Lebanon To Defend Itself Against Israeli Attack Regardless of Them Being Against Hezollah - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;21605460]You think the desire to annihilate every innocent man, woman and child is an expectable reaction?[/QUOTE] Wow wow, whats with the extreme exaggeration? Relax we're not talking about Hitler. Hezbollah and Hamas do not have the ability to the strike military targets, whether you think they do or not, they don't. Their best option is to launch rockets into Israel because that is the [B]ONLY[/B] option they have. Expanding borders onto an other nation, demolishing homes, indiscriminate killings are in act of war. If Hamas and Hezbollah had the ability to only attack military targets, they would, unfortunately it is impossible. Israel on the other hand, has one of the most advanced military on earth, expert guidance systems, yet [I]somehow[/I] Israel still annihilates every innocent man, woman and child. [1996] Qana massacre [2006] Qana massacre [2006] Gaza Beach explosion [2008] Gaza massacre A small organizations that do not have the power to guide their rockets have killed less civilians then an army who do have the ability to.

[QUOTE=starpluck;21606188] Hezbollah and Hamas do not have the ability to the strike military targets, whether you think they do or not, they don't. Their best option is to launch rockets into Israel because that is the [B]ONLY[/B] option they have.[/QUOTE] "Al-Qaeda do not have the ability to the strike military targets, wether you think they do or not, they don't. Their best option is to kidnap planes and crash them into towers in America because that is the [B]ONLY[/B] option they have."

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21606234]"Al-Qaeda do not have the ability to the strike military targets, wether you think they do or not, they don't. Their best option is to kidnap planes and crash them into towers in America because that is the [B]ONLY[/B] option they have."[/QUOTE] Hamas and Al-Qaeda aren't even remotely comparable. Try again.

They are both terror organizations, if you're justifying one, you're justifying the other.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21606283]They are both terror organizations, if you're justifying one, you're justifying the other.[/QUOTE] Hamas leaders warned against the spread of Al-Qaeda's ideas in Palestinian circles and especially among Hamas members. Imprisoned Hamas leaders described Al-Qaeda's thinking as "isolationist and destructive." The imprisoned leaders urged their colleagues to do everything possible to stop Al-Qaeda's ideas from gaining ground among Hamas supporters. Later on, preachers at mosques controlled by Hamas started warning the congregation against "admiring" 9/11, reminding worshippers that the Palestinians cannot survive without international support. [editline]02:48PM[/editline] Hamas have also on many occasions rejected Al-Qaeda's support. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4776578.stm[/url]

It doesn't matter, you're justifying terror. You're saying "well I know what they do is wrong but think about the circumstances, any man in their position will do these things", but the truth is even though any man will do these things in their position (which I doubt), any man must pay. If you're too poor to buy food, it doesn't justify illegal action to get it. There are always better actions to take than terror or crime, they are simply taking the "easy way", the way where you don't have to think, but act. If they thought about it they could perhaps come to the conclusion that giving up and using diplomacy to get their goals will be better, not only for them and Israel, but for the rest of the world once the conflict is over and we can focus on other things.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21606409]It doesn't matter, you're justifying terror. You're saying "well I know what they do is wrong but think about the circumstances, any man in their position will do these things", but the truth is even though any man will do these things in their position (which I doubt), any man must pay. If you're too poor to buy food, it doesn't justify illegal action to get it. There are always better actions to take than terror or crime, they are simply taking the "easy way", the way where you don't have to think, but act. If they thought about it they could perhaps come to the conclusion that giving up and using diplomacy to get their goals will be better, not only for them and Israel, but for the rest of the world once the conflict is over and we can focus on other things.[/QUOTE] I am not against the rockets or them standing up for the Palestinian people. So, the Zionists are allowed to use their tanks and missiles and the Palestinians are not allowed to use anything? They work with what they got! Hamas does care for the Palestinian people but that is hard for some foreigners to understand. Unfortunately, many people think terrorists are simply people who hate freedom and are religious fanatics. When you actually study this and look at it from a different perspective, you'll learn that over 80% of suicide bombers have had family members killed by the Israeli "[I]Defense[/I]" Forces. And the first suicide bombing happened at the end of the First Intifada, 6 years of intensively peaceful resistance to Israel's occupation, in which 87 Israelis and 3 minors were killed and 874 Palestinians and 250 minors were killed. That first suicide bombing was after 26 years of continued military occupation in which living conditions became progressively worse.

[QUOTE=starpluck;21606188] Israel on the other hand, has one of the most advanced military on earth, expert guidance systems, yet [I]somehow[/I] Israel still annihilates every innocent man, woman and child. [1996] Qana massacre [2006] Qana massacre [2006] Gaza Beach explosion [2008] Gaza massacre [/QUOTE] Nice way of exaggerating it yourself. Calling is massacres, "annihilate every innocent man, woman and child"... You're a hypocrite you know that? You're doing exactly the same thing that guy you commented. [quote] Hamas does care for the Palestinian people but that is hard for some foreigners to understand [/quote] Haha, I laughed real hard here. If you really believe what you're saying, I don't know.. You're a victim of a good Hamas propaganda. [quote] So, the Zionists are allowed to use their tanks and missiles and the Palestinians are not allowed to use anything? They work with what they got! [/quote] They don't use them as long as Hamas or any other terrorist organization doesn't use weapons against them.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21606521]Nice way of exaggerating it yourself. Calling is massacres, "annihilate every innocent man, woman and child"... You're a hypocrite you know that? You're doing exactly the same thing that guy you commented.[/QUOTE] [B]mas·sa·cre[/B]   [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M01/M0190400"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif[/IMG][/URL] /ˈmæs[IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG]ə[IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG]kər/ [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/IMG][/URL] Show Spelled [mas-uh-ker] [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/IMG][/URL] Show IPA noun, verb,-cred, -cring. –noun1.the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. That is exactly what a massacre means, too bad. [editline]03:11PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21606521] Haha, I laughed real hard here. If you really believe what you're saying, I don't know.. You're a victim of a good Hamas propaganda.[/quote] Whose freedom is Hamas fighting for?

I think Israel should calm the fuck down. We don't need so many wars.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21606521]They don't use them as long as Hamas or any other terrorist organization doesn't use weapons against them.[/QUOTE] I already elaborated on this this: " When you actually study this and look at it from a different perspective, you'll learn that over 80% of suicide bombers have had family members killed by the Israeli "[I]Defense[/I]" Forces. And the first suicide bombing happened at the end of the First Intifada, 6 years of intensively peaceful resistance to Israel's occupation, in which 87 Israelis and 3 minors were killed and 874 Palestinians and 250 minors were killed. That first suicide bombing was after 26 years of continued military occupation in which living conditions became progressively worse. "

Israel doesn't want war, it won't attack someone who didn't attack it first or isn't going to attack it first, why do you think we declared peace with Jordan and Egypt? Relations with these countries greatly improved since then.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21606635]Israel doesn't want war, it won't attack someone who didn't attack it first or isn't going to attack it first, why do you think we declared peace with Jordan and Egypt? Relations with these countries greatly improved since then.[/QUOTE] No one wants war. However, people will always retaliate. Every nation retaliates differently.

How should they defend it

[QUOTE=starpluck;21606568][B]mas·sa·cre[/B]   [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/M01/M0190400"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif[/IMG][/URL] /ˈmæs[IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG]ə[IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png[/IMG]kər/ [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/IMG][/URL] Show Spelled [mas-uh-ker] [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html"][IMG]http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif[/IMG][/URL] Show IPA noun, verb,-cred, -cring. –noun1.the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder. That is exactly what a massacre means, too bad. [/QUOTE] Yes, that's exactly what massacre means. I agree the death of so many civilians in the last conflict was unnecessary, but I do not agree that it was "indiscriminate killing" or "persecution or for revenge or plunder." Fact is density in Gaza is huge, it's impossible to hit military targets without hitting civilians. And not doing anything against attackers is also not an option. (At this point you suppose to show the white phosphorous picture and say how disturbing that picture is)

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21607058]Yes, that's exactly what massacre means. I agree the death of so many civilians in the last conflict was unnecessary, but I do not agree that it was "indiscriminate killing" or "persecution or for revenge or plunder." Fact is density in Gaza is huge, it's impossible to hit military targets without hitting civilians. And not doing anything against attackers is also not an option. (At this point you suppose to show the white phosphorous picture and say how disturbing that picture is)[/QUOTE] If Gaza is so dense, then why the hell did Israel use phosphorus?

Israel's attitude toward engaging enemy troops is the problem. They're trained to fight conventional wars, not human shield wars. If they actively make an effort to save civilians, the casualties would obviously drop. As for Lebanon defending themselves, go for it. If you are against Hezbollah, co-operate and actively try to assist them. They aren't going to invade if you're helping them and it's a huge gesture of goodwill. To the guy who said the Pro-Israel guys are Jews, I am Australian, Atheist, a Democratic Socialist and a cunt.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;21607275]Israel's attitude toward engaging enemy troops is the problem. They're trained to fight conventional wars, not human shield wars. If they actively make an effort to save civilians, the casualties would obviously drop. [/QUOTE] Its debatable weather Hamas uses human shields. However it is a well known documented fact Israel uses human shields extremely often.

[QUOTE=starpluck;21607018]No one wants war. However, people will always retaliate. Every nation retaliates differently.[/QUOTE] Responding with terror is wrong, just like the 9/11 attacks are wrong and can't be justified, launching rockets specifically against civilians can't be justified, and when it can't be solved diplomatically, military action must take place to secure peace.

And Hamas is most defiantly not trained to fight against human shields. [editline]04:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21607336]Responding with terror is wrong, just like the 9/11 attacks are wrong and can't be justified, launching rockets specifically against civilians can't be justified, and when it can't be solved diplomatically, military action must take place to secure peace.[/QUOTE] Once again, Hamas does not intend to fire against civilians; they cannot control their rockets.

The Israel - Palestine thread got DDT'd a few minutes after your post, so I'll respond to it here: [QUOTE]You did not read it one bit. Only a few testimonies were from civilians, and all they asked was "Was the IDF in the area when this got bombed?" all of them responded no, without knowing what the meaning of the questioning was. Later, it was revealed that the questioning was to prove that no IDF soldiers were present when the "supposed" smoke-screen was deployed, proving that it was not Israel's intentions entirely. [/QUOTE] I did read it, about half of it, which is enough to get the point. The thing is, you can't count on the civilians' testimony because they might lie or just not know enough, just because they didn't see any IDF soldiers doesn't mean they weren't there. [QUOTE]Furthermore, All UN officials said they were no Hamas with them. UN officials would know if Hamas was with them.[/QUOTE] Again you are counting on testimonies, not proof. Let's assume for a second that there were Hamas militants in UN buildings, why would the UN admit to such a thing? It would put them in a bad light, "bad publicity", if you will. [QUOTE]Last, investigations were ALSO carried out through the bombed civilian centers, IDF claimed Hamas were attacking IDF soldiers from there. There were no bullet holes, bullet casings and other evidence that gun battles will always leave.[/QUOTE] Maybe the fire fights took place a few blocks away? The WP bombs might have not landed on it's target due to a lot of reasons, which caused them to hit civilian buildings in the area. [QUOTE]This did not refute the HRW claims in any way, in fact this was the common assumption UNTIL HRW proved every point listed here wrong with substantial evidence.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the Gonzaga report claimed the accusations against the IDF are false and then the HRW proved they were right? [QUOTE]Once again, these were the baseless claims the IDF first stated, after numerous investigations it did indeed prove that there were no IDF present when phosphorus nor any inevitable physical evidence to prove it.[/QUOTE] They are not baseless claims, there were investigations on the matter and they found out the IDF only targeted militants and terrorists. Also I'd like to mention the fact that using WP costs a lot of money, do you really think the IDF would waste this money, risk persecution on grounds of war crimes, just so it could kill several Palestinian civilians? If killing civilians was an actual goal for the IDF, there wasn't even a discussion on wether or not they committed war crimes. [editline]06:21PM[/editline] [QUOTE]Once again, Hamas does not intend to fire against civilians; they cannot control their rockets.[/QUOTE] No, they know they'll hit civilians, and just firing rockets wherever they might land is also terrorism. Their intention is hitting civilians and that's the essence of terror, there is no way you can deny or justify this.

Israel targets Palestinian civilians, such as traffic cops in airstrikes, because they say they aid Hamas, directly or indirectly. Israel has national service. Under Israel's logic, Hamas can legitimately target civilians. Your policies are junk. No wonder the world hates you lol

[quote] I did read it, about half of it, which is enough to get the point. The thing is, you can't count on the civilians' testimony because they might lie or just not know enough, just because they didn't see any IDF soldiers doesn't mean they weren't there.[/quote] Various amount of civilians were asked, also the conclusion of the report was not primarily based on civilian testimonies [quote] Again you are counting on testimonies, not proof. Let's assume for a second that there were Hamas militants in UN buildings, why would the UN admit to such a thing? It would put them in a bad light, "bad publicity", if you will.[/quote] No. They could easily say they were forcefully occupied by Hamas. Do you honestly think that the U.N would lie? And even then, do you realize how much fucking shit the U.N will be in if the investigation that were carried out proved that there was Hamas inhabiting the building? [quote] Maybe the fire fights took place a few blocks away? The WP bombs might have not landed on it's target due to a lot of reasons, which caused them to hit civilian buildings in the area.[/quote] According to the IDF, those buildings were the target because they according to the IDF harbored Hamas, they were later proved wrong by investigations. [quote] I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that the Gonzaga report claimed the accusations against the IDF are false and then the HRW proved they were right? [/quote] Yes. [quote] They are not baseless claims, there were investigations on the matter and they found out the IDF only targeted militants and terrorists.[/quote]Show me where it states the 'investigation' is and how it was done. All it stated was "The IDF only targeted militants" [quote] Also I'd like to mention the fact that using WP costs a lot of money, do you really think the IDF would waste this money, risk persecution on grounds of war crimes, just so it could kill several Palestinian civilians? If killing civilians was an actual goal for the IDF, there wasn't even a discussion on wether or not they committed war crimes.[/quote] Cash is the not issue for Israel; they receive 7 million dollars per day, by the U.S this is more aid then Africa gets. The reason why there's a discussion because one side claims Israel didn't recklessly attack Gaza, while the other side claims other wise. [quote] No, they know they'll hit civilians, and just firing rockets wherever they might land is also terrorism. Their intention is hitting civilians and that's the essence of terror, there is no way you can deny or justify this.[/quote] [URL="http://divestmentproject.org/downloads/Why_Our_Govt2007.pdf"]Israel[/URL] uses violence today to prevent the Palestinian refugees from returning to the homes and territory (inside the part of Palestine now called Israel) from which they were [URL="http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266620828&sr=1-1"] expelled by Zionist violence in the past[/URL]. They were expelled for only one reason--they were not Jewish. This violence has an unjust purpose: ethnic cleansing. Its purpose is to ensure that the population of Israel will be at least 80% Jewish, which is what Israel's [URL="http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/24797037/Ilan-Papps-Latest-Book-Exposes-Zionist-Ethnic-Cleansing-as-Premeditated"] leaders say it must be[/URL] in order to be a Jewish state. Violence in defense of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state is violence in defense of ethnic cleansing. When this violence kills somebody, no matter whether on purpose or accidentally, and no matter whether the victim is a civilian or a soldier, it is 100% unjustifiable homicide. It is a criminal act. The first question is this: If Hamas does something morally wrong, does that in any way justify Israel's denial of the right of return to millions of Palestinian refugees? The answer is clearly, No. For example, would anybody claim that nineteenth century slavery in the U.S. was justified by the fact that some slaves (like Nat Turner in 1831) wrongly killed white children during their resistance to slavery? The second question is: Does Hamas intentionally kill civilians? The latest [URL="http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2010/02/07/hamas_backtracks_on_apology_over_hurting_israeli_civilians/"] report[/URL] is that Hamas had withdrawn its earlier apology for Israeli civilians killed by its rockets. This suggests that the killing was intentional. If Hamas intentionally kills civilians, then that is wrong. But it is a wrong that in no way justifies Israel's violence for the purpose of denying Palestinian refugees their right of return. (Furthermore, if Israel did grant the right of return and compensation for stolen property--as Germany did for Jews-- then those individual Palestinians, in Hamas or not, who continued to advocate violence against Israeli civilians would no longer have enough support from the Palestinian people to carry it out; instead Palestinians would want them to be arrested as criminals.)

[QUOTE=starpluck;21607997] No. They could easily say they were forcefully occupied by Hamas. Do you honestly think that the U.N would lie? And even then, do you realize how much fucking shit the U.N will be in if the investigation that were carried out proved that there was Hamas inhabiting the building?[/QUOTE] I don't claim to know wether they lied or not and why, I just said it was an option. Perhaps the militants sneaked into the UN facilities and fired rockets from clear areas in the buildings where no one saw them? You weren't there and I wasn't there, so we can't be sure. Testimonies also aren't legal proof, the fact is no one can be sure, you're just relying on the UN's words and I'm relying on the IDF's words, in this case no clear facts exist to prove the IDF is guilty of war crimes. [QUOTE=starpluck;21607997]According to the IDF, those buildings were the target because they according to the IDF harbored Hamas, they were later proved wrong by investigations.[/QUOTE] Where exactly were they proved wrong? [QUOTE=starpluck;21607997]Yes.[/QUOTE] Then explain to me please, how come the Gonzaga report acknowledges the HRW's "Rain of Fire" report, while the "Rain of Fire" report doesn't acknowledge the Gonzaga report, and also the fact that the "Rain of Fire" report was released in march of 2009 while the Gonaza report was released in 2010? [QUOTE=starpluck;21607997]Show me where it states the 'investigation' is and how it was done. All it stated was "The IDF only targeted militants"[/QUOTE] From the Gonzaga report: The whole point of this paragraph is: "However, all of the NGOs' investigations of the Israeli use of white phosphorus in Gaza failed to present any of this kind of evidence that would prove the contention that Israel made the Gazan civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks." The rest is more details: "See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, supra note 13; Amnesty International, supra note 122; B'Tselem, supra note 123 (all failing in their reports to present any evidence in their reports of Israel having "made the civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks."). These organizations could have theoretically proved that Israel made the civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks by presenting evidence of internal government/military memos showing that the government intended to use the white phosphorus to attack the civilian population or civilian objects, or evidence of subordinate officers (or commanders) admitting that the commanders ordered the civilian population to be targeted for white phosphorus attacks. Although the internal government memos would be understandably hard to find or receive, the plethora of subordinate Israeli soldiers willing to admit the wrongdoing of their commanders over the years seems to indicate that this type of evidence would not be difficult to obtain by using minimal investigative efforts. However, all of the NGOs' investigations of the Israeli use of white phosphorus in Gaza failed to present any of this kind of evidence that would prove the contention that Israel made the Gazan civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks." [QUOTE=starpluck;21607997]Cash is the not issue for Israel; they receive 7 million dollars per day, by the U.S this is more aid then Africa gets. The reason why there's a discussion because one side claims Israel didn't recklessly attack Gaza, while the other side claims other wise.[/QUOTE] The reason why there's a discussion is because you don't agree that there are no facts or enough supporting evidence that the IDF committed war crimes. If this was a trial it would have been long dismissed with the IDF in the clear. I have to go now but I'll respond to the last part of your post later.

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21608387]The reason why there's a discussion is because you don't agree that there are no facts or enough supporting evidence that the IDF committed war crimes. If this was a trial it would have been long dismissed with the IDF in the clear.[/QUOTE] It's pretty much widely accepted that Israel commits war crimes.

[QUOTE=ItchyBarracuda;21586342]Facts? Hahahaha. Fucking internet. You know nothing of history, but pretend you do. Fucking bleeding hearts with your brainwashed, abuse of freedom, "GOD FORBID WE OFFEND ANYONE" attitude. Israel has done what is necessary to defend itself. Imagine being the one country surrounded by your enemies. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. People have hated Jews since the beginning of time and this is no different, it just never ends.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/8797/phosphorattackonunbuild.jpg[/img] Here's a picture for you. It's of a UN building sheltering palestine kids being bombed with white phosphorus by the Israeli "Defense" Forces.

Haha, and what did I say, I love when people show that picture.. It's so satisfying. EDIT: Forgot to mention, at this point people should call me "inhumane" and "disgusting" and whatnot.

[QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21608584]Haha, and what did I say, I love when people show that picture.. It's so satisfying.[/QUOTE] Nevertheless, it's so [i]fucking stupid and irresponsible[/i] of them to use white phosphorus -which by the way is forbidden by several international laws, among them the Geneve convention- in a densely populated area, isn' it?

[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21608387]I don't claim to know wether they lied or not and why, I just said it was an option. Perhaps the militants sneaked into the UN facilities and fired rockets from clear areas in the buildings where no one saw them? You weren't there and I wasn't there, so we can't be sure. Testimonies also aren't legal proof, the fact is no one can be sure, you're just relying on the UN's words and I'm relying on the IDF's words, in this case no clear facts exist to prove the IDF is guilty of war crimes. [/QUOTE] The U.N would know if somebody was using their building as a rocket pad, trust me. I also would take the U.N's word over the IDF any-day, the U.N is highly trust-able while the IDF is a untrustworthy army. Mossad contributes to their reputation. [quote] Where exactly were they proved wrong?[/quote]I stated it many time, no physical evidence proved that there was a gun fight. [quote] Then explain to me please, how come the Gonzaga report acknowledges the HRW's "Rain of Fire" report, while the "Rain of Fire" report doesn't acknowledge the Gonzaga report, and also the fact that the "Rain of Fire" report was released in march of 2009 while the Gonaza report was released in 2010?[/quote]What are you trying to prove? It acknowledged it, but it failed to refute it. [quote] From the Gonzaga report: The whole point of this paragraph is: "However, all of the NGOs' investigations of the Israeli use of white phosphorus in Gaza failed to present any of this kind of evidence that would prove the contention that Israel made the Gazan civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks." The rest is more details: "See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, supra note 13; Amnesty International, supra note 122; B'Tselem, supra note 123 (all failing in their reports to present any evidence in their reports of Israel having "made the civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks."). These organizations could have theoretically proved that Israel made the civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks by presenting evidence of internal government/military memos showing that the government intended to use the white phosphorus to attack the civilian population or civilian objects, or evidence of subordinate officers (or commanders) admitting that the commanders ordered the civilian population to be targeted for white phosphorus attacks. Although the internal government memos would be understandably hard to find or receive, the plethora of subordinate Israeli soldiers willing to admit the wrongdoing of their commanders over the years seems to indicate that this type of evidence would not be difficult to obtain by using minimal investigative efforts. However, all of the NGOs' investigations of the Israeli use of white phosphorus in Gaza failed to present any of this kind of evidence that would prove the contention that Israel made the Gazan civilian population the object of white phosphorus attacks."[/quote]This report is riddled with errors and outright fabrications. They provided sufficient evidence proving that civilians were the target (By bombing shelters that had no Hamas) and a later investigation [B]disproved[/B] the IDFs claim that Hamas inhabited the building. The IDF is not going to acknowledged they fucked up or it was intentional, so claimed it harbored militants. Unfortunately for the IDF, Human Right Watch conducted a throughout investigation proving otherwise. [editline]05:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Crhem van der B;21608584]Haha, and what did I say, I love when people show that picture.. It's so satisfying. EDIT: Forgot to mention, at this point people should call me "inhumane" and "disgusting" and whatnot.[/QUOTE] Haha, because the picture totally becomes invalidated by your post.

Yes, I indeed agree that it was stupid and irresponsible to use such a weapon in a so densely populated area. But really, nobody said the reason they used it. The only thing the IDF did was acknowledging the fact that it was. Why? Nobody knows. I really doubt for the sole purpose of killing innocent people. Why would they do that? To make more people anti-Israel? I'm pretty sure there is a "deeper" story than "Oh, we have white phosphorous, why not kill some people with it?". EDIT: I can also pay this picture game: [img]http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45336000/jpg/_45336940_-12.jpg[/img] Here's a picture for you. It's a kindergarten hit by a Hamas rocket. Luckly, there was nobody inside at the time.