Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-11-2013, 06:19 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 05:45 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'd like to know if anyone still in this thread can name an armed force in history who killed their enemies responsibly and without collateral damage. I can't think of any, but I'm no war historian.

You are 100% right. Even _IF_ Israel did intentionally kill Palestinians with WP, I'm not even sure it's worse than what other countries have done. It was stupid for me to waste so many keystrokes and get derailed arguing with Chas and Cjlr over whether Israel used WP as a chemical weapon, because that's really not the point I was trying to make.

The real point is that I disagree with IandI and his "pro-Soviet-style-communism" as much as anybody else. BUT, I try to keep an open mind and when he makes a post that is so uncontroversial, such as condemning Israel's actions in the Gaza War, I will accept that he's making a good point. My horror with Cjlr and Chas's is that, imo, they're SOOO closed-minded, that even when IandI is simply condemning burning people alive, they STILL push back. They won't just say "Yeah, that was bad", but keep trying to make excuses and defend it. It just tells me that there is NOTHING at all I could ever say about monetary policy or other nuanced economic issues that will EVER make any dent. If we can't even reach consensus that it was terrible when Israel dropped WP bombs on the Palestinians, we have ZERO chance of reaching consensus on ANY political or economic issue.

Look, you dolt, I have made absolutely no statements regarding that whatsoever.
So shove your lies up your ass.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 07:06 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You STILL ARE defending the use of WP as a chemical weapon, because your new defense now is to say that Israel used WP as an 'incendiary' device, and NOT for its toxicity.

Hey, look. It's the old “disagreeing on definitions is SUPPORTING EVIL” bit.

That was old already last time. It hasn't gotten fresher.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Here was Israel's official report (which they've since removed) http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/E89E6...ration.pdf

And I'm supposed to read something which as been removed? Um...

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Do they in there ever state that they used WP as an incendiary device? Do they ever defend their behavior by saying the intended goal was to make fire or burn stuff? NO, this is a defense that you are making up.

Guy. Maybe you should learn what phosphorus actually is and what it's used for.

That's the only way to use phosphorus. You can't weaponize its toxicity. It's not physically possible.

What else do you think they were doing with it? Making sticks out of it and beating people? Force-feeding people?

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You are falsely excusing Israel's behavior saying their goal was to make fire, and then defend it by saying “fire is not a chemical weapon.”

You may recognize that distinction as the one provided for by the Geneva Conventions.

I mean, silly me, but I thought that might be relevant to a thread nominally about the Geneva Conventions.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You are making up defenses Israel themselves didn't make up.

Israel's only attempt at a defense was to say that they launched WP bombs to create a “smoke screen”—not to set anything on fire.

Do you know where smoke comes from?

It is a byproduct of combustion. Or, for the layman – fire.

Fire is hot. It can burn people. That is bad.

How remedial do I have to be, before you understand what I'm saying?

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  However Human Rights Watch showed that the Israeli military had a non-lethal alternative at its disposal- smoke shells produced by Israel Military Industries. So, if their goal was ONLY to make a smoke screen and not to harm people with the chemical reaction, why didn't they use the non-lethal smokescreens that would do a better job? Why use WP instead? Few organizations bought Israel's defense that it was making a smoke screen.

Yes, and?

I literally made no comment as to any specific situation. I was concerned with definitions. I made one single post to that effect.

I have since (because I don't learn from bad experiences with the likes of you) attempted to point out to you that making up shit about other people isn't cool.

Do you know why Israel maintains that claim? Allow me to explain.

It is because use of incendiary weapons from the air (check) or use of incendiary weapons on mixed military/civilian targets (check) is against the Geneva Conventions.

It is because incendiary weapons are those whose primary purpose is starting fires. Weapons whose incidental consequence is incendiary (such as smoke devices – we recall here that smoke is a combustion byproduct) do not count as incendiary weapons.

Therefore using phosphorus as a smokescreen clears the bar. Using it for firebombing doesn't. Even though Israel is not signatory to that protocol, they are smart enough to know that violating it is bad. Therefore their official line is that they didn't. Shocking, I know.

If you'd care to engage with reality, it's out here waiting for you.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're going one step further now and making up your own defense for Israel, claiming they were using it as an incendiary device to make fire. Citation need. Otherwise just admit that you made that defense up, and that, yes, you ARE defending what Israel did.

It's called chemistry. You seem to have no idea what phosphorus is and how it behaves.

It's toxic if you eat it. So what? That's not what it does in weapons.

If you know of a single phosphorus-based munition wherein its toxicity is the weaponised component, let me know.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  WTF??? You balk at me accusing you of “summarizing someone's opinions”. Your own words to describe what you did was: “summation of his opinions”. I'm “accusing” you of something you yourself said you did?! And then you say I cannot provide a single instance???? How many fucking times do I need to copy and paste the instance I included? If I do this 100 times will you eventually acknowledge it? You wrote: “I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately”. I have challenged you and Chas over and over and over again to copy/paste any actual, verbatim quote from IandI that says this. You just keep saying “Well he said it in another thread”, but you don't copy/paste anything. Citation needed. Citation needed. Citation needed. When did IandI say that? Citation needed.

Now, to get something out of the way first – this has no bearing on the inaccuracy of each of the lunatic claims you've made on my character. Do you plan on addressing those? Ever?

Second - maybe I was informed by the context of statements like this?
(15-06-2013 08:40 PM)I and I Wrote:  This will get your fascist panties all wet.

This new doc made by Israelis shows that a huge part of their economy is the weapons industry. The doc also shows that they use Palestinians as test subjects for their new weapons.

How exactly would the world be worse off without a fascist racist nation like Israel?

Here come the atheists defense of a religious fascist state.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(30-06-2013 02:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  Well it's the history section and it's a part of history that many people aren't aware of, that the German zionists were proud of being German as well and worked with the Nazis. This relationship wasn't just one of mutual necessity but close enough to form friendships and celebrations of their cooperation, even making a commemorative coin with a swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

Maybe it's in the context of statements like this?
(20-06-2013 01:06 AM)I and I Wrote:  You are singling out Syria amidst much more repressive governments like Saudi Arabia and Israel which are both working to undermine Assad, that makes then relevant to the discussion. The much more repressive peeps are throwing stones and pointing fingers at the much less oppressive peeps. This is relevant and pure bullshit hypocrisy on your part and the west. Why do you defend such blatant hypocrisy? How can you criticize Assad when your tax dollars go to Saudi Arabia and Israel? Are you against oppressive governments or for them?

How can you pretend to be against killing civilians when you ignore the crimes of the groups trying to overthrow Assad.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(09-04-2013 07:59 AM)I and I Wrote:  What is your definition of a bat shit crazy nation? one that attacks people all the time and threatens people all the time? If so I would agree, and then add several other nations to that bat shit crazy list.

I hate jews, christians, muslims and any other religious fascist loons. This is allowed on this forum correct?

I hate Israel for the same reason I hated appartheid south africa, the U.S., and any other fascist racist/religious nation.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(26-04-2013 08:23 AM)I and I Wrote:  The atheists on here are truly dumber than shit. You guys are seriously taking parts of religious teachings that fit your political views and accepting these religious teachings as fact. There was never a Jewish race or ethnic group that differentiated them from other people in the past or the present. If you guys believe in this religious notion of a Jewish race then how in the mother fucker are Israelis white? Oh yeah, they are white because like any other religion, through intermarriage/conversion/and conquering, they have no pure race. And like any other religion that spans over different cultures, there is no pure ethnic Jewish communities.


This shit is fucking amazing. Any questioning of papa gov and the mainstream media.....ridiculed and made fun of and now certain criticisms of religious teachings are now ridiculed and made fun of. The pretend atheists of this forum are amazing to watch. The religious ideas of a Jewish race are just as fucking dumb shit as any other religious belief.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(06-07-2013 09:00 AM)I and I Wrote:  This is the most conservative non skeptical forum I have ever been on.

I criticize theistic fascist nations and groups all the time like Israel and Saudi Arabia and I am attacked for it.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(01-05-2013 12:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  Israel has no side in the invasion of Syria? http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-tv-r...i-weapons/ Does or has Israel ever had any problems with the nut job muslim nations? It seems that religious nut jobs tend to stick together when it comes to fighting secular or atheist nations. Has Israel ever attacked alqaeda forces? And why is Israel sitting back and not concerned with the U.S. funding and arming alqaeda in Syria? According to what we are told, alqaeda hates Israel and the U.S. but for some reason alqaeda has never attacked Israel and right now they are close to Israeli territory to do so if they wanted, or if Israel is against alqaeda then why are they not helping assad get foreign alqaeda fighters out of his country? What if the west and Israel aren't and never were fighting alqaeda....

Israel is in an area hostile to them like any other european colony would be in a hostile environment.

Notice how that girl Shiranl isn't on here hardly at all now that I bring up Israeli Nuclear weapons. Yes it is illegal to talk about them or admit they exist, the official Israeli policy is to deny that they have nuclear weapons.

Maybe in the context of statements like this?
(13-07-2013 03:01 PM)I and I Wrote:  According to U.S. officials there is no secular fighting force to speak of in Syria. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/world/...d=all&_r=0

The strongest fighting group in Syria is the Alqaeda off shoot called al-nusrah and the vast majority of rebel groups overlap each other and are radical Islamist.

http://m.clarionproject.org/analysis/10-...e-islamist

Knowing that....why the fuck is the waste of oxygen Israeli government helping their fascist waste of oxygen Alqaeda friends?

Israel is helping rebels by aiding them medically.

http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articl...i-hospital

Of course the random Israeli bombing of Syrian mitary bases.


Why the fuck is Israel or the U.S. helping Alqaeda in Syria?

He clearly has a high opinion of Israel and its conduct.

...

See, the difference is that you made up nonsensical views out of whole cloth, and then ascribed them to me, and then refused to substantiate any of it, and then were actually indignant that I noticed.

That is not sane.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  See the difference between us is that I say “Citation needed” because you are NOT including ANY citation. You keep saying to me “Citation needed”, because you are ignoring the plethora of citations that I've provided.

Here, you challenged: “That's not a citation. Let me know where I've apparently 'defended' use of incendiary weapons against civilians.” And here's the citation I provided where you defended it: “Its purpose in incendiary weapons (including white phosphorus munitions) is not to engender dispersal of chemically toxic substances... fire isn't a chemical weapon.” IF Israel claimed it was using WP as an incendiary device to make fire, THEN your you could argue your statement is merely factual. But the fact that you're fabricating excuses that Israel didn't make, YES, you are defending it.

That doesn't follow, champ.

This is the same thought process (I'm generous, so I do say 'thought') I have described previously.
A: X is Y.
B: X is not Y.
A: YOU'RE DEFENDING X RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

It wasn't true then, and it's not true now. That might be something, but it isn't logic. Your response, given now several times over, is thus:
“Well I think it is defending X”.

At this point you are rating your own made-up characterisation higher than explicit statements from others.

This is not sane.

I invite you once again to provide citations where I have come anywhere near stating the views you ascribe to me.

Because all you have is a series of unrelated statements in which your dishonest interpretation is apparently to be construed as representing the views you ascribe to me.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Yes, but as I've said so many times, Israel's only defense was that it used WP as a smoke screen, and Human Rights Watch refuted by that by showing they had another more effective smoke screen at their disposal, but CHOSE to use WP instead. It's never possible to prove someone's motives.

And yet you seem to know mine so intimately.

Also: that's not a refutation. Let's consider:
A: We used X for Y purpose.
B: Z is better for Y purpose than X is.

Do you remember above, where I explained to you why they said it was a smoke screen?

Well, let me elaborate. Phosphorus is, in fact, the most effective smoke screen known to chemistry. The particulate it produces blocks not only visual light but infrared; it is more quickly spread and longer-lasting than alternatives.

The “better alternatives” spoken of are not better as smoke. They are better because

Use of white phosphorus as described does not constitute use of a chemical weapon as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Even if it is in violation of the Geneva Conventions (as it probably was) this is not due to its being used as a chemical weapon as defined by the Geneva Conventions.

Deny that if you like. You're free to deal with however much reality you want.

I have only ever expressed a desire for clarity of definitions.

In your fevered mind this constitutes endorsement of war crimes.

That is not sane.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You keep insisting I don't understand the Geneva Conventions. But, on my side, those that condemned Israel's action as a violation of the Geneva Convention, include the UN, the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. On your side you have Chas. You don't even have Israel on your side since they never used the excuse that you made up for them.

You're special.

I went over this. Look up the sorts of weapons they used. Tell me what they're for.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The fact that the experts agree that Israel DID use WP bombs because of its “chemical toxicity”, and you keep arguing that they didn't and that “Chemical weapons... are only those weapons which use chemical toxicity as their main vector”, IS defending what Israel did. You refuse to accept that Israel likely did violate the Geneva Convention.

As I said above (like, literally just said), they likely did violate the Geneva Convention.

But not by using chemical weapons as defined by the Geneva Convention.

Apparently being corrected on a small matter of definitions is such a threat to your self-identity that you instinctively respond with baseless condemnations and unsupported accusations of every malum imaginable.

What a way to live.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 04:25 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Therefore weapons made with phosphorus are not necessarily chemical weapons [unless toxicity is the goal]

Look, I've never disputed this.

Hmm.

Then might I ask – just bear with me here – how in God's name you went from “not disputing” my single statement to that effect to several long posts of nonsensical and insulting accusations?

Help me out, old friend. I'm curious.

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And I've never said that I can know for certain what Israel's goal is. What I've said is that Israel's stated goal, a smokescreen, has been shot down by human rights organization, and that the UN and NGO's have concluded toxicity likely was the reason why Israel chose WP instead of non-lethan alternatives. You however seem to think that you know for absolutely certainty what Israel's goal was and that you know for certain their goal was not toxicity, and are even making up new goals that Israel didn't claim (incendiary device). Yes, you ARE defending them.

Do you listen to yourself?

Do you ever pause, in the midst of your self-righteous tirade, and realize you're not responding to anything outside your own head?

(18-11-2013 05:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  As you can see from my post, tons of citations. If you reply, please similarly include a citation to substantiate your claim that “I and I thinks Israel targets civilian populations deliberately and indiscriminately”.

See above.

You have nowhere substantiated your claims that I defended or endorsed use of chemical weapons or other violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Your response is not sane.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 05:45 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  FWIW - I found what I read about Israel's use of WP airburst munitions in Palestine to be irresponsible and reprehensible. It seems to me irrelevant how said munitions are classified (chemical vs incendiary).

The reason I think it does matter is that if - and I know it's unfortunately a long shot - if there is ever to be restitution, then we must be absolutely clear as to what laws are being violated and how.

(note that this is theoretical as pertains the case mentioned in this thread, involving as it does Israel violating provisions in an agreement it is not signatory to)

If a crime does not support the charges then there is no conviction. Even if it is still a crime.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
@cjlr, you have repeated your claim over and over and over that white phosphorous bombs are NOT chemical weapons. I do not claim to be an expert on chemical weapons or phosphorous. I have based my claims on the fact (in post #12) that the Pentagon, the UN, and other US intelligence agencies DO categorize WP, when bombed on civilians, to be chemical weapons, and when Iraq did it, the US condemned Iraq claiming it was "chemical weapons" and a breach of the Geneva Conventions. This is not disputed. So your dispute isn't with me. It's with the UN, the Pentagon, the CIA, etc. You should give them your chemistry lecture and explain to them why WP is not a chemical weapon. I won't state any further opinions whether I side with them or you. I will remain neutral as this topic is tiresome and not a core subject for me. The readers can decide for themselves if you are a more authoritative source to determine what is and is not chemical weapons than the UN (see post #12 for the direct quote). I will concede that I am NOT an expert on it, as you seem to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 07:51 PM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
P.S. @Cjlr, since you're now willing to invest inordinate amounts of time debating me on chemistry, how about we go back to politics, and I ask that you take 60 seconds to tell me if you've been able to think of 1 policy issue you disagree with libertarians on that does not come down to libertarians objecting to the use of force to coerce people into doing things against their will? That _IS_ the core issue that's a lot more relevant in a political forum than the properties of phosphorous. And _IF_ you can actually come up with even ONE example, you will be my hero and I'll take back all those things I've said because I've asked this question of liberals a thousand times and have yet to get an answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 12:21 AM
Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(18-11-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 05:45 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  I'd like to know if anyone still in this thread can name an armed force in history who killed their enemies responsibly and without collateral damage. I can't think of any, but I'm no war historian.

You are 100% right. Even _IF_ Israel did intentionally kill Palestinians with WP, I'm not even sure it's worse than what other countries have done. It was stupid for me to waste so many keystrokes and get derailed arguing with Chas and Cjlr over whether Israel used WP as a chemical weapon, because that's really not the point I was trying to make.

The real point is that I disagree with IandI and his "pro-Soviet-style-communism" as much as anybody else. BUT, I try to keep an open mind and when he makes a post that is so uncontroversial, such as condemning Israel's actions in the Gaza War, I will accept that he's making a good point. My horror with Cjlr and Chas's is that, imo, they're SOOO closed-minded, that even when IandI is simply condemning burning people alive, they STILL push back. They won't just say "Yeah, that was bad", but keep trying to make excuses and defend it. It just tells me that there is NOTHING at all I could ever say about monetary policy or other nuanced economic issues that will EVER make any dent. If we can't even reach consensus that it was terrible when Israel dropped WP bombs on the Palestinians, we have ZERO chance of reaching consensus on ANY political or economic issue.

Chas and cljr are pretty conservative, which is why they will disagree with everything that is anti-US, anti-Israel, anything that says the US has done bad or is doing bad.

I bet they don't believe the US has done anything wrong from 1900-present. Watch this.

Hey chas, cljr, what do you guys think about the US in the past giving black people diseases just to see what would happen?

Prediction:

1. They never heard of it.

Or

2. They deny it now or after you show evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:38 AM
Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(19-11-2013 12:21 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(18-11-2013 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You are 100% right. Even _IF_ Israel did intentionally kill Palestinians with WP, I'm not even sure it's worse than what other countries have done. It was stupid for me to waste so many keystrokes and get derailed arguing with Chas and Cjlr over whether Israel used WP as a chemical weapon, because that's really not the point I was trying to make.

The real point is that I disagree with IandI and his "pro-Soviet-style-communism" as much as anybody else. BUT, I try to keep an open mind and when he makes a post that is so uncontroversial, such as condemning Israel's actions in the Gaza War, I will accept that he's making a good point. My horror with Cjlr and Chas's is that, imo, they're SOOO closed-minded, that even when IandI is simply condemning burning people alive, they STILL push back. They won't just say "Yeah, that was bad", but keep trying to make excuses and defend it. It just tells me that there is NOTHING at all I could ever say about monetary policy or other nuanced economic issues that will EVER make any dent. If we can't even reach consensus that it was terrible when Israel dropped WP bombs on the Palestinians, we have ZERO chance of reaching consensus on ANY political or economic issue.

Chas and cljr are pretty conservative, which is why they will disagree with everything that is anti-US, anti-Israel, anything that says the US has done bad or is doing bad.

I bet they don't believe the US has done anything wrong from 1900-present. Watch this.

Hey chas, cljr, what do you guys think about the US in the past giving black people diseases just to see what would happen?

Prediction:

1. They never heard of it.

Or

2. They deny it now or after you show evidence.

I heard they've experimented on more than just black people. And that those experiments were heinous and reprehensible.

Not sure what your point is there.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 03:48 AM
Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
I'd also like to reiterate, as it seems Cjlr still doesn't seem to understand what I was describing earlier, that while WP is normally classified as incendiary munitions, it can have toxic effects on its victims.

My understanding just from the Wikipedia article (either of which could be mistaken) is that if you are shot by WP rounds from firearms (yes, they also make some small arms ammo out of the stuff) and the rounds leaves any amount of WP in your body, your organs can suffer toxicity from this.

Also, don't forget that the smoke from WP is toxic, even when used as a smoke screen. If you inhaled a sufficient amount you would also suffer organ damage.

So, while I agree that WP is normally classified as incendiary, it can be abused in ways that would be in violation of Geneva Conventions. What's not clear to me is why Israel has not been brought to task by the UN. Perhaps they've creative ways of perceiving their actions that successfully evade prosecution? Not sure.

The way it is described in the article it sounds like Israel is straddling the line of definition somehow. Playing games of equivocation perhaps.

So, rather than get all riled at each other in here about stuff we barely know, why not wait for a resolution to this matter from the UN. Once they decide whether Israel is in violation then we can discuss this with more information.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(19-11-2013 03:48 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  What's not clear to me is why Israel has not been brought to task by the UN.

The UN is trying to eliminate the special impunity that Israel and the US have. The problem is the US has veto rights and uses them constantly. See this list showing all the times the rest of the world has tried to reign in Israel, and the US vetoes everything every time, giving Israel complete impunity. Israel attacked Iraq for working on a nuclear weapon, and is now trying to get a war with Iran. Meanwhile Israel itself is building illegal, undeclared nuclear weapons, and they don't even deny it, because they know the rules the rest of the world has to follow don't apply to them. Same thing with demanding a war on Syria for their alleged use of chemical weapons, while Israel has been universally condemned for using chemical weapons on Palestinians.

The US even vetoes basic things, like the 1986 resolution calling on all countries to obey international law, and refused to accept the UN Human Rights Commission's declaration of basic civil rights. Even oppressive countries like Russia found it uncontroversial to grant such basic human rights.

(19-11-2013 03:48 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  So, rather than get all riled at each other in here about stuff we barely know, why not wait for a resolution to this matter from the UN. Once they decide whether Israel is in violation then we can discuss this with more information.

The UN _HAS_ decided this many, many times. The US simply vetoes it every time because the US is filled with guys like Chas and Cjlr who believe the rules don't apply to the US and Israel.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-11-2013, 09:44 AM
RE: Forth Geneva Conventions Section 3
(15-11-2013 05:13 PM)I and I Wrote:  There are Geneva conventions on torture, Israel is the only nation that openly admits that it uses torture.
What about the U.S. and the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: