Could not watch it, Makavalia said it Yeah Religion
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Holy shit. What country is that? I sure hope we never elect anyone president from that country!
:P[/quote]
LOL!! Hell, he might have relatives in that vid!
I don’t tknow whay that guy sitting just sat there slowly being burned on and off. THAT was freaky and left me queezy.
I would rather have fought everyone and been beaten to death then just sit there and wait for some brush to burn my feet and body slowly.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
But look around the forum, and you’ll see vocal proponents (mostly self-declared Christians, I believe) blaming Islam for everything from tyrannical regimes to tribal warfare.
Oh no. I say Islam needs a serious reformation, somehow getting around the fact that it’s very model, it’s prohpet, was a blood thristy war monger and slaver.
Yes. Muhammad was totally unlike Moses. Which is why Judaism is so totally dissimilar to Islam.
[/quote]
Seems like it’s very different, today. But, I’m not jewish.
Wow that guy just sat there while he was on fire, messed up.
[quote]waylanderxx wrote:
Wow that guy just sat there while he was on fire, messed up.[/quote]
i noticed that the people were being beaten with sticks or boards or whatever
the man sitting there was clearly out of it, possibly knocked out or some other way injured in a way that he just didn’t care anymore.
I did a google search on this and it looks like everyone that was murdered was over 80 years old as well.
kenyan police arrested 10 people involved in this case, I dont know how true any of this is its what turned up in a google search though.
[quote]lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
Dude - I love discussing things with you and having lively debates,
Well…I don’t.
[/quote]
you’re not going to ignore HIM too!?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
But look around the forum, and you’ll see vocal proponents (mostly self-declared Christians, I believe) blaming Islam for everything from tyrannical regimes to tribal warfare.
Oh no. I say Islam needs a serious reformation, somehow getting around the fact that it’s very model, it’s prohpet, was a blood thristy war monger and slaver.
Yes. Muhammad was totally unlike Moses. Which is why Judaism is so totally dissimilar to Islam.
Seems like it’s very different, today. [/quote]
Do we really need to bring up the children burnt alive by white phosphorus?
[quote]malakuzzo wrote:
Dont know if this has been posted here… I quickly looked to no avail…
discuss… By the way I am part-African and this is…[/quote]
but what if they were actually witches?..
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
But look around the forum, and you’ll see vocal proponents (mostly self-declared Christians, I believe) blaming Islam for everything from tyrannical regimes to tribal warfare.
Oh no. I say Islam needs a serious reformation, somehow getting around the fact that it’s very model, it’s prohpet, was a blood thristy war monger and slaver.
Yes. Muhammad was totally unlike Moses. Which is why Judaism is so totally dissimilar to Islam.
Seems like it’s very different, today.
Do we really need to bring up the children burnt alive by white phosphorus?[/quote]
Why, yes - let’s discuss that too - unless your question is merely rhetorical and you really meant that you don’t like discussing issues with me . . .
You would be referring to the now thoroughly debunked rumor that the Israeli army used WP as a terror weapon to intentionally burn women and children to death in Gaza?
Let’s review a few facts about WP. OK (this from a marine buddy of mine - i’ll see if i can remember his comments accurately - any of you military guys correct me if I mess this up) WP (White Phosphorus) catches fire when exposed to the air, burns with a white flame and produces a lot of white smoke. It is a weapon based on a chemical reaction - but is not a chemical weapon (it’s use and purpose is to produce smoke to hide troop movements so that they will not be shot while moving between cover.)
Every military in the world uses WP grenades and mortar rounds for this very purpose - you will find rounds in every unit and in every case - it is a cover and concealment tool.
You can even breath the smoke without effect - the smoke does not leave on smell on you, it does not bother the eyes like normal smoke. The smoke does not cause a reaction on the skin or in the lungs.
Now, for the burn - burning particles of WP are dangerous. If a piece of it lands on your clothes or on your skin, it will simply continue to burn - you cannot put it out with water or by covering it up - those in the military know that the only way to deal with it is to cut out the particles.
You can tell a body burned by WP - if the body has any skin on it - it was not burned with WP, It is not an effective anti-personnel weapon unless it hits you directly or lands within a few feet of you - as opposed to actual anti-personnel grenades and mortar rounds which can kill in radii of 60 to 100 feet for grenades and a few hundred to a couple of thousand feet for mortar rounds.
The Red Cross and several other international organizations have examined the Israeli use of WP in Gaza and in every use it was established that it was being used to provide cover for troops moving through the combat area.
All of this discussion is predicated, however, on the cowardly practice of hiding behind women and children. I thought men stood in front of and protected the weak.
Please understand - I am not saying that women and children were not killed in Gaza they were and it is a horrible horrible tragedy (chances are members of my extended family died there so I do not take this lightly) - I am saying that I blame those who hid their weapons in day-cares, who fire from school buildings and hospitals - who by specific intention are placing women and children in harms way to achieve military and political gains.
My other point is that none of the evidence (including the horrific sights of the bodies of women and children) supported the accusation that WP was used as a terror weapon and was the cause of their burns/deaths.
Well anyway - there’s my response - feel free to ignore me if you like.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
malakuzzo wrote:
Dont know if this has been posted here… I quickly looked to no avail…
discuss… By the way I am part-African and this is…
but what if they were actually witches?..[/quote]
is that why there was no screaming or signs of pain?
[quote]MaddyD wrote:
tom63 wrote:
malakuzzo wrote:
Dont know if this has been posted here… I quickly looked to no avail…
discuss… By the way I am part-African and this is…
but what if they were actually witches?..
is that why there was no screaming or signs of pain?
[/quote]
Witches? There’s no such thing. Dear.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
malakuzzo wrote:
Dont know if this has been posted here… I quickly looked to no avail…
discuss… By the way I am part-African and this is…
but what if they were actually witches?..[/quote]
if they were, that’s their choice to make.
I was wondering if they were drugged. Drugging before the “execution” was common in the past at least.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
But look around the forum, and you’ll see vocal proponents (mostly self-declared Christians, I believe) blaming Islam for everything from tyrannical regimes to tribal warfare.
Oh no. I say Islam needs a serious reformation, somehow getting around the fact that it’s very model, it’s prohpet, was a blood thristy war monger and slaver.
Yes. Muhammad was totally unlike Moses. Which is why Judaism is so totally dissimilar to Islam.
Seems like it’s very different, today.
Do we really need to bring up the children burnt alive by white phosphorus?[/quote]
Go for it. If your cowardly Islamic men would stop hiding behind their women and children…
However, if Judaism is brutal, Islam is barbaric. Decapitated young christian girls, anyone?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
But look around the forum, and you’ll see vocal proponents (mostly self-declared Christians, I believe) blaming Islam for everything from tyrannical regimes to tribal warfare.
Oh no. I say Islam needs a serious reformation, somehow getting around the fact that it’s very model, it’s prohpet, was a blood thristy war monger and slaver.
Yes. Muhammad was totally unlike Moses. Which is why Judaism is so totally dissimilar to Islam.
Seems like it’s very different, today.
Do we really need to bring up the children burnt alive by white phosphorus?
Why, yes - let’s discuss that too - unless your question is merely rhetorical and you really meant that you don’t like discussing issues with me . . .
You would be referring to the now thoroughly debunked rumor that the Israeli army used WP as a terror weapon to intentionally burn women and children to death in Gaza? [/quote]
The IDF explicitly admitted it.
Heck, we knew they were using it back when they obliterated Beirut in 2006.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html
We have Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable of the US army confirmed that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece
Go explain to him how “it is not an effective anti-personnel weapon”.
You may mean well, but from what you write you come off as completely brainwashed. We have overwhelming evidence that both Israel and the USA engaged in much worse than burning people alive with white phosphorus. Open up a history book! Once you come to terms with the idea that your parents’ taxmoney was used to finance horrors, maybe you’ll stop with this knee-jerk reflex of denying your country (or its infamous ally/liability, depending on the point of view) uses terror and engages in horrors. Give me a buzz when you get there, maybe we can have a more fruitfull discussion than the “thoroughly debunked rumor” which all the concerned parties confirmed publically.
None so blind as those who will not see.
[quote]lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
lixy wrote:
The IDF explicitly admitted it.
Heck, we knew they were using it back when they obliterated Beirut in 2006.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html
You can tell a body burned by WP - if the body has any skin on it - it was not burned with WP, It is not an effective anti-personnel weapon unless it hits you directly or lands within a few feet of you - as opposed to actual anti-personnel grenades and mortar rounds which can kill in radii of 60 to 100 feet for grenades and a few hundred to a couple of thousand feet for mortar rounds.
We have Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Venable of the US army confirmed that white phosphorus had been used as an incendiary antipersonnel weapon.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article327379.ece
Go explain to him how “it is not an effective anti-personnel weapon”.
You may mean well, but from what you write you come off as completely brainwashed. We have overwhelming evidence that both Israel and the USA engaged in much worse than burning people alive with white phosphorus. Open up a history book! Once you come to terms with the idea that your parents’ taxmoney was used to finance horrors, maybe you’ll stop with this knee-jerk reflex of denying your country (or its infamous ally/liability, depending on the point of view) uses terror and engages in horrors. Give me a buzz when you get there, maybe we can have a more fruitfull discussion than the “thoroughly debunked rumor” which all the concerned parties confirmed publically.
None so blind as those who will not see.[/quote]
First, I never said they did not use WP.
Secondly from the very articles you linked . . .
. . . Edery also pointed out that international law does not forbid the use of phosphorus and that “the IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law.” . . .
. . . . The International Red Cross is of the opinion that there should be a complete ban on phosphorus being used against human beings and the third protocol of the Geneva Convention on Conventional Weapons restricts the use of “incendiary weapons,” with phosphorus considered to be one such weapon.
Israel and the United States are not signatories to the Third Protocol . . . .
. . . . . . .The report has been strenuously denied by the US, however Col Venable disclosed that it had been used to dislodge enemy fighters from entrenched positions in the city.
“White phosphorus is a conventional munition. It is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal,” he said on the BBC Radio 4 PM programme.
“We use them primarily as obscurants, for smokescreens or target marking in some cases. However it is an incendiary weapon and may be used against enemy combatants.”
Asked directly if it was used as an offensive weapon during the siege of Fallujah, he replied: “Yes, it was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants”.
He added: “When you have enemy forces that are in covered positions that your high explosive artillery rounds are not having an impact on and you wish to get them out of those positions, one technique is to fire a white phosphorus round into the position because the combined effects of the fire and smoke - and in some case the terror brought about the explosion on the ground - will drive them out of the holes so that you can kill them with high explosives,” he said.
However in a letter yesterday to The Independent, the US ambassador to London, Robert Tuttle, denied that white phosphorus was deployed as a weapon.
“US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful conventional weapons against legitimate targets,” he said. . . . .
OK - so, let’s recap - I admitted that it is used to provide cover, it can cause severe burns, it was deployed by the Israeli army - your articles confirmed everything I already admitted.
And your article regarding the officer using it as a direct fire weapon to drive enemy soldiers into the open (akin i would imagine to using a flame thrower or similar weapon system - that seems reasonable to me) - is based on his testimony with conflicting testimony provided - that is something I would like to delve into more and I will do further research on it. This is first I have heard of anyone using WP to drive enemies into the open - but that is a far cry from anyone admitting that they used it to directly attack women and children. The two scenarios are not linked (different armies - different combat scenarios - and different foes) as you would like to assume. The one does not prove the other, even if the first were proved accurate - that would lead us into a whole different discussion on appropriate combat techniques in dealing with entrenched enemies.
In response to your personal attacks on my intelligence and understanding, I simply say that the same applies to you - especially once you actually start reading what I write rather than jumping to your generalized assumptions and your own knee-jerk reactions.
I am more than willing to openly and honestly discuss anything. I am more than willing to listen to any evidence and compare any perspectives - I seek the truth - but I do expect the same from those that I discuss things with and you have given no indication that your responses are anything more than knee jerk reactions as well as evidenced by your typical responses to my queries.
If you want to honestly discuss - then let’s discuss. If you simply want to spout off and use this invitation as a bully pulpit - well enjoy your one-man diatribes . . . no progress will be made to ever increase understanding in the world by you despite all of your sanctimonious posturing . . .
How could God watch His creation burn like that?
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
OK - so, let’s recap - I admitted that it is used to provide cover, it can cause severe burns, it was deployed by the Israeli army - your articles confirmed everything I already admitted. [/quote]
What are you saying? That the “severe burns” are just side effects? Like Napalm was (and is) used to remove vegetative cover, and all the slow and horrible deaths by immolation and/or asphyxiation are just side effects?
Follow with me: Israel drops white phosphorus shells (some of which landed on UN buildings, and are therefore well researched!) → People get burnt alive. End of friggin’ story!
Of course, it is. You’re a nationalist and proud of that choice.
You would never consider looking for the horrible things your country does to others. And if you’re put in front of the cold naked truth, you would find ways to justify it. Believe me, it’s been done before.
You realize that Ben Laden says the women and children are collateral damage, right?
You posts are painful to read (format, etc.)
You think you’re witty, but it’s really childish humor.
You start with the assumption that everything the US does to other countries is right, and go from there to build arguments.
That is why I really don’t see any added value in debating you.
OK. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But please, don’t use silly expressions such as “thoroughly debunked rumor”, on a topic you know nothing about. The use of white phosphorus on Palestinians is anything but a “rumor”. The only debate that is going on is about the “legality” of its use. Israel says it is legal, the rest of the world (except Tel-Aviv’s lapdog) disagrees.
When you discuss things you know little about (as is obvious in this case), use conditional forms. Ask questions to clarify and remove all ambiguity (many people here are dense on purpose). And don’t use obviously loaded terms that stand out from light-years away. Don’t assume the worse about people from the get-go.
And please spare us the amateur comedy show, as topics here are too way heavy for that (plus, you’re not TC!). If you must use humor, be sharp about it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
IrishSteel wrote:
What are you saying? That the “severe burns” are just side effects? Like Napalm was (and is) used to remove vegetative cover, and all the slow and horrible deaths by immolation and/or asphyxiation are just side effects?
Follow with me: Israel drops white phosphorus shells (some of which landed on UN buildings, and are therefore well researched!) → People get burnt alive. End of friggin’ story!
Of course, it is. You’re a nationalist and proud of that choice.
You would never consider looking for the horrible things your country does to others. And if you’re put in front of the cold naked truth, you would find ways to justify it. Believe me, it’s been done before.
You realize that Ben Laden says the women and children are collateral damage, right?
You posts are painful to read (format, etc.)
You think you’re witty, but it’s really childish humor.
You start with the assumption that everything the US does to other countries is right, and go from there to build arguments.
That is why I really don’t see any added value in debating you.
OK. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
But please, don’t use silly expressions such as “thoroughly debunked rumor”, on a topic you know nothing about. The use of white phosphorus on Palestinians is anything but a “rumor”. The only debate that is going on is about the “legality” of its use. Israel says it is legal, the rest of the world (except Tel-Aviv’s lapdog) disagrees.
When you discuss things you know little about (as is obvious in this case), use conditional forms. Ask questions to clarify and remove all ambiguity (many people here are dense on purpose). And don’t use obviously loaded terms that stand out from light-years away. Don’t assume the worse about people from the get-go.
And please spare us the amateur comedy show, as topics here are too way heavy for that (plus, you’re not TC!). If you must use humor, be sharp about it. [/quote]
let’s run this down from the top - and I will use a format you can follow
1st paragraph - I never said burns were side affects - so that whole paragraph is pointless and argumentative from the outset.
2nd paragraph - I agreed with you that the Israeli army used WP munitions - that’s not the point I am discussing with you. I agreed that WP can causes grievous injuries and death - that was also not the point that I was discussing with you.
3rd paragraph - whether or not I am proud of my nation has absolutely not bearing on the scarcity of information regarding one soldier’s testimony that he used WP shells to drive enemy soldiers out of cover after dropping huge bombs on them proved ineffective at killing them.
4th paragraph - your assumption only proves your lack of information about who I am and what I believe. You have proven time and time again that your weapon of first resort is the personal attack and denigration of other peoples views and perspectives, rather than the reasoned discussion of points of view. I have no problem calling evil evil - but I apply it impartially across the board -I don’t automatically assume innocence on the part of any person or group of person - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I live in the constant search for the cold hard truth and hold my father’s mantra of “Truth never fears a challenge” as a personal standard of highest regard! You can stop lumping every American who disagrees with you as an unenlightened, unthinking brain-washed fool - it only shows your own ignorance.
5th paragraph - So, what, I am supposed to be surprised that Bin Laden thinks of women and children as mere property that can be destroyed without thought or compassion? I am not surprised at all - that is expected from someone of his character - and if you meant to imply that I am of the same mentality - you couldn’t be more wrong if you thought the moon was made of paper mache. Lay off the personal attacks already - its old and tiresome.
6th paragraph - sorry for causing you pain - did that rise to the level of severe pain or suffering yet? I’d hate to be accused by you next of being a torturer myself . . .
7th paragraph - fine -you don’t appreciate my sense of humor. I’ll live.
8th paragraph - If you believe that, you obviously know absolutely nothing about me and my views on the American government or her actions over the last few hundred years. Stick to things you actually know - and once again, are the personal attack all you have?
9th paragraph - I start from a position of being willing to be wrong. Apparently, you do not, since it seems you see the only point of discussion being to prove your opponent wrong rather then seeing if there is more to life that you can understand.
10th paragraph - thanks.
11th paragraph - here’s where I can actually discuss a point with you. The thoroughly debunked rumor is that Israel specifically used the munitions to kill women and children in as gruesome of a fashion as possible. I agree with you - WP burns are a horrible wound and a terrible way to die - I disagree with you that it was the intention of the IDF to purposefully use those shells to specifically kill women and children. My view is that any deaths of Palestinian women or children lies solely to blame on Hamas and other such groups because they INTENTIONALLY place women and children in harms way with the same mindset you know that Bin Laden possesses.
12th paragraph - don’t assume to instruct me on the manner and method of presenting my arguments or posts. the rest of this paragraph is something you need to hear yourself (and I try not to assume as anyone reading my posts can attest given the great number of clarifying questions that I ask). And once again you resort to the personal attacks - no wonder everyone on here is warning me to just ignore you - you can’t form a single argument without one can you? (that was a question for clarification, just in case I was ambiguous)
13th paragraph - never claimed to be TC (he’s got me beat by a long shot anyway) and if you don’t appreciate my humor - fine, just read past it. Don’t presume to lecture me about the appropriateness of a little levity in the midst of serious discussion. If you don’t like it - well, sorry. No one promised you a humor free platform here . . . Since I have never seen you use the slightest amount of humor here, I’m not even sure you would be a good judge of what is or isn’t funny.
OK well, there was my point by point response. I hope I covered all of your real points and I hope you can learn to debate issues and not people -we’ll see.