Scores die in Israeli air strikes

Shaye87 · 10 Jan 2009 at 14:39

Don't forget the Hammas kills its own people so no wonder! They're nuts... there would have been twice the Hammas members killed and half civilians dead by now if the Hammas wouldn't be using the civilians as shields... sad - but true.

Jono8 · 10 Jan 2009 at 15:48

Pfft. Just let them get on with it.

Gilo · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:34

aardvark said:
white phosphorous - its a chemical weapon, plain and simple.

not according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, even if other groups say it is.

Jono8 · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:39

I really do not understand a lot of the hysteria over some chemical weapons aswell (especially this white phosphorus stuff).

People seem to think it is terrible to use a chemical that can chemical burn your skin or damage your live or kidneys or affect your breathing, but think its is fine to use large amounts of high explosives that will blow you to bits and send searing hot shrapnel shredding through peoples bodies. :confused:

fraps · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:41

Gilo said:
not according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, even if other groups say it is.

have a look at these pictures and tell me it's not a chemical weapon:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=IRM&sa=G

Tefal · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:42

There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death--Lyon Playfair

.

Tefal · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:43

fraps said:
have a look at these pictures and tell me it's not a chemical weapon:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=IRM&sa=G

They're burns ffs, what do you think happens if you're too close to a bomb?

Chemical weapons like VX, don;t really leave many visible damage.

arigold · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:44

gas man its all about the gas

int · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:45

fraps said:
have a look at these pictures and tell me it's not a chemical weapon:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=IRM&sa=G

When bombs explode they get hot.

Heat burns.

Burning makes owies like that.

Any photo of a guy with burns could be taken as a white phosphorus effect, hell that guy might have just fallen over and grazed his face :/

Tefal · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:49

int said:
When bombs explode they get hot.

Heat burns.

Burning makes owies like that.

Any photo of a guy with burns could be taken as a white phosphorus effect, hell that guy might have just fallen over and grazed his face :/

real chemical weapons are a much more preferable way of going than ,gunshots/shrapnel/massive burns/over pressure.

Only person to ever die from VX ran 100m after his attacker collapsed then died 10 days later still in the coma. (obviously it would be less in a battle feild with higher concs and less treatment.

I'd prefer that than having my internal organs/limbs ripped to shreds.

clv101 · 10 Jan 2009 at 16:53

Jono8 said:
I really do not understand a lot of the hysteria over some chemical weapons aswell (especially this white phosphorus stuff).

People seem to think it is terrible to use a chemical that can chemical burn your skin or damage your live or kidneys or affect your breathing, but think its is fine to use large amounts of high explosives that will blow you to bits and send searing hot shrapnel shredding through peoples bodies.

Yeah - just shows how silly war is. It's okay do fire heavy metal rounds at people at hundreds of meters per second in such a way that they either kill outright or sever limbs. However 'non-lethal' weapons such as lasers that blind gas that incapacitates are seen as unacceptable. It is officially seen as better to blow someone's leg off or kill them that it is to blind them.

Jono8 · 10 Jan 2009 at 17:17

I would rather have some asthma, some chemical burns or impaired vision than have my legs blown off and my organs punctured by shrapnel.

fraps · 10 Jan 2009 at 17:28

Enough. It's time for a boycott:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel

"Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company.""

I like

aardvark · 10 Jan 2009 at 17:36

Gilo said:
not according to the Chemical Weapons Convention, even if other groups say it is.

but it is by any real definition - the fact that it creates smoke is irrelevant, its still a very dangerous chemical that burns any human tissue it comes into contact with.

Amnesia · 10 Jan 2009 at 17:42

fraps said:
Enough. It's time for a boycott:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel

"Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, managing director of a British telecom specialising in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax: "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company.""

I like

funnily enough i think there is more chance of that working than the UN/US/UK or whoever else doing anything.

not that i rate the chances of success from that very high. abt 10% if optimistic

Iraklis F.C. · 10 Jan 2009 at 20:03

have you seen the jewish/israeli citizen (female) in tely which was saying in camera that she couldnt care less if they had to kill all of the palestinians in gaza..."does this sound fascist to you?...*lifts shoulders*"

wtf , what kind of attitude is this? Has she ever heard of the holocaust ?

Tefal · 10 Jan 2009 at 20:05

Iraklis F.C. said:
have you seen the jewish/israeli citizen (female) in tely which was saying in camera that she couldnt care less if they had to kill all of the palestinians in gaza..."does this sound fascist to you?...*lifts shoulders*"

wtf , what kind of attitude is this? Has she ever heard of the holocaust ?

Have you not seen the hordes of people saying "nuke isreal" "back to the ovens" " gas the jews" then?

Iraklis F.C. · 10 Jan 2009 at 20:08

yes i have seen them and i know they are not capable of exercising their hot blooded opinions , the israelis in the other hand i know and i can see they are in position to exterminate even the lizzards alive in palestine.

Tombo · 10 Jan 2009 at 20:11

fraps said:

Evangelion said:
Yes, I think they do.

They also have the choice of bombing or not bombing.

Not much of a choice though is it.

Tefal · 10 Jan 2009 at 20:11

Iraklis F.C. said:
yes i have seen them and i know they are not capable of exercising their hot blooded opinions , the israelis in the other hand i know and i can see they are in position to exterminate even the lizzards alive in palestine.

So how exactly is a person "attitude" affected by the capability of a nation?

Especially when the others make direct reference to the holocaust you just make up a dodgy link.