ForkTailedDevil: I also thought the cloud reminded me of a nuke. Now, this comes out. Hmmm...

I have my doubts about this being a nuke of any flavor.

That would just be DUMB and say what you want to about the Israelis they are seldom dumb.

This same site claimed that a tactical nuke was accidentally detonated this last month when an Iraqi insurgent mortar hit a weapons cache on a US base here in Iraq...

Apparently tactical nukes are a lot more prolific than anyone ever thought. I know I got one in my happy meal as a prize last month.

Here's the original translated article that that site has reprinted.

All (or almost all) big explosion clouds look the same. We associate mushroom clouds with nukes because that's how they always look but conventional weapons produce the same (but smaller) pyroclastic shape. (as do exploding volcanoes)

I can recall as a kid seeing my first mushroom cloud "in person" when my Dad threw an M-80 into the thick wet grass. It was cool and looked exactly like an atomic bomb's cloud.

My only question here would be, if they dropped a bunker buster on a storage area that has some sort of radioactive material, might that not give them all the radiation readings they're talking about?

I doubt it's a nuke.

Given that it's a bunker buster it probably has a depleted uranium casing so it can slam through the ground before doing it's busting.

Israel used a nuke?????

Rabbi, Please.

Talk about unmitigated bullshiat.

I will believe it when I see the Reuters photos.

With Israel's luck, they probably just located a future Lebanese uranium mine...

This website is the Far-Left's Rense.

It features headlines like:
- VIDEO: World Trade Center Building 7 was not hit by an aircraft
- VIDEO: Flight 77: Evidence suggests that a Plane did not hit the Pentagon
- Understanding North Korea Yes, an article about how the US is evil and NK misunderstood
- Towards a Police State in America: Will the "October Surprise" Come on November 7th?

Congratulation, subby, you're a dumbass!


UN: No IDF Uranium Bomb during the War

fezziwig: I doubt it's a nuke.

Given that it's a bunker buster it probably has a depleted uranium casing so it can slam through the ground before doing it's busting.


winner. that use of uranium is very abundant in tank busting, bullet proof vest busting projectiles.. that's part of the reason people freak out over bullets being left behind in war zones.. not the lead, but the uranium. It's most likely a case of this being some stage that breaks very far into solid materials before timed or pressurized final detonation.

Bunker busting tech has come too far for them to just give up and start using expensive mini nukes.

Conject all you want (conject?). Israel used white phosphorous shells, in itself a provable and as damnable an action as anything that remains to be proven.

I'm glad you put that in big type, Tatsuma. "Israel didn't use the banned weapon they were accused of. I was only a weapon that melts the skin off of people in a a loosely-defined hit zone". That's much better.

swahnhennessy: Conject all you want (conject?). Israel used white phosphorous shells, in itself a provable and as damnable an action as anything that remains to be proven.

Uh, why is it damnable? White Phosphorus is legal, it has been used by other countries recently (including ourselves in Fallujah and other places over Iraq) and, again, it's legal

Ok, should it become illegal? Maybe. But it's not "damnable" to use a legal weapon to achieve your military goals.

White Phosphorous HAS it's usefulness.

swahnhennessy: I'm glad you put that in big type, Tatsuma. "Israel didn't use the banned weapon they were accused of. I was only a weapon that melts the skin off of people in a a loosely-defined hit zone". That's much better.

Again, it's not illegal. Did you revile and treated your own country like that when we used it all over Iraq and Afghanistan?

It's a legal weapon. You think it should be illegal? Fine. Petition, get involved, whatever. But you're throwing a fuss over a legal weapon

It's not like Israel saw a place called "Puppies, orphans and rainbows" and decided to throw WP bombs on it simply to hear the dying cries of melting orphans.

And yes, it's a pretty farking gruesome way to die, but is it really that much worse than being blown away, or shot, or dying from multiple shrapnel wounds from a rocket?

It's a legal weapon. It's not banned.

I think that what Tatsuma is trying to say is that the weapon is not illegal.

White phosphorous has a kill zone that exceeds its target. You cannot be certain that the gases released by its explosiom will not also kill innocents; not to mention those same gases are what brought mustard and sarin such bad press for how it is they kill.

swahnhennessy: White phosphorous has a kill zone that exceeds its target. You cannot be certain that the gases released by its explosiom will not also kill innocents; not to mention those same gases are what brought mustard and sarin such bad press for how it is they kill.

WP has many uses. It can mark targets, it can create smoke cover, it can signal messages to friendly troops and, yes, kill.

WP is illegal to use on civilians or in civilian areas.

It is not illegal.

It's illegal to kill civilians on purpose. Whether with WP or a slingshot.

SurgeonDryHog: I think that what Tatsuma is trying to say is that the weapon is not illegal.


Could be, but I think he should say it again, so we can be sure.

Tatsuma: WP is illegal to use on civilians or in civilian areas.

Is it legal to use on non-civilians?

Scrophulous Barking Duck: Could be, but I think he should say it again, so we can be sure.


I too am still a little unclear on this topic. Perhaps Tatsuma could clarify what he means.

Scrophulous Barking Duck: Could be, but I think he should say it again, so we can be sure.

Well, if I want to drive the point home and avoid discussing this for the next 100 posts, I figured I might as well repeat it often, in different ways

Since people can't jump on the "Israel used banned weapons" bandwagon, we may just discuss in a civil matter and reach agreements throw each others poo about something else or create a new cliche revolving around the legality of WP. Who knows.

elchip: Is it legal to use on non-civilians?

Yes. And kittens. Cause we're evil like that

/zionist

Tatsuma: It's illegal to kill civilians on purpose. Whether with WP or a slingshot.

That is why WP is fought against. It is not as accurate as a slingshot. If you can prove to me that it was only used in areas where no collateral damage could be taken, I'll concede. But you can't, simply for he reason that it has been used, knowingly, in urban centers, where its effects are chaotic and far surpass even a mis-guided blast radius of a conventional weapon.

swahnhennessy: That is why WP is fought against. It is not as accurate as a slingshot. If you can prove to me that it was only used in areas where no collateral damage could be taken, I'll concede. But you can't, simply for he reason that it has been used, knowingly, in urban centers, where its effects are chaotic and far surpass even a mis-guided blast radius of a conventional weapon.

Independent source to back that up, please.

elchip: Is it legal to use on non-civilians?

Tatsuma: Yes. And kittens. Cause we're evil like that

/zionist

Tatsuma, I'm laughing now. I feel bad for laughing but I'm laughing anyway.

/hates kittens
//JK.

I haven't read a single incident reported from credible source about shells of WP used anywhere but open areas.

Making it legal.

swahnhennessy: White phosphorous has a kill zone that exceeds its target.

I agree... it's a horrible weapon that shouldn't be used. That being said, we're talking about Israel here. They generally don't seem to care how many civilians they kill. It's a blow stuff up first and deny the implications later situation with them.

Tatsuma would defend absolutely anything that Israel does. You might as well be talking to a wall if you even question their actions.

So... my point is... enjoy the discussion, but bother trying to get him to admit any wrongdoing on the part of Israel, regardless of what they've done.

Independent source? Your link already admitted to it. As for the effects? OK

JohnnyC: That being said, we're talking about Israel here. They generally don't seem to care how many civilians they kill.

Let's be honest here. While they're far from perfect, if they really didn't care about how many civilians they killed, you would have seen a whole lot more carnage in Lebanon and Gaza.

JohnnyC: Tatsuma would defend absolutely anything that Israel does. You might as well be talking to a wall if you even question their actions.

So... my point is... enjoy the discussion, but bother trying to get him to admit any wrongdoing on the part of Israel, regardless of what they've done.

Bingo!

JohnnyC: Tatsuma would defend absolutely anything that Israel does. You might as well be talking to a wall if you even question their actions.

Absolutely not.

If Israel purposedly launched WP shells into civilian areas to kill civilians... I can't defend that. I'd even condemn it.

It just didn't happen.

If they'd make matza out of palestinian blood, I'd buy it condemn it.

This board makes me much more pro-Israel than I am in reality. I'm nowhere near zealous. I don't have a picture of the Israeli flag on the wall next to my bed.

I'm placed, however, in a situation where I'm defending Israel, which is an unpopular position. I'd have a much easier job to just say "Israel bad, Israel apartheid, Israel nazis!"

Tatsuma: I don't have a picture of the Israeli flag on the wall next to my bed.

That's right, you actually have a full-sized flag :)

Tatsuma: Making it legal.

Israel's use of WP shells (as well as the US use of WP shells in Fallujah) is only legal because Israel and the US are not a signatory to Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which prohibits the use of incendiary weapons (including WP) on civilian targets or on military targets within concentrations of civilians.

So, yes, technically legal perhaps. But that's only because the US and Israel have chosen not to sign on to the law that prohibits it.

swahnhennessy: Independent source? Your link already admitted to it.

No it didn't, nowhere in my link does it say that. The UN and Israel confirms that WP was used, Israel confirms that it was used only against military target and the UN didn't contest these claims, they were not able to find a SINGLE shred of proof that it was used on civilian areas.

Again, back your accusations

elchip: Let's be honest here. While they're far from perfect, if they really didn't care about how many civilians they killed, you would have seen a whole lot more carnage in Lebanon and Gaza.

Exactly. Israel is fighting a war no other modern army would accept to fight.

Compare how Israel reacts to the palestinians, reacted to Hizbullah, and compare to Fallujah or Grozny.

The IDF are farking softies when it comes to avoid killing civilians. They are doing their damn best.

NOW NOW they do fark up from times to times. The Beit Hanoun tragedy is a good example. What people fail to notice, however, is that for a farking week and a half before that, more than 60 terrorists were killed while less than 10 civilians were killed.

So, yeah, they farked up one time and it cost 19 innocent lives. Had terrorists not been shooting rockets 500M from the area that was shelled, it would not have happened.

I'm pretty sure Israel can do no wrong. If you're Israeli. "Defending your homeland" assuages a lot of guilt. Look at the U.S.!

Then again, I try as often as possible to forget the Middle East exists, so I don't really have very string opnions either way...

elchip: That's right, you actually have a full-sized flag :)

Dammit, caught me there. I do. And I made myself a cape using that design:




I strike fear in the heart of anti-semites and anti-americans everywhere. Then I charge them higher-than-average interest rates. TAKE THAT!1

wee: string opnions

What I do have a is a faulty keyboard. Honest.

You turn yourself mobiousely(sp) to defend the country of your adoption. While I respect your patience in regards to their many flames you endure you come off as nothing but a propaganda piece for Israeli autonomy. Every thread about the conflict in Gaza and elsewhere you are there, disseminating information. I am as Irish as you are Israeli, or as Swedish as you are American, or as level-headed as you are propaganda-mined. Again, I respect you, nevermind that our opinion of Zion conflict. I also respect your honesty...which is only evident in your arguments half the time. But that you see fit to defend Zionism garners my respect. Unfortunately, Isaac and Ishmael would also find fault within our fight.

Tatsuma: Again, back your accusations.

Lebanese Health Minister Mohammad Khalifeh on Monday cited suspicions that Israel is using weapons that may contain phosphorus.

And...

During the war several foreign media outlets reported that Lebanese civilians carried injuries characteristic of attacks with phosphorus, a substance that burns when it comes to contact with air. In one CNN report, a casualty with serious burns was seen lying in a South Lebanon hospital.

Oh, and here is the list of sites that the UNEP examined before making their determination. Note that many of the sites are industrial sites, factories, clinics, and cities - that would seem to suggest a populated/civilian area, would it not?

Tatsuma: Israel confirms that it was used only against military target and the UN didn't contest these claims, they were not able to find a SINGLE shred of proof that it was used on civilian areas.

Umm, the UN has not released their final report. All they have said so far is that Israel used WP during the conflict, that they know this because of tests performed at the sites I linked to above, and that there is no evidence that depleted uranium was used. When you say "they were not able to find a SINGLE shred of proof that it was used on civilian areas"....source?

swahnhennessy: I don't have anything to back up what I claimed was fact earlier

It's ok. You said something and you were wrong. You don't have proof that WP shells were used against civilian areas because it didn't happen. The IDF said they didn't. The UN confirmed.

It's no biggie, man. It happens to the best of us. I made an error about the IDF budget, was called on it, fessed up and admitted I was wrong.

You probably read about the WP case, then read on Fark it was used in civilian areas, and your mind made a leap

El_Perro: Oh, and here is the list of sites that the UNEP examined before making their determination. Note that many of the sites are industrial sites, factories, clinics, and cities - that would seem to suggest a populated/civilian area, would it not?

Uh, that's the list of places that has been examined. The fact that is has been examined doesn't mean it has been used there

The UNEP guy declared he didn't see any traces of WP shells used in civilian areas.

And for the record, an industrial area is not a civilian area.

Tatsuma: It's ok. You said something and you were wrong. You don't have proof that WP shells were used against civilian areas because it didn't happen. The IDF said they didn't. The UN confirmed.

I'll ask again...SOURCE????

Tatsuma: If Israel purposedly launched WP shells into civilian areas to kill civilians... I can't defend that. I'd even condemn it.

Well... the trick here is that you automatically assume that any evidence to support that is faulty, or unreliable, or without merit. Essentially making it very easy for you to say, "It didn't happen." when in fact... you don't know that for sure.

Now... I'm not saying they did or didn't. I'm just saying that you purposely blind yourself to any evidence that goes against what you want to believe is true.

Tatsuma: The UNEP guy declared he didn't see any traces of WP shells used in civilian areas.

This is getting kind of old.....Source?

JohnnyC: Well... the trick here is that you automatically assume that any evidence to support that is faulty, or unreliable, or without merit.

That's a two way street. Why do you automatically, without evidence or support, believe all claims of civilian deaths?

When I was in the US Army artillery, we had WP rounds, but it was explicitly clear that they were to be used only for specific purposes and those purposes did NOT include personnel. Whether it was illegal or not I can tell you the US military didn't deliberately use WP on people.

We had better weapons for that anyway. WP sucks as an antipersonnel device, but it's an incredible psychological weapon, because although it kills fewer people than a properly timed HE round, those people die horribly and the survivors are left screaming and disfigured, in more pain than any human being can possibly imagine, as a chemical that cannot be extinguished and burns on contact with air, white hot, melts the flesh off of their bodies.

Bullshiat. Already disproved.

The website is hilarious though, Mr. Submitter.

Reaching hard, are we ?

El_Perro: I'll ask again...SOURCE????

CBC Radio, UNEP guy interviewed, IDF

JohnnyC: Now... I'm not saying they did or didn't. I'm just saying that you purposely blind yourself to any evidence that goes against what you want to believe is true.

I have absolutely no proof that it happened, and statements against it.