Israel using cluster bombs and white phosphorus

NOTE: I don't give one damned bit about Hamas members, but I do care about innocent civilians, the people without the weapons in their hands.

In it's ground offensive Israel has started to deploy white phosphorus shells and cluster bombs on densily populated civilian areas.

A month after the world signed a treaty prohibiting the use of cluster bombs, Israel uses them on civilians (they never signed it, neither did the US, way to go to hold the moral highground)

White phosphorus, wildly seen as a chemical weapon, except by a couple including Israel and the US (moral leadership, but we've come to expect it ever since the landmine treaty).
Even US military seems conflicted on it: "Within the US Army, there appears to be conflicting advice on the use of WP against humans. According to the field manual on the Rule of Land Warfare, "The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and other incendiary agents, against targets requiring their use is not violative of international law."[35] However, the ST 100-3 Battle Book, a student text published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth states that "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

Israeli military and intelligence for that matter are elite, when an army like that uses these kinds of weapons, it's not out of necessity, but out of choice.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, but by using these weapons Israel is engaging in state terrorism in my book, these things might have been normal in 1940, but not anymore.
< Sharon Osbourne kicks ass | In Defense of Ben Lyons >
 Display:

Over recent years, the US has also used WP munitians in populated areas of Iraq, along with other Banned/Illegal Weapons such as Depleated Uranium munitians.

Evidence of both has been widely documented by Foreign Journalists of which much can been found on You Tube.

I wonder what it will take for this planet to find peace and for the Real War Mongers to put there guns down ?

How many more innicent civilians will have to lose their lives to these weapons, thanks to US and Israeli Military's ?

It all just makes me SICK ! 

by SnowTiger on 01/05/2009 04:07:57 PM EST


I personally have no problem with cluster bombs as a weapon of war as a general rule.  Having said that, you cannot use them in an urban environment and claim that you are trying to minimize casualties and be precise in your attacks.  Cluster bombs are, by their nature, non-precise weapons meant to wipe out many people over a spread out area.  If there are civilians anywhere near them, they are going to be killed or maimed.

 The big problem with cluster bombs beyond their imprecise nature, is that they leave unexploded bomblets which can be set off by civilians long after the bombs drop.  So provided that you're not using them in civilian areas and you make some effort, after hostilities have concluded to clean up the mess, I don't see these as an innately unethical weapon. 


by sterno on 01/05/2009 05:33:38 PM EST


the unexploded bomblets are the problem with cluster bombs and make them unethical. Here's my reasoning and I guess why most countries agree:

"can be set off by civilians long after the bombs drop"

experience has shown us that they will be set off by civilians in the long run, what makes it even more tragically is that we see that a large percentage of the victims are children

I applaud the Western countries who go in after the conflicts and clean up these bomblets, but they require specialised teams and it takes years to clean them up and by then more innocent victims will have fallen, same problem with landmines. And let's be honest, how big is the chance do you think that Israel will clean them up? 0%?

by callisto on 01/05/2009 06:16:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I actually agree with Sterno who has made a very good point.

What I really dislike is the use of these (the subject) weapons in civilian/populated areas.

The use of Cluster Munitians against tanks and trucks etc, does make perfect sense. Less accuracy is required and multiple targets can be eliminated with each cluster bomb. 

The truth is that no weapon is a nice weapon. None are Human-Friendly. But obviously developed weapons must effective for the purpose in which they are developed.

It's when weapons such as this are used in towns/cities etc, that's when I really get pissed.

However, other than "maybe" for the use of taking out tanks (eg: with an A-10 Warthog) and other similar hardened targets, I do not agree with the use of Nuclear Waste for ANY TARGETS Anywhere.

by SnowTiger on 01/05/2009 06:17:17 PM EST


don't think Hamas has a single tank and for trucks, you don't need a cluster bomb to blowup a truck.

I think they use cluster bombs for their other tactical advantages: making the land dangerous for the other side in the longterm, they in effect lay down a mine field, one they know the Palestinians don't have the means to clean up

by callisto on 01/05/2009 07:01:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On this subject and on the subject of Israel/Hamas in general, I am beyond tired of hearing arguments based on "intent" (i.e., Israel's claim that its use of white phosphorus is not intended to kill civilians, so that makes it okay). Cenk's debate about this with Morton Klein got my blood boiling for this exact reason.

Intent is irrelevant because it can't be proven.

by OneHitKill on 01/05/2009 09:55:12 PM EST


If you want to get philosphical about this intent is the sole defining factor of morality. Is it immoral if Hamas kills innocents, yes, because they have bad intenentions. If a supernova destroys us all even though many more people will die than if people cause it, it wont be immoral or wrong, because intent is not an issue. Intent is never irrelevant, you can not pass moral judgements if you leave intent out.

by nmaks on 01/05/2009 10:35:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
because of the wildly different casualty ratios between Israeli and Palestinian deaths, Israel's intent has become irrelevant.

2 claims that are false IMO:

-Palestinian claim that Israel has intent to kill civilians: are there individuals/a group within the Israeli military with this intent, 100% certain. But I don't think that there is an organised top down plan to make this happen. Now I do think that the Israeli top (government + military) just don't care how many civilians get caught in the middle.

-Israeli claim that they do everything that's possible to make sure there are no Palestinian civilian victims: false or they are the most clumsy and incompetent elite military force in the world.

They have objectified Palestinian civilians as collateral damage. Same thing can be seen at border crossings where a lof of the 19yo Israeli soldiers act like übermenschen when they insult Palestinian women and men. (I get the irony and weight of the word, but I will not apologize, because the word is fitting when you see the other side as nothing more than pigs and caddle)

by callisto on 01/06/2009 09:17:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I don't want to get philosophical, just logical. Intent happens purely in the mind, and can never be proven. If I punch Bob in the face and then say, "Sorry, I meant to punch Jim," I could very well be lying just to avoid retribution from Bob. No one will ever know but me. Intent is irrelevant because no impartial 3rd party can correctly take intent into account when passing judgment.

Now I will get philosophical, by popular demand.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?  

ANSWER: No. Sound is the phenomenon of vibrations in the air moving our eardrums. If there are no eardrums around to be moved, then the phenomenon we know as sound does not occur.

by OneHitKill on 01/06/2009 10:14:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this is a very interesting point. Many arguments could be resolved/reduced if people in general could grasp this insight. For example, many republicans embrace policies that do nothing or even enhance abortion incidence, because the intention of those policies is to eliminate abortion. The same republicans summarily reject sex education and family planning institutions that allow abortion to occur legally and safely, even if the ultimate effect of these policies and institutions is net reduction of abortions.

by hazmat on 01/07/2009 03:29:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Is it just me or was one of two things going on here:

  1. He has some kind of breathing issue that causes him to constantly snort/make small noises
  2. He can't restrain himself from tiny bouts of derisive laughter at everything someone he disagrees with says?

by jarett on 01/06/2009 10:31:47 AM EST


It would have been nice to pre-acknowledge it rather than Jesus making those awkward volume adjustments.

by jarett on 01/06/2009 02:40:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]

would have been nice, because then we're left wondering why Cenk didn't bring it up later ("the keeping it real zone") and left with the socially awkward possibility that he felt it would be rude to say something after they had an agreement. Maybe Morty didn't warn Cenk, that might explain it.

I didn't notice Jesus dialing him down. He seemed to get worse as he got agitated. It didn't bother me as much as his Nazi references though. I'm so tired of that crap.

by hazmat on 01/07/2009 06:44:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"a disagreement", otherwise that sentence doesn't make sense.

by hazmat on 01/07/2009 06:45:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: