Tony Benn slams BBC on air for "capitulating to Israeli pressure"

The_White_Horse

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then you probably haven't seen the footage of Israeli tanks machine gunning children.

Or Israeli bulldozers running over and killing an American girl protesting for peace.

I haven't seen any footage of israeli tanks machine gunning children.

if you're referring to rachel corrie, there was an investigation and it was ruled an accident. she stepped willingly in front of that bulldozer. she was not an all american girl! although the western media likes to use the nice blonde american pictures, the real rachel corrie was a flag burning extremist:

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Then you probably haven't seen the footage of Israeli tanks machine gunning children.

Or Israeli bulldozers running over and killing an American girl protesting for peace.

The most haunting images I've seen in my life are of Israels 2009 dropping white phospor on children. Babies with holes slowly burned right through them, no way to stop the fire apart from chopping away the body parts.

The Israeli regime is sick to the core. Assymetric power imbalance over Gaza, like a Man beating a child with a spade.





http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=white+phosphorus+burns+infants&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zdysUMK_CMq20QWBnoHACQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=644

Linton

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I haven't seen any footage of israeli tanks machine gunning children.

if you're referring to rachel corrie, there was an investigation and it was ruled an accident. she stepped willingly in front of that bulldozer. she was not an all american girl! although the western media likes to use the nice blonde american pictures, the real rachel corrie was a flag burning extremist:

Oh that's all right then. Crushing her with a tank was obviously justified.

The_White_Horse

Conrad wrote: »

The most haunting images I've seen in my life are of Israels 2009 dropping white phospor on children. Babies with holes slowly burned right through them, no way to stop the fire apart from chopping away the body parts.

The Israeli regime is sick to the core. Assymetric power imbalance over Gaza, like a Man beating a child with a spade.





http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=white+phosphorus+burns+infants&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zdysUMK_CMq20QWBnoHACQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=644

After watching footage of Israeli troop deployments on television, a British soldier who completed numerous combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Intelligence Corps defended the Israeli Army's use of white phosphorus. The soldier noted, "White phosphorus is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent."[311]
Colonel Lane, a military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, told that white phosphorus is used for smoke generation to hide from the enemy. He stated, "The quality of smoke produced by white phosphorus is superb; if you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorus will give it to you."[278]
Professor Newton, expert in laws of armed conflict testifying in front of the committee, said that in an urban area, where potential perils are snipers, explosive devices and trip wires, one effective way to mask forces' movement is by white phosphorus. In certain cases, he added, such choice of means would be less harmful for civilian population than other munitions, provided that the use of white phosphorus withstands the proportionality test. In discussing the principle of proportionality he said that the legality of using white phosphorus in an urban setting could only be decided on a case by case basis taking into account "the precise circumstances of its use, not in general, generically, but based on that target, at that time". He stressed that the humanitarian implications were vital in this assessment giving the example that using white phosphorus on a school yard would have different implications to its use on another area. He also said that in his view white phosphorus munition is neither chemical nor incendiary weapon and is not intended to cause damage. He said its use was not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention.[278]
An article by Mark Cantora examining the legal implications of the use of white phosphorus munitions by the IDF, published in 2010 in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law, argues that Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was technically legal under existing international humanitarian laws and "Therefore, it is imperative for the international community to convene a White Phosphorus Convention Conference in order to address these issues and fill this substantial gap in international humanitarian law."[

The_White_Horse

Linton wrote: »

Oh that's all right then. Crushing her with a tank was obviously justified.

she walked in front of a moving bulldozer. there's no cure for stupid. that said, she probably wanted to martyr herself.

PaulF81

To be fair Hamish, the Arabs never mind the UN have never formally recognized Palestine as an indepedent country until recent years.

Doesnt excuse disproportionate force, what it does mean is its difficult to have a voice when you arent recognized internationally.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The_White_Horse wrote: »

I haven't seen any footage of israeli tanks machine gunning children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Cnv-coESs&feature=related

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Cnv-coESs&feature=related

But don't worry, they like to shoot pensioners as well, Horsey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7xneZo9HNY

In fact, sometimes they just shoot the whole family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHUWu9T1ti8

It's certainly the case that Palestinians commit acts of terrorism against Israel. Or "asymmetric warfare" as the military tacticians would call it.

But to be honest, if soldiers occupied my country and shot my family, I probably would too....

Conrad

The_White_Horse wrote: »

After watching footage of Israeli troop deployments on television, a British soldier who completed numerous combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Intelligence Corps defended the Israeli Army's use of white phosphorus. The soldier noted, "White phosphorus is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent."[311]
Colonel Lane, a military expert testifying in front of the fact-finding mission in July 2009, told that white phosphorus is used for smoke generation to hide from the enemy. He stated, "The quality of smoke produced by white phosphorus is superb; if you want real smoke for real coverage, white phosphorus will give it to you."[278]
Professor Newton, expert in laws of armed conflict testifying in front of the committee, said that in an urban area, where potential perils are snipers, explosive devices and trip wires, one effective way to mask forces' movement is by white phosphorus. In certain cases, he added, such choice of means would be less harmful for civilian population than other munitions, provided that the use of white phosphorus withstands the proportionality test. In discussing the principle of proportionality he said that the legality of using white phosphorus in an urban setting could only be decided on a case by case basis taking into account "the precise circumstances of its use, not in general, generically, but based on that target, at that time". He stressed that the humanitarian implications were vital in this assessment giving the example that using white phosphorus on a school yard would have different implications to its use on another area. He also said that in his view white phosphorus munition is neither chemical nor incendiary weapon and is not intended to cause damage. He said its use was not prohibited by the Chemical Weapons Convention.[278]
An article by Mark Cantora examining the legal implications of the use of white phosphorus munitions by the IDF, published in 2010 in the Gonzaga Journal of International Law, argues that Israel's use of white phosphorus in Gaza was technically legal under existing international humanitarian laws and "Therefore, it is imperative for the international community to convene a White Phosphorus Convention Conference in order to address these issues and fill this substantial gap in international humanitarian law."[

And the fact some 50 infants had holes burned right through them is just fine as long as those heroic troops are protected.

What an oddly cowardly outlook you have. I've trained with the IDF btw, I've been a krav maga practioner for 20 years - the IDF's own hand to hand combat system. I'm not anti Israeli people.

I guess your own who thinks hi tech western tropps are heros, whilst prphaned truly heroic Afghan children are but nothing to you.
Whoah what super heros we have, using massivly more advance fire power to fight stone age peasants defending thier land, truly heroic dat one is, dohhh!

The_White_Horse

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6Cnv-coESs&feature=related

is this a joke?????????????? foolish to believe anything put out by Pallywood.

http://www.crethiplethi.com/the-muhammad-al-dura-hoax-and-other-myths-revived/israel/2011/