Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Casual Observer is right. The article Glenn linked to from the NYT, quotes the number on a canister and a confirmation from Human Rights Watch military analyst, Marc Garlasco, that this was indeed white phosphorous.
However, the issue that human rights advocates are going to have with Israeli, disgustingly, is the question of whether the wp was used intentionally as a weapon, or merely for the many, many military purposes it is allowed under international law. The same issues have come up with cluster ammunition.
I wonder whether Mr. Greenwald would conclude that Lincoln was a terrorist for causing the destruction of Atlanta, that Churchill and Roosevelt were terrorists for causing the destruction of Dresden, and that Truman was a terrorist for causing the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
We have found ways to solve our bear problems without violence or killing.I would, however, defend anyone attacked by a bear who defended himself and shot one if attacked .I would not think he used excessive force if the bear did not also have a gun .I'm sure you would be against that as well.
If more people are being killed by bears than Israelis by Hamas rockets, and Israel's invasion to stop the rockets is worth it, then we really haven't solved "our" bear problem, have we?
Those animals are out there killing people at a rate of .26 every month, and even gun-lovers like you who equate every single violent confrontation to either "self-defense" or "oppression" haven't stopped them.
Why are you so weak on bear defense?
Even though the Cold War ended nearly two decades ago, there seems to be the inability to rid American society of a type of ideological psychosis, which tranforms itself constantly in order to find new enemies and new excuses for -- under the radar -- supporting the military-intelligence-industrial complex.
You should check your history books. Sherman's rampage through Georgia and South Carolina, explicitly targeting civilians, broke the back of the Rebellion.
Sherman could have been an Israeli supporter of today in his reply.
Friedman used the word unprovoked three times, though he fails to provide proof. In any case, the idea that a country can military occupy its neighbor for 10 years, leave without offering reparations, and refuse to give the country a map to the mines it seeded the country with during during the occupation, and still be free of culpability is a typically Friedmanesque construct. The willful blindness his writing shows to facts is just astonishing.
Friedman haters will find three articles on Friedman, that if not as illuminating as Glenn's will certainly make you hate him even more, at sig...
Whoa, some fresh thinking. Nobody's ever come at it from THAT angle before!
Yes, all those are war crimes and examples of state terror. Next question from the remedial undergraduate history class.
If the use of military power to inflict property and collateral damage to an enemy is the definition of terrorism then all parties to war are terrorists. In WWII both sides bombed cities and killed civilians. In all major conflicts communications, electrical generation, bridges, etc. are considered legitimate targets. So by your definition all nations that go to war are guilty of terrorism. That may be your point of view but it does little to illuminate the current conflict.
Does the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah deliberately hid among civilians, using hospitals, schools, religious building as cover for military actions, not make them responsible for the collateral damage. Where was and is your outrage at Hamas for firing rockets into Israel - were you waiting for a rocket to hit a school, killing and maiming Israeli children before denouncing Hamas.
Hamas and Hezbollah have announced their determination to wipe Israel off the map. They have sent both suicide bombers and rockets over the border into Israel targeting not the military but civilians. Why should Israel not be able to defend itself this this existential threat using whatever means needed to stop the attacks on it's citizens.
I always have a hard time understanding why the left-wing finds it convenient, or useful, to make common cause with groups like Hamas. Hamas shares none of Glenn Greenwald's values except, possibly, an opposition to all manner of things that relate to American national economic and security interests. You'd sort of think, with all of Glenn's preaching of the rule of law, on civil rights and a free press, and on modern social values, that he'd regard Hamas as one of the most evil institutions in the modern world. I guess he must still reserve his deepest antipathy for his domestic politcal enemies: Republicans, conservatives and American national security advocates.
Clearly you don't have an elephantine brain. Glenn is not making common cause with Hamas. He objects to Iraeli use of American munitions to target the general population of Gaza, and for American support of unjustified Israeli violence. Criticism of American support for Israel and its American cheerleaders is not the same thing as support for Hamas. This really is quite simple.
Hey buddy, hope your family and friends in the region are safe. All the best.
Yes, all those are war crimes and examples of state terror. Next question from the remedial undergraduate history class. -- Baldie McEagle
Then there is no participant, in any war, anywhere, at any time, that is not considered "terrorism" by your definition, rendering it useless and nondescript. Also by extension all those participants including the Palestinians are guilty of war crimes. Gee where are you going to put them all? Heh.
"it has no economy independent from Israel, which is why the current blockade is killing them."
I always find it interesting how people like you fail to ask yourself how this state affairs came to be. Just how did Gaza develop an econonmy that is enslaved to Israel. Even in the most unbalanced state relationships, i.e., Latin America, US, the countries have an economy of their own.
I suppose you never ask yourself these kinds of questions. Does it make your brain hurt?
Will Hamas cave? Eventually. I don't think that Israel's going to back down this time, like they did with Hezb'airy.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
