Iran Executes Two for ‘Perversion

[OCguy]

Can't refute it yet again Rambo.

I'm victorious once again.

Technically you are both partially correct. Nothing bans use against military targets outside of civilian areas.

The Geneva Conventions obviously ban any willful attacks on civilians, so the weapon is irrelevant.

However, Protocol III of the CCCW does prohibit the use of incendiaries near civilian populations:

Protocol III on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons prohibits, in all circumstances, making the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects, the object of attack by any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or a combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target. The protocol also prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against military targets near concentration of civilians, which may otherwise be allowed by the principle of proportionality....

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only problem in regards to the disagreement between you two in particular, is that Israel isn't a signatory to Protocol III.

Keep in mind that the Geneva Conventions and most international law regarding war was drafted with a certain idea of what "war" is. Large air/land battles between uniformed armies with fairly identifiable battlefields, is what they were based off of.

They did not really account for such a future technology gap that would make 20th century war basically obsolete. When fighting a war against an adversary that uses civilian populations as cover, has no uniform, and is not part of a State military, it is an easy reason to point to in order to bend whatever rules of law you see fit. (I am not saying it is right or wrong, or talking about Israel/Palestine, especially WP, I am merely guessing part of the thought process that an Officer may go through during A-symmetric warfare such as that in Afghanistan.

 

[500]

Can't refute it yet again Rambo.

I'm victorious once again.

The burden of proof is on u.

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/515-830001?OpenDocument

WP is not even mentioned there. Get lost migrant kid.

 

[rmi5]

what is basiji.. is it a political party?

Nope, Basij is a terrorist organization which is officially a part of IRGC. These mercenaries are something like SS in Nazi germany and they receive salary for oppressing Iranian people, and do propaganda in favor of mullahs. They are the only ones inside Iran who can hold weapons and they can arrest people on a random manner. haman10, mohsen, soheil, MTN, and some other of these goons have previously confessed to be a basij member. I don't even know why Webmaster and mods let these members of a terrorist organization, to post in PDF.

 

[500]

Technically you are both partially correct. Nothing bans use against military targets outside of civilian areas.

The Geneva Conventions obviously ban any willful attacks on civilians, so the weapon is irrelevant.

However, Protocol III of the CCCW does prohibit the use of incendiaries near civilian populations:



Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only problem in regards to the disagreement between you two in particular, is that Israel isn't a signatory to Protocol III.

M825 rounds which Israel used are smoke rounds and therefore not banned by any conventions.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

 

[Falcon29]

The burden of proof is on u.

http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/515-830001?OpenDocument

WP is not even mentioned there. Get lost migrant kid.

I'm victorious yet again, otherwise the IDF wouldn't have came out and admitted to WP use and ban itself from using the weapon in the future.

M825 rounds which Israel used are smoke rounds and therefore not banned by any conventions.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

BBC News - Israel 'to stop using white phosphorus shells'
Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes | Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch reveals extent of Israel's phosphorus use in Gaza | World news | theguardian.com

Israel's military fired white phosphorus over crowded areas of Gazarepeatedly and indiscriminately in its three-week war, killing and injuring civilians and committing war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today.

In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed "a pattern or policy of conduct".

It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a "deliberate or reckless" way. The report says:

• Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.

• It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.

• In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.

Link to this audio
"In Gaza, the Israeli military didn't just use white phosphorus in open areas as a screen for its troops," said Fred Abrahams, a senior Human Rights Watch researcher. "It fired white phosphorus repeatedly over densely populated areas, even when its troops weren't in the area and safe smoke shells were available. As a result, civilians needlessly suffered and died." He said senior commanders should be held to account.

Human Rights Watch called on the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to launch an international commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of violations of international law in the Gaza war by the Israeli military and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls Gaza.

.................

Israel committed a massacre in 2009 and no one should expect the Palestinians to ever tolerate another attempt again.

 

[500]

I'm victorious yet again, otherwise the IDF wouldn't have came out and admitted to WP use and ban itself from using the weapon in the future.

IDF used smoke M825 rounds which are allowed to use anywhere.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

You are victorious just like Nasser was in 1956, Saddat was in 1973, Saddam in 1991, Nasrallah in 2006.... You guys always win until u die in exile.

 

[Falcon29]

Israel used artillery shells with WP in them, nice try troll. Now the Indians will see you for who you really are.

 

[OCguy]

Again, the details of that particular statute are moot, as Israel is not legally held to it. This is purely legalese, not any sort of moral justification.

If Israel was a signer though, I don't think that any International court would buy the argument that intentionally skirting the law by using a "smoke" shell at non-military targets is legal, unless someone could explain why they need to use an infantry/armor movement concealment tool on an apartment.

Using it is not banned, but targeting civilians, no matter if it is a JDAM or a soldier flicking a cigarette at a gas-soaked village, is banned under the very basic principals of the GC.

 

[500]

Israel used artillery shells with WP in them, nice try troll. Now the Indians will see you for who you really are.

1) WP does not mean incendiary, it is used in illumination, signal, smoke shells as well.
2) WP is not banned by any convention anywhere.
3) Incendiary is banned in populated areas. But Israel did not use any incendiary rounds.

Again, the details of that particular statute are moot, as Israel is not legally held to it. This is purely legalese, not any sort of moral justification.

If Israel was a signer though, I don't think that any International court would buy the argument that intentionally skirting the law by using a "smoke" shell at non-military targets is legal, unless someone could explain why they need to use an infantry/armor movement concealment tool on an apartment.

There is nothing moot there. M825 is a standard NATO smoke shell. Without any silly "quotes". Its 100% legal anywhere.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

 

[OCguy]

There is nothing moot there. M825 is a standard NATO smoke shell. Without any silly "quotes". Its 100% legal anywhere.

(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

Being a standard issue weapon or device has no bearing on if it can be used intentionally on civilians.

The 5.56/7.62 rounds are standard issue, and I am sure you are/were instructed in your training that intentionally using one on a civilian is illegal.

You are quoting exceptions for a statute that doesn't even apply to Israel, but if it did, they do not apply to what I am discussing.

Using smoke shells in a "civilian area" for actual military use isnt going to get anyone indicted. Using their incendiary nature to start civilian homes on fire intentionally, if it can be proven, can and should lead to severe penalties, regardless of who is doing it.

I am fully aware of my own military's ghosts and again I don't condemn one side more than the other. I do believe that someday, our country will face the reality of DU use in Falluja, and whoever authorized it specifically should go to prison. Using something that has severe residual side effects once the population returns isn't any better for a 10 year old civilian than directly attacking them.

 

[500]

Being a standard issue weapon or device has no bearing on if it can be used intentionally on civilians.

The 5.56/7.62 rounds are standard issue, and I am sure you are/were instructed in your training that intentionally using one on a civilian is illegal.

The claim was that Israel used illegal weapons. But fact is that Israel did not use any illegal weapons.

Smoke rounds were used to conceal Israeli ground troops. And they actually saved Palestinian lives.

 

[Falcon29]

The claim was that Israel used illegal weapons. But fact is that Israel did not use any illegal weapons.

Smoke rounds were used to conceal Israeli ground troops. And they actually saved Palestinian lives.

No, yet again you pathological liar the claim was that Israel used WP illegally. And it saved palestinain lives? Are you out of your mind? Did you not read the report!?

"Saved Palestinian lives"

You disturbed imbecile.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html?_r=0

GAZA — In early January, a week into Israel’s war in Gaza, the home of Sabah Abu Halima was hit by an Israeli shell. Ms. Abu Halima, the matriarch of a farming family in the northern Gaza area of Beit Lahiya, was caught in an inferno that burned her husband and four of their nine children to death.

Palestinian officials say her family was hit by white phosphorus, a weapon that militaries use widely to obscure the battlefield but that is also limited under an international convention that bans targeting civilians with it.

The Israeli military issued a short statement on Wednesday, saying it was investigating whether its use of phosphorous weapons was improper and reiterating that it was “obligated to international law” in the matter. Early in the war, Israeli officials would not confirm whether the military was using white phosphorus at all, but said only that it was using weapons in legal ways.

Meanwhile, Amnesty International said it found “indisputable evidence of widespread use of white phosphorus in densely populated residential areas in Gaza City and in the north.” In a statement, it said its investigators “saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli Army.” It called such use a likely war crime and demanded a full international investigation.

.....................

 

[500]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/world/middleeast/22phosphorus.html?_r=0

Again Palestinian fairy tales.

 

[Falcon29]

I don't need to go any further, people can see for themselves the 'logic' and mentality of Israelis. Any wrong they commit is as 'Palestinian fairy tale', any action they take is completely justified, their occupation is completely justified, nothing else....

You see for yourselves how disturbed these people are and realize who you're aiding. They will continue to occupy our lands until they completely destroy our identity.

 

[OCguy]

I don't need to go any further, people can see for themselves the 'logic' and mentality of Israelis. Any wrong they commit is as 'Palestinian fairy tale', any action they take is completely justified, their occupation is completely justified, nothing else....

Unfortunately outside of a minority of people who can try to look at global issues from an objective standpoint, most people act how you are describing. Most people believe that their grievances are superior to those of the "enemy". Most common soldiers and their populations believe they are acting justly, either due to human nature, indoctrination from their government, or everything else our governments do to ensure their citizens will fight any attempt to remove them.

The vast majority of the time, I would bet it is nurture that forms these opinions, not nature.

I bet you could take any person in this thread who says they approve of executing "gays", and if you changed the location they were born in, and the influences they gravitated to during their impressionable years, they would have a completely different outlook. It would be hard to convince me it is just a coincidence that the common denominator for this type of behavior is geographical location. Religion can't be blamed.