Rare weapon used by Israeli Air Force.

The point is that 'us Westerners' have played such an instrumental part in creating the situation in the Middle East and sustaining the cycle of violence that we cannot now walk away and leave the two sides to fight it out - not if we have any kind of human conscience anyway. I find the implication that the inhabitants of the region are somehow mentally inferior to 'westerners' and therefore incapable of finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict disturbing to say the least, although I assume you are applying to both sides equally?

Fact of the matter is, yes, there has been a lot of conflict between Islam and the 'Western World' over the past 1200 years or so, but there is nothing 'inevitable' in the conflict we see here at the minute. The Israeli state was created by a unilateral declaration of independence, and the people who made that declaration knew that it would not be accepted by the Arabs - they had already rejected the UN resolution and the authority of the UN to decide how Arab land was disposed of. As has been said many times, neither side is innocent, but the reason that this war is going on is because the Israelis created their own state out of someone else's without permission or agreement. Under any other circumstances, that would be considered an unacceptable usurpation of a state's sovereignty - but seeing as the land was British spoils of war and the occupants are Arabs, no-one seems to have a problem. I do not, for even a second, condone or support Hamas and thier activities against Israel. But if Israel took other peoples land, knowing that this transfer had not been agreed to, they cannot expect to live totally unmolested. And if you believe that the land has never belonged to the Arabs, go back and see that it had been under Muslim rule for centuries, during which time the area was no more violent than any other part of the world. The real violence started in the aftermath of WW1, when it became clear that Britain would not honour it's commitment to Arab independence, and that the influx of Jewish immigrants to the area betokened the imminent creation of a Jewish state, at the expense of the Arabs already present in the area.

So, if eighty years of killing has failed to secure the Jewish state, maybe it's time for a different approach. And peace should be mediated and guaranteed by the UK and the US - we did so much to create and then sustain Israel, it's time we owned up to our responsibilities instead of leaving another broken country in out post-colonial wake...

inferior I said nothing of the sort, I did say they think the way they do because they are of the eastern mindset.

bomb this is getting nowhere just like the other thread brought up stupidly by Jug. I know the history well enough with contacts that I had - from both sides and still do, and relatives living their for eons. simply put they do not want anything we can offer to give them and they in a word are content with the struggles that they have.
Getting to the talk table would be grand, can it be done, surely it can, but both are unwilling.
Violence is Biblical long before the British came and left, you can believe it or deny it. I remain on this that the two peoples will unceasingly try to terminate each other till the end of time

Could be two different weapons.

The pic looks like a WP and seems like a marker. I've seen on TV, but do not have pics of, the air bursts. Some of them seemed to be just standard air burst artillery shells (Prox Fused). Seems they would be very effective against a bunch of guys setting up a rocket.

I apologise Erich for misconstruing your comments. Nevertheless, I think the US and UK need to own up to their responsibility in the situation instead of pretending it's hopeless and walking away. The UK in particular owes that to the people on both sides that we have betrayed

or just forget the conflict entirely and get back to bolstering their own ~ US and UK's economy. Bomb, I was told too many times " go home and leave us alone "

CharlesBronson said:

Recently I had seen some footage in the CNN of jewish air force operation over Gaza and I have a question.

What is that thing wich explodes in the air and opened like a spider web ?

A cluster bomb? a IR jamming device ?

the image I saw is more or less like this:

Click to expand...

reminds me of napalm but that is not used by anyone i know of

reminds me of napalm

Click to expand...

Not quite, it is phosphor, the napalm is dropped in the shape of cointainers or fuel tanks and ingnites when impact with the ground.

Parmigiano said:

Well, the fact that 'Willy Pete' is not used only by Israel does not make the use of it less criminal.
This is a war crime, no questions.

Click to expand...

If it were a war against a country, it would be. The Geneva convention doesn't recognise police actions within a country. People keep trying to imagne a Palestinian State, but it doesn't exist.

That isn't stopping the UN complaining about it (not that they can really do anything about it)...

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN accuses Israel over phosphorus

I really do not think any of us can judge this (especially based off of the videos that have been posted).

1. We are not there.
2. We do not know what the use was for.
3. We do not know what the targets were.

Clay_Allison said:

If it were a war against a country, it would be. The Geneva convention doesn't recognise police actions within a country. People keep trying to imagne a Palestinian State, but it doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand your point.

Do you mean that Palestine is part of Israel and so this is an 'internal police affair' ?
If so I believe you take a wrong assumption.

I question whether it is Willie Pete. I think we are looking at nothing more than airburst artillery. Heck there is a pic of it our local liberal paper and not a single mention of the evil Isrealis using forbidden armaments.

Parmigiano said:

I honestly don't understand your point.

Do you mean that Palestine is part of Israel and so this is an 'internal police affair' ?
If so I believe you take a wrong assumption.

Click to expand...

Legally, yes. The Geneva convention only applies to wars between states with lawful combatants. Gaza isn't a country. Hamas are not lawful combatants. The convention doesn't apply to that any more than it applies to a riot in Los Angeles.

Clay_Allison said:

Legally, yes. The Geneva convention only applies to wars between states with lawful combatants. Gaza isn't a country. Hamas are not lawful combatants. The convention doesn't apply to that any more than it applies to a riot in Los Angeles.

Click to expand...

Nope.

"The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is "occupied" and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies."

International law and the Arabâ€"Israeli conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beside the 'laws', the concept that a state can violate any kind of rule to fix an 'internal problem' is questionable on itself.
It seems to me that when Saddam was using this reasoning to solve his 'internal problem' with the Kurds nobody with common sense was defending that approach.

And if London would had WP bombed Belfast (given that the IRA terrorist were hiding among the 'civilians') I suppose that there would not have been worldwide appreciation.

Parmigiano said:

Nope.

"The Geneva Conventions and other international tractates recognize that land a) conquered in the course of a war; and b) the disposition of which is unresolved through subsequent peace treaties is "occupied" and subject to international laws of war and international humanitarian law. This includes special protection of individuals in those territories, limitations on the use of land in those territories, and access by international relief agencies."

International law and the Arabâ€"Israeli conflict - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beside the 'laws', the concept that a state can violate any kind of rule to fix an 'internal problem' is questionable on itself.
It seems to me that when Saddam was using this reasoning to solve his 'internal problem' with the Kurds nobody with common sense was defending that approach.

And if London would had WP bombed Belfast (given that the IRA terrorist were hiding among the 'civilians') I suppose that there would not have been worldwide appreciation.

Click to expand...

The French certainly had no problems selling him weapons to do it with, "food for oil" style. Also the UN didn't exactly sanction action against Iraq when we went in there.

I think attempting to ban weapons from war zones is retarded, with perhaps the exception of nerve gas. All it ever does is give the advantage to the people willing to break the rules.

WP is a hard way to die. I'd pick something else, given the choice. Does it bother me when it is used? Not really.

If the Israelis start dropping huge cannisters of Sarin gas, then that's an act of a genocidal nature. Of course they never would, and Hamas would if they could.

Clay_Allison said:

The French certainly had no problems selling him weapons to do it with, "food for oil" style. Also the UN didn't exactly sanction action against Iraq when we went in there.

Click to expand...

Nor the US and any other Country who had chance to make a business (I think also italy sold him weapons)

Clay_Allison said:

I think attempting to ban weapons from war zones is retarded, with perhaps the exception of nerve gas. All it ever does is give the advantage to the people willing to break the rules.

Click to expand...

Why nerve gas should be different from other weapons that 'should not be banned' ? Personal taste?
I think that there is some International agreement about the forbidden list, that might not be the perfect way but is still way better than to let a single Nation or individual decide what is allowed and what not

Clay_Allison said:

WP is a hard way to die. I'd pick something else, given the choice. Does it bother me when it is used? Not really.

Click to expand...

Me too, I would prefer several other ways to blow my dirty soul, many of them include a bedroom and some individuals of the other sex.

Does it bother me that somebody uses stuff like WP?
Yes, at different levels.

Clay_Allison said:

If the Israelis start dropping huge cannisters of Sarin gas, then that's an act of a genocidal nature. Of course they never would, and Hamas would if they could.

Click to expand...

Tht's exactly why the use of certain weapons must be restricted.
Who sets the limit between an 'act of genocidal nature' and 'act of self defense'?
Can't be one of the party involved (regardless of which war and side)
Remember that, before having an army, the Israeli people was fighting with terrorist attacks too against their 'oppressor' that in the case was Great Britain.

i agree with Erich

IMHO, war is war. The purpose is to kill the other side as quickly as possible. The thought that any weapon system is outlawed is a crazy. Side A is waring against side B and kicking the snot out of them. The only way for side B to when is to use a banned weapon system. Side B thinks, I can die and lose everything or I can use the dreaded weapon X and save my neck....of course side B is going to use the weapon.

The law of war is like a contract, it is only as good as the people that sign it. Once one side stops playing by the laws of war then the rules are no longer in effect. No I am not saying that troops should be allowed to become hoards stealing everthing in site, attacking women and children and shooting pets. I am not saying that tourture for the sake of tourture in allowable either. My point is that I am just as dead from an arty round, WP, bee hive, chemical attack or bullet.

I do not remember to details but either prior to WWI or shortly afterwards the world met and banned war. That went rather well. The only reason why chemicals were not used by the Geramns in WWII was because Hitler lived through a chemical attack in WWI not because of any law or international agreement. During the cold war, we expected the Warsaw Pact to use chemicals. I have not kept up with military history the past 10 years but I do not recall reading anything showing that chemicals was not in their war plans. I would be interested in hearing from our friends in Europe about their possible use.

I think screaming about law of war violations is in order. After all, we now classify making prisinors wear underwear on their heads as a war crime.

DBII

There is one thing called 'evolution'
It should bring to something called 'civilization'

In past centuries, was normal the the winning party killed everybody or took population as slaves. Not to say what was happening to women and childrens.

In WW1 the effect of mustard gas brought the Nations to ban this kind of weapons.
There were small violations to this treaty (for instance Italy has the shame to have used it in the colonial war), but this prevented the use of gas in WW2.
Giving that weight to the story of Hitler is fantasy.
Churchill did not had this problem, but gas was not used i.e. in Dieppe
Stalin had even lesser moral problems, but he did not used the gas in Stalingrad.

That in terms of preparation one tries to be ready for any event is normal: I bet that in the cold war the Russian too were training to counter NBC attacks from the west (... oops NBC is Nuclear, Bacteriological, Chemical: i don't know the english terms)

You want to ban every weapon rule, but you say "No I am not saying that troops should be allowed to become hoards stealing everthing in site, attacking women and children and shooting pets. I am not saying that tourture for the sake of tourture in allowable either."

Here you contradict yourself, because what you do is to establish a PERSONAL rule, a rule that for you is OK.
And what if is not ok for me? I may say 'I won the war, so I am entitled to do what I want with the conquered land, women and pets. Don't bother me if I feel like to shoot and rape them'
What's wrong? You set your rules, I set mine.

Maybe is better that a recognised set of rules is agreed and that we stick with it.

Then you say "Once one side stops playing by the laws of war then the rules are no longer in effect"
I agree, that's why is so important that breaking rules is not allowed.

Parmigiano said:

I agree, that's why is so important that breaking rules is not allowed.

Click to expand...

Parm, no offense but that is a pretty "out there" statement. People go to war because "the rules" (whatever they may be) aren't working to their satisfaction. It's a little like a criminal expected to "play by the rules" when the definition of a criminal is one who doesn't play by "the rules".

If a weapon hasn't been used in a war (NBC, Napalm, Land Mines, to name a few) it is more often a case of the active combat not having gone on long enough. Usually, in a case of total war anyway, all weapons will eventually get used as the war progresses (regresses? degresses? I don't know but I guess the verbage I'm looking for means "the war gets steadily and progressively worse from a position of ability, desire and will to inflict harm on the opposition).