[Ado]

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle14208.htm

Saddens me that the world hasnt condemned this. As if conventional explosives werent enough.
Is this one of those moments in history where a military wants to test new weaponry and know noone will put then before warcrimes tribunals?

[idjeff]

That's the most unbiased "news" article I've ever read...

Couldn't you see this for the propaganda it is?

[ghporter]

Phosphorus bombs are not "missiles" and missiles are not "phosphorus bombs." Phosphorus is seldom used in ANY military weapon today, and typically only for illumination. On the other hand, a lot of weapons cause burns, and secondary effects of a lot of explosives (like setting fire to petrol in a car that's struck by a weapon) cause far more burns.

This piece of drivel is NOT news. It's blatant propaganda. While the two are not always diametrically opposed, in this case they certainly are. What about the kids in the school that Hezboalla hit with missiles? TARGETED with missiles? What about them?

[OreoCookie]

I don't think putting atrocities on a balance and checking which side is heavier is a very fruitful attitude. I don't like the idea that either side is entitled to its `fair share'.

I haven't heard from any reputable source that the IDF use phosphorus bombs, but Israel admitted it used cluster bombs in attacks on Lebanese soil. In either case, we should stick to things that have at least been checked by a reputable source.

[invisibleX]

Wow, that is a tad biased.

Although he/she seemed to be condemning hezbollah at the end.

[Macrobat]

Truly credible "news" source:

Domain ID: D2565082-LRMS
Domain Name:INFORMATIONCLEARINGHOUSE.INFO
Created On:05-Feb-2003 21:18:49 UTC
Last Updated On:10-Jan-2006 02:23:00 UTC
Expiration Date:05-Feb-2007 21:18:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R139-LRMS)
Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID:tun8vaJxpxWLJ7eS
Registrant Name:contactprivacy.com
Registrant Organization:Contactprivacy.com
Registrant Street1:96 Mowat Ave
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Toronto
Registrant State/Province:ON
Registrant Postal Code:M6K3M1
Registrant Country:CA
Registrant Phone:+1.4165385457

Domain Name: CONTACTPRIVACY.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com
Name Server: DNS3.TUCOWS.COM
Name Server: DNS2.TUCOWS.COM
Name Server: DNS1.TUCOWS.COM
Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK
EPP Status: clientDeleteProhibited
EPP Status: clientTransferProhibited
EPP Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 13-Jul-2006
Creation Date: 15-Apr-2005
Expiration Date: 15-Apr-2007

One wonders why a shareware/freeware developer is involved in such an enterprise in the first place (tucows).

[itai195]

They're just the domain registrar

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

Registrant City:Toronto
Registrant State/Province:ON

All right, which one of you was it. Monique? SWG? fess up.

(jk)

[Macrobat]

BTW, WP is a conventional weapon, as is Napalm, just one that isn't used in widespread fashion. Trying to equate it to a WMD (as does the OP's link) is specious, at best.

[itai195]

Weren't 'they' trying to trump up similar charges regarding phosphorus when the US was in Fallujah? Same old trick, just different names.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

All right, which one of you was it. Monique? SWG? fess up.

(jk)

I know exactly were that is as I used to work right next to it. They are just the domain registrar.

Macrobat researching is less credible than this story.

[Dork.]

I think we should use this as an excuse to bash Canada in multiple threads.

I'll start: your Major League Baseball team sucks.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Dork.

I'll start: your Major League Baseball team sucks.

Your President sucks

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I know exactly were that is as I used to work right next to it. They are just the domain registrar.

Macrobat researching is less credible than this story.

My reasearch is impecably credible, as I made no value judgement whatsoever, I simply reported the facts from a simple "whois" search. Your response, however is more than suspect, since you feel the need to defend from an attack that never occurred.

[Macrobat]

I'll continue the attack. WE hold the trophy for the championship in YOUR national sport.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

I'll continue the attack. WE hold the trophy for the championship in YOUR national sport.

When did we win the national curling championships?

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by Macrobat

My reasearch is impecably credible, as I made no value judgement whatsoever,

"One wonders why a shareware/freeware developer is involved in such an enterprise in the first place (tucows)."

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by itai195

Weren't 'they' trying to trump up similar charges regarding phosphorus when the US was in Fallujah? Same old trick, just different names.

Yes. Apparently phosphorus is a big bugaboo for certain groups.

[Macrobat]

And that qualifies as an attack? I simply pointed out that the linked website is FAR outside the ken of the primary registrar.

You - straw - reach.


To say the VERY least.

[ghporter]

Macrobat, the point remains that Tucows is not just a shareware repository. They're one of the more obvious retail domain registrars around. So someone who didn't want to have their own name attached to a domain left it in Tucows' name, which says volumes by itself. Would a credible news source hide itself behind a retail domain registrar? I think not.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Macrobat, the point remains that Tucows is not just a shareware repository. They're one of the more obvious retail domain registrars around. So someone who didn't want to have their own name attached to a domain left it in Tucows' name, which says volumes by itself. Would a credible news source hide itself behind a retail domain registrar? I think not.

I don't think they hid anything. I remember when I registered my domain with Tucows they also looked like they were the owners.

Either way Tucows has nothing to do with it. I can register www.KillAllBlacks.com and they don't have to approve it or nothing.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I don't think they hid anything. I remember when I registered my domain with Tucows they also looked like they were the owners.

Either way Tucows has nothing to do with it. I can register www.KillAllBlacks.com and they don't have to approve it or nothing.

Other registrars have other processes; my domain is registered through 1and1, and MY data shows up for it. You can choose to use a registrar that passes the real owner's data or one that uses their own, for a variety of reasons. I think Tucows was chosen because they typically maintain "ownership" of domains they register, so the real owner could hide his identity.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I haven't heard from any reputable source that the IDF use phosphorus bombs, but Israel admitted it used cluster bombs in attacks on Lebanese soil. In either case, we should stick to things that have at least been checked by a reputable source.

Reuters reported that Israel was using phosphorus the day before the linked article was posted. Yes, the original linked article in this thread is a bunch of emotion-tugging propaganda --- but, Israel openly admits is uses these weapons, it just claims that it restricts their use to open battlefield areas and not urban centers which it considers legal. It's pretty clear that at least a few Lebanese civilians have been burnt by phosphorus in the south of the country -- especially around Tyre but not Beirut or the more populated areas in the north. So, the short answers are:

Yes, Israel uses them.

Yes, a number of Lebanese civilians have been burnt by them.

Yes, Israel appears to be using them in accordance with what the consider their legal use ... i.e. not using them intentionally to target civilians in densely populated areas but, unfortunately, catching a few civilians with them in their battlefield use in the south.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Reuters reported that Israel was using phosphorus the day before the linked article was posted. Yes, the original linked article in this thread is a bunch of emotion-tugging propaganda --- but, Israel openly admits is uses these weapons, it just claims that it restricts their use to open battlefield areas and not urban centers which it considers legal. It's pretty clear that at least a few Lebanese civilians have been burnt by phosphorus in the south of the country -- especially around Tyre but not Beirut or the more populated areas in the north. So, the short answers are:

Yes, Israel uses them.

Yes, a number of Lebanese civilians have been burnt by them.

Yes, Israel appears to be using them in accordance with what the consider their legal use ... i.e. not using them intentionally to target civilians in densely populated areas but, unfortunately, catching a few civilians with them in their battlefield use in the south.

Wait wait- is this the same Reuters that uses reports and photographs from HizbAllah supporters?

The same HizbAllah that CNN admitted pretty much tells then what they can say, shows them what they can show, and makes them turn camera off when HizbAllah wants?

The same HizbAllah that directs the pictures and poses dead bodies for greater PR effect?

The same Reuters that publishes those pictures without criticism?

The same Reuters that had to pull 920+ photos from their files because the photographer embarrassed them with really bad photoshop skillz, faking the news?

Why yes, I think it is.

I've got a large grain of salt for you to borrow. I recommend you use it when encountering news like this.

[Buckaroo]

It's nothing more than one huge garbage propaganda machine by the Arabs.

[Krusty]

Actually Vmarks, if you read the article its Reuters quoting members of the UN and Human Rights Watch AND a spokesman for the IDF and a Belgian doctor. The Associated Press carried a very similar story but only a couple of news outlets picked it up. Here's one of them from 7/25. In it, when asked if they use these weapons, the IDF responded as follows:

The Geneva Conventions ban using white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations, and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas. The Israeli military said its use of weapons "conforms with international law" and it investigates claims of violations "based on the information provided."

It also said that it had warned all residents to leave areas that had been targeted.

"The IDF (army) operates solely against terrorist organizations and terror infrastructure. The responsibility for endangering (the) civilian population rests on the Hezbollah terror organization," the military said in a statement.

The IDF corroborates the story right there ... basically saying they use them in accordance with international law (i.e. not intentionally against civilians) and then they go on to say "Hey, we're aiming at terrorists ... the civilians are just in the way". Or please give your interpretation of what the IDF is saying by their statements. How 'bout one link from a credible source where Israel says "We don't use phosphorus under any circumstances and not one single civilian has been hurt by one that we've used".

Thanks for the "grain of salt" lesson .... how bout you do your own research using any sources you feel are credible. Come back and tell us that Israel isn't using them at all. Nobody, not even the IDF is claiming that that aren't ... only that they are using them in the "right" way. Your tirade against Reuters DOESN'T mean that the IDF isn't using them.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Krusty

Actually Vmarks, if you read the article its Reuters quoting members of the UN and Human Rights Watch AND a spokesman for the IDF and a Belgian doctor. The Associated Press carried a very similar story but only a couple of news outlets picked it up. Here's one of them from 7/25. In it, when asked if they use these weapons, the IDF responded as follows:

Show me the reporter's question and where the IDF specifically acknowledges their use?

Reuters is manipulating you.

The reporter quotes the Geneva policy, and then follows with an incomplete statement using fragments of a quote from an IDF spokesperson.

All we know from the IDF is that they say any weapons they happen to use are in accordance with the law, any claims to the contrary get investigated, and any civilian deaths happen to be HizbAllah's fault.

There's nothing there that corroborates the story, this is a standard generic response. Reuters, whose quality reporting is already in question, takes a standard generic non-answer and puts it in the context they wish, and don't even quote the full statement but cherry-pick fragments instead... well, sir, it should make you suspicious.

Thanks for the "grain of salt" lesson .... how bout you do your own research using any sources you feel are credible. Come back and tell us that Israel isn't using them at all. Nobody, not even the IDF is claiming that that aren't ... only that they are using them in the "right" way. Your tirade against Reuters DOESN'T mean that the IDF isn't using them.

The IDF typically doesn't give away information about what weaponry they use or do not use. This information helps the enemy do research on how to defend against weaknesses in those weapons and their use. Most militaries operate this way. Why do you think the US was so anxious to get the downed airplane back from the Chinese six years ago? They didn't want the Chinese to have information and technology used in those airplanes, which could be exploited against the US.