children writing messages of peace and understanding on the ordnance shells to be used later on the Labanese population.
I don't have a point to make except: Israel Used Phosphorous Weapons. That kills civilians.
I'm not here to justify one side against the other. The only difference I see is one side looks like they need a shave, the other reeks of Lacoste. But bloody corpses caked in dust are all the same.
Don't muddy the issue with numerous video links, rehashed arguements, issues of NK, terrorism, Bush. As my previous post says, back to the article:
Israel used a Phosphorus weapons. A weapon banned by the Geneva convention.
"That's very nice. The emotive music, the corpses" Disregard the music. It's about the message.
"1000 Lebanese, mainly civilians." Did they just decide not to leave when they were warned? Or did they suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's unorthodox combat tactics? Go to my previous post. Click on the third link. I described it as, "Who Are Hezbollah & Hamas? And how have they directly contributed to the civilian casualties in Lebanon?" I could tell you what is said in this link, but I think it would have a greater impact on you to hear it from someone else. (The young lady giving the explanation is hot, too. She's definitely worth the watch.)
"Israel Used Phosphorous Weapons. That kills civilians." There isn't a war-time weapon created that doesn't have the potential for killing civilians. What’s your point?
"Israel used a Phosphorus weapons. A weapon banned by the Geneva convention." Does this seem like deja vu to you? I remember us debating about weapons once before... Reread my previous posts. Phosphorus weapons aren’t against the Geneveva Convention. Can you point out where it IS against the Geneva Convention? That's not likely, because I can point out where it's not.
Do a little research on the whole Geneva Convention thing. If you're unable to produce anything, I'll give you a link that supports my claim. :)
"Did they just decide not to leave when they were warned? Or did they suffer the consequences of Hezbollah's unorthodox combat tactics?"
well some that left had their convuey bombed by israel after cormforming to israel request to leave the area. and also hezbollah was fighting the only way you possibly can fight an army when severely outnumbered and on the short ened of the technological stick... geurilla warfare is proven effective against conventional armies, and thusly why its used... to expect a typical WW1 or 2 battlefeild just isn't going to happen those days have come and gone.
"There isn't a war-time weapon created that doesn't have the potential for killing civilians. What’s your point?"
i'm pretty sure he meant that they kill indescriminately which a primary reason they are banned from use as weapons.
"Does this seem like deja vu to you? I remember us debating about weapons once before... Reread my previous posts. Phosphorus weapons aren’t against the Geneveva Convention. Can you point out where it IS against the Geneva Convention? That's not likely, because I can point out where it's not."
it is banned but not any treaty that the US or israel are signed to... but then again i reiterate my comment about North korea...
in the same way its "not illegal" for the US and israel to use WP as they are not signatories to the applying conventions, its not illegal for NK to have and even use nukes because they are non a signatory (anymore) of the nuclear non-proliferation act.
"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/ "First, the moral argument. A hallmark of civilized nations is the conviction that certain types of warfare are intolerable, either because they are indiscriminate and more likely to harm civilians than combatants, or because they inflict hideous and unnecessary suffering that is disproportionate to their military value. The prologue to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which banned the use in war of chemical and biological weapons, stated that such weapons have been "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world." Indeed, given the widely shared belief that warfare with poison gas and germs is taboo, the Geneva Protocol has achieved the status of customary international law, meaning it is legally binding even on states that have not signed and ratified it."
"Today, the United States is one of the very few Western democracies that have rejected treaties banning antipersonnel landmines and prohibiting the use of incendiary weapons such as napalm and white phosphorus in areas, including cities, where civilians are at risk. But Washington cannot evade its moral responsibility so easily. If the United States wishes to set an inspirational example for other countries, it must accept certain constraints on its own actions, even if that means renouncing weapons that have military utility in some situations."
the above excepts are from the following link:
http://www.commondreams.org/ "Do a little research on the whole Geneva Convention thing. If you're unable to produce anything, I'll give you a link that supports my claim. :)"
done... it is banned, the US and israel however do not recognise the ban, they are two of few nation that do not recognise the ban.
you have no idea what you are talking about--- Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty.
i'm sure this info has been given to you plenty of times but you keep overlooking it and making statements that just arent true
"you have no idea what you are talking about--- Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of white phosphorous against civilians or in civilian areas. However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty.
i'm sure this info has been given to you plenty of times but you keep overlooking it and making statements that just arent true"
and where is israel using them... in cities...urban areas with CIVILIANS... WP kills indiscriminately hense its banned...
Darn you, Havoc. I wanted to make redstain do a little legwork (and become educated in the process) before breaking this bit of info out.
The quotes you quoted mention other treaties, but they don’t mention the treaties that the US has so “defiantly ignored”. What treaties are these, btw?
kuritzaa is correct. And you are incorrect
(Haven’t you learned not to match wits with me, yet? :P ).
I present to you, Protocol III…
Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons. Geneva, 10 October 1980 Article 1 Definitions For the purpose of this Protocol: 1. Incendiary weapon" means any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. (a) Incendiary weapons can take the form of, for example, flame throwers, fougasses, shells, rockets, grenades, mines, bombs and other containers of incendiary substances. (b) Incendiary weapons do not include: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities. 2. Concentration of civilians" means any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, or inhabited towns or villages, or as in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads. 3. Military objective" means, so far as objects are concerned, any object which by its nature, location, purpose or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 4. Civilian objects" are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 3. 5. Feasible precautions" are those precautions which are practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations. Article 2 Protection of civilians and civilian objects 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects. 4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
"and where is israel using them... in cities...urban areas with CIVILIANS"
The Geneva Convention doesn't say WHERE you can use these weapons. Only how. Read up... I've supplied you with Article III.
You apparently consider Phosphorus a chemical weapon. It is not. It relies upon a chemical reaction to create it's incindiary properties, but that does not classify it as a chemical weapon.
Read the Geneva Convention for the definition of a chemical weapon. I already have... :)
"WP kills indiscriminately hense its banned... " Again, read the Convention...
"The Geneva Convention doesn't say WHERE you can use these weapons. Only how. Read up... I've supplied you with Article III."
in an urban area there are civilians around... this is a fact, like the US (though probably to a much lesser degree) they were inevitably if not intentionally using them on civilians by using them in urban areas.
"You apparently consider Phosphorus a chemical weapon. It is not. It relies upon a chemical reaction to create it's incindiary properties, but that does not classify it as a chemical weapon.
Read the Geneva Convention for the definition of a chemical weapon. I already have... :)"
yes i did, your correct
"WP kills indiscriminately hense its banned... " Again, read the Convention...
ah, yes it not banned from use entirely, but how it has been used is, again it kill indecriminately thusly really can't lawfulyl be used how it hass been by both Israel and the US. but again overall your correct.
Some people on this site would beat a dead horse to a second death before admitting to their errors. I'm glad to see you're not one of them. Anyone that can admit when they're wrong is certainly deserving of respect.
You've earned mine, Havoc. [Bows deeply.]
You still haven't told me about those other treaties in your quotes, though. What treaties are they?
that...hizbollah is considered a military unit whose bases are AMONGST/NEXT/NEAR civilians..this is their own choosing. i'm sure if they didnt hide amongst the lebanese population only THEY would get burnt..they decide to create a military BASE in the middle of population..i mean i wish the lebanese people would tell them to take their fight elsewhere (out of the cities) and not endanger the populous purposefully
