-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Biden Concerned About White Phosphorus Israel Used. USA Supplied It.
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
I watched the UN meeting and it was very sad.
What I just witnessed the implying that to be against israel is anti semitic, should be stopped.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That will be for the UN to decide.
I just see Israel responding to terrorists like any nation would.
I will trust civil rights people before israel. Israel is causing far too much damage to Jews all over the world to be considered civil.
The UN has decided that israel should stop and
UN 'very concerned' about report Israel used US-supplied ...
11 hours ago — The UN said Monday that it is "very concerned" over a report suggesting that Israel used US-supplied white phosphorus munitions in an attack ...
Not even terrorists (HAMAS) should have phosphorus munitions fired upon them. It's illegal not just inhumane.
Would you support chemical weapons and genocide next?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Orbit
I'm a planet
This is so tiring. Israel is a nation state. Not all Israelis are Jews, and not all Jews are Zionist. Criticizing the actions of a nation state is not the same thing as hating someone because of their religion. Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic.
Thank god, that the majority live on this side of the lake (here in the America's).
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No it's not.
It's a Jewish and Democratic State as outlined in their declaration of independence.
Jewish and democratic state - Wikipedia
Educate yourself on that.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Some of it lately has splashed over here, but it's at least mostly in Frisco although its happening all over.
At least this one was peaceful. Albiet noisy.
Nope. **mod edit** The facts always defeat your claims.
Here are the sources I used. These as the sources you denied.
Cornell Universtiy and The Weapons Law encyclopedia. Neither of those are war criminals. It's a war crime to use it as an incendiary device.
Here is the Weapons Law Encyclopedia. Here is a LINK to the page. It is well footnoted: LINK
The facts are directly above this quote. Yes, the human rights organizations which either deny these definitions, ignore them, or are ignorant of them are wrong. You are acting as if they are inerrant and they cannnot be biased or misinformed.
The truth is, you believe them without researching the information yourself. That's what happens when people allow themselves to be influenced by what they see on twitter. If someone makes claims about Israel I don't agree with, I research those claims. As has been shown, you simply believe the anti-israel rhetoric without researching it, other than seeking out sources which automatically agree with you.
It could be that you're doing this unintentionally, and you simply do not know how to research properly. However, like I've mentioned earlier, you were given credible information about the defintion of war crimes, and you ignored them for almost a month. You kept propagating the false narrative about war crimes and genocide. You kept repeating the false information even though you were shown facts.
Now that you have the facts about white-phosphorous, it's easy to discredit the human rights groups that should be ignored. The ones who claim that what Israel fired in the air for smoke are war crimes, very clearly and very obviously don't know what they are talking about.
Yes, just because they identify themselves as "human rights groups" that does not mean they are automatically correct. Are you that easily fooled? Anyone that puts "Human Rights" in their name, or calls themself a "Human Rights Group" MUST be believed?
That's an extremely naive position.
Last edited by a moderator:
Orbit
I'm a planet
"As has been shown"? You didn't show anything. You just re-stated your erroneous assumptions. You also are incredibly ignorant about twitter. As I said, the IDF and the White House have twitter accounts. There are plenty of reliable people to follow on twitter. You have absolutely no basis for saying I follow unreliable sources on twitter. Those accounts are also not my only source of information, of course.
Israel casts politically-motivated aspersions on the U.N., on human rights organizations, on the ICC, and others who have valid views on what constitutes a war crime and on what constitutes genocide (including from scholars in that field). You use sources that are convenient for Israel.
I use objective sources.
Anyway, as I have said previously, we have very different perspectives on this issue, and there really is no point going back and forth over it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The UN is observing the issue,
The UN said Monday that it is "very concerned" over a report suggesting that Israel used US-supplied white phosphorus munitions in an attack in southern Lebanon.
Asked by Anadolu about the report by The Washington Post, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said he does not have any information to confirm.
"We're obviously very concerned about any use of these types of incendiary munitions, especially in populated areas.
"But we will see if I have anything more to share with you on that," he added.
The Washington Post reported on the Oct. 16 Israeli attack in Dheira, a Lebanese town near the border with Israel, in which at least nine civilians were wounded.
Human rights group Amnesty International has called for an investigation, labeling the incident a potential war crime.
Among the nine injured in the attack, at least three were hospitalized, one for days, according to the report.
Anadolu has also taken some photographs showing the use of white phosphorus bombs on civilians in Gaza, while several lawyers said they can be used as evidence in a complaint against Israel.
I heard some of the congressional posturing with
university presidents today while doing some
programming & database re-design. Apparently
anything that's pro Palestinian or anti-Israel is
anti-semitic.
I don't know why people being grilled by Congress
put up with pontificating posturing propagandizing
thugs who ask simplistic, loaded, &, rhetorical questions.
No one calls the questioners on their games, & sets
them straight about their dishonest presumptions.
Well, if they're to re-define words, then my recently
adopted signature really resonates...
Semitism is the belief that Israel may
violate the rights of others with impunity.
I hold the anti-semitic view that human
rights are for all people, not just Israelis.
Oh? What sources are those? The ones I've used here are Cornell University and the Weapons Law Encyclopedia. I also used the the source brought in the OP. In the Link they provided, their own source, it shows that white-phosphorous in use at that time is NOT a war crime, by defintion. There's a picture in their article.
So, which sources am I using which are convenient for Israel? There was one video I posted in another thread to try to start a fact-based discussion about the actual experiences of actual Palestinian-Israelis. It could have been biased, but, the conversation needs to start somewhere, and, I brought something real. It wasn't the typical rumors. It was first hand information directly from those who are effected.
The UN has been shown to be a poor source for information. Again, there are ways for discerning a good source of information and a bad source for information. You do not seem to be using these standards or, any standards.
About a month ago there was a Palestinian hospital which was hit by a rocket, the Al-Ahi hospital. The UN immediately blamed Israel. Do you remember it? They were wrong. The evidence shows it was a Palestinian rocket which hit the Palestinian hospital. The UN rushed to judgement and assumed it must have been Israel. Their anti-Israel bias was clearly exposed. This isn't the first time they have shown that the UN has many members who are anti-Israel, but, this one is recent. Here is a link to the AP reporting on the hospital. That is a non-biased news source. - LINK
The statements made by the UN are in the link below. It's the UN's website. If you read them, you'll see none, I repeat none, of them are fact based. They are emotional pleas. They assume that the attacks on Gaza are indiscriminate. But they have no facts to support it. Please ask yourself, "How does one show that military targets are indiscriminate?" Then please ask yourself, "Why did they believe the hospital was hit by an Israeli rocket so soon after it happened?"
These UN diplomats have no facts, but they immediately condemn Israel. That's how to tell they are prejudiced against Israel - LINK
Based on this recent example, there is NO REASON to trust the opinion of the UN when it comes to Israel.
The sources are there. These are not pro-Israel sources. I used the AP, and the UN's website. But you would need to actually read these sources and apply some thought to it. Read the statements from the UN, and ask yourself, "If all of these members were wrong about the Al-Ahi hospital, why should they be trusted in the future?" This is only the most recent example.
Again, just because they use the words "human rights" that doesn't mean they are correct. I already showed you that "human rights" organizations don't know what constitutes a war crime using white-phosphorous. Or, maybe they do know it, but are ignoring those facts.
You have evidence in this thread. "Human Rights" groups do not know what constitues war crimes. The pictures prove it is NOT a war crime. There's ways to determine if a human rights group can be trusted. It's more than just identifying as a "human rights" group.
It's not just Israel that criticises the ICC. They are not a trial-by-jury court system. They do not prohibit hearsay. Even the "beloved" human rights organizations have criticised them. Yet again, you don't know the details. Look:
A Critical Analysis of the Position of Hearsay Evidence in the ICC
Since the ICC exercises jurisdiction on crimes that take place in a territory alien to the Court, and since at times there is a difficulty in obtaining direct w
papers.ssrn.com
O. P. Jindal Global University - Wikipedia
The ICC does not prosecute based on facts. The US cannot be a member of the ICC, nor be compliant with them. It's against the US Constitution. That has nothing to do with Israel. But someone whispers on twitter about Israel criticising the ICC and you make the assumption that Israel is automatically wrong to criticise. That shows the bias. That shows the prejudice in your point of view.
I don't think you want to be prejudiced, but, it happens. That's what was learned from the BLM movement. White people don't realize how prejudiced they actually are. It's latent. White people don't realize the institutional racism that's built into the justice system.
You don't seem to look for any facts at all in order to assume that Israel is wrong. All that's needed is a little whisper: "Israel criticises the ICC." This automatically produces the conclusion: "Israel MUST be guilty."
It's circular reasoning:
Details are ignored <--because--> there's so many examples <--because--> details are ignored.
Yet again, you are showing that you don't know what constitutes a war crime. The last time you brought a source from these scholars, you didn't read the fine print. They did not say that war crimes had occured. They were concerned that there was a RISK of war crimes occuring. They were concerned about what MIGHT happen.
Again, this is what happens when people are influenced by what they are reading on twitter and social media. They stop paying attention to the details. All of that gets washed out. Twitter reinforces an individual's prejudices by targetting posts AT them which match their preferences. Twitter is showing you what you like in order to keep you glued to their platform.
You have yet again put forward the false claim about genocide. Until this stops, I will continue to push back against it.
Also this is an excellent case study, an excellent example, of how an intelligent educated academic can get almost everything wrong when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It's important to understand how this happens. It's important to see what is the mechanism which is manipulating your point of view.
I think you intend to be fair, but, you're not being fair. I think you intend to be informed, but, you're not informed. It's no different than nearly half the population of America who will go to their graves believing the 2020 election was stolen. It's the same cognitive faults and weaknesses being exploited.
Do you want to be like those people who deny the 2020 election results? That's what's happening. I suspected it previously, but as soon as you admitted how affected you are by twitter, that was confirmation.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
Oh? What sources are those? The ones I've used here are Cornell University and the Weapons Law Encyclopedia. I also used the the source brought in the OP. In the Link the provided, their own source, it shows that white-phosphorous in use at that time is NOT a war crime, by defintion. There's a picture in their article.
So, which sources am I using which are convenient for Israel? There was one video I posted in another thread to try to start a fact-based discussion about the actual experiences of actual Palestinian-Israelis. It could have been biased, but, the conversation needs to start somewhere, and, I brought something real. It wasn't the typical rumors. It was first hand information directly from those who are effected.
The UN has been shown to be a poor source for information. Again, there are ways for discerrning a good source of information and a bad source for information. You do not seem to be using these standards or, any standards.
About a month ago there was a Palestinian hospital which was hit by a rocket, the Al-Ahi hospital. The UN immediately blamed Israel. Do you remember it? They were wrong. The evidence shows it was a Palestinian rocket which hit the Palestinian hospital. The UN rushed to judgement and assumed it must have been Israel. Their anti-Israel bias was clearly exposed. This isn't the first time they have shown that the UN has many members who are anti-Israel, but, this one is recent. Here is a link to the AP reporting on it. That is a non-biased news source. - LINK
The statements made by the UN are in the link below. It's the UN's website. If you read them, you'll see none, I repeat none, of them are fact based. They are emotional pleas. They assume that the attacks on Gaza are indescriminate. But they have no facts to support it. Please ask yourself, "How does one show that military targets are indiscriminate?" Then please ask yourself, "Why did they believe the hospital was hit by an Israeli rocket so soon after it happened?"
These UN diplomats have no facts, but they immediately condemn Israel. That's how to tell they are prejudiced against Israel - LINK
Based on this recent example, there is NO REASON to trust the opinion of the UN when it comes to Israel.
The sources are there. These are not pro-Israel sources. I used the AP, and the UN's website. But you would need to actually read these sources and apply some thought to it. Read the statements from the UN, and ask yourself, "If all of these members were wrong about the Al-Ahi hospital, why should they be trusted in the future?" This is only the most recent example.
Again, just because they use the words "human rights" that doesn't mean they are correct. I already showed you that "human rights" organizations don't know what constitutes a war crime using white-phosphorous. Or, maybe they do know it, but are ignoring those facts.
You have evidence in this thread. "Human Rights" groups do not know what constitues war crimes. The pictures prove it is NOT a war crime.
It's not just Israel that criticises the ICC. They are not a trial-by-jury court system. They do not prohibit hearsay. Even the "beloved" human rights organizations have criticised them. Yet again, you don't know the details. Look:
View attachment 85620
O. P. Jindal Global University - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
The ICC does not prosecute based on facts. The US cannot be a member of the ICC, nor be compliant with them. It's against the US Constitution. That has nothing to do with Israel. But someone whispers on twitter about Israel criticising the ICC and you make tthe assumption that Israel is automatically wrong to criticise. That shows the bias. That shows the prejudice in your point of view.
I don't think you want to be prejudiced, but, it happens. That's what was learned from the BLM movement. White people don't realize how prejudiced they actually are. It's latent. White people don't realize the institutional racism that's built into the justice system.
You don't seem to look for any facts at all in order to assume that Israel is wrong. All that's needed is a little whisper: "Israel criticises the ICC." This automatically produces the conclusion: "Israel MUST be guilty."
Yet again, you are showing that you don't know what constitutes a war crime. The last time you brought a source from these scholars, you didn't read the fine print. They did not say that war crimes had occured. They were concerned that there was a RISK of war crimes occuring. They were concerned about what MIGHT happen.
Again, this is what happens when people are influenced by what they are reading on twitter and social media. They stop paying attention to the details. All of that gets washed out. Twitter reinforces an individual's prejudices by targetting posts AT them which match their preferences. Twitter is showing you what you like in order to keep you glued to their platform.
You have yet again put forward the false claim about genocide. Until this stops, I will continue to push back against it.
Also you are an excellent case study, an excellent example, of an intelligent educated academic who is getting almost everything wrong when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It's important to understand how this happens. It's important to see what is the mechanism which is manipuulating your point of view. I think you intend to be fair, but, you're not being fair. I think you intend to be informed, but, you're not informed. It's no different than nearly half the population of America who will go to their graves believing the 20200 election was stolen. It's the same congitive faults being exploited.
Do you want to be like those people who deny the 2020 election results? That's what's happening. I suspectted it previously, but as soon as you admitted how affected you are by twitter, that was confirmation.
Ok fella, this is now the FIFTH TIME I have told you that I am not interested in debating you on this topic. Keep it up and I'm going to start reporting those posts.
You're on a debate forum posting false information. You are acting like one of those people who are denying the 2020 election. And it seems that you have fallen victim to the same sort of mental manipulation that they are/were.
Threatening me with moderation isn't going to accomplish anything.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Point out one bit of false information that I have posted in this thread which is not debatable as a matter of opinion.
You would need to accuratley describe the methods in order for me to answer.
Do you approve of law enforcement use of pepper spray?
Sure.
It is false that there are valid views on what constitutes genocide coming from scholars in the field on which Israel is casting aspersions.
The implication that there are scholars "in the field" accusing Israel's actions as genocide is also false. The reason I'm saying that is based on a previous thread where you tried to show this as a fact, but your supporting link was not an accusation of what Israel had done, but was instead a concern about what Israel MIGHT do.
You didn't read your own source. It's probably because the link to the letter of concern came from social media. Social media put a headline on it which was false, you believed the headline, but didn't read the content. That's typical for those who are being manipulated by social media.
Last edited: