BF2S Forums Report: Israel used uranium-based warheads in Lebanon war

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den.  Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den.  Yet they keep coming back for more.  I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.

I suppose you can't really empathıse wıth the fact that the arabs WILL NEVER gıve up because the USA has never been ınvaded. You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would be lıke those French that let the Germans march through Parıs unhındered and waıt for someone else to baıl them out.

I cannot empathize, that's correct.  We've been fortunate not to be invaded.  Mainly because of the strength of our military.  I refuse to sympathize with the Palestinians who have deluded themselves into thinking the land is there's and needlessly fight on.  IF the Palestinians had been invaded, I'd express sympathy.  However, as I've stated in other posts, Israel has a much longer claim to that land before the Palestinians showed up.  In ancient times, Israel was carried from her homeland by her captors and returned numerous times.  In modern times she returned in 1947.  No matter how much land Israel gives up, you said yourself, the Palestinians (arabs if you will) will not be satisfied until Israel is gone completely.  Peace is only a reloading period for Israel's enemies and as such is not true peace.  So I encourage Israel to be ever vigilant and not give up her security for a fake peace deal with her enemies.

Isreal don't give up land.  Not called giving up, if it wasnt theirs in the first place.

Ok i don't want to go into the past, so let start from 1947, prove that the current amount of land it has is legal and within their right.

" needlessly fight on"
Sort of like underdogs. .

Last edited by mafia996630 (2006-10-28 13:41:03)

OpsChief wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

a munition that reduces collateral damage! terror of terrors!! what will the human-shield users have left to complain about now?

I am such amazed about the lack of any empathy and the profoundness of showing ignorance as a tool to prove a point.

The point you seem to have missed is that ANY complaint about ANY munition being humane or inhumane is ludicrous - the scale of collateral destruction by a particular munition may be valid but limiting damage to the exact target seems relatively humane doesn't it?

Do you know what Uranium is. Let me give you a good example how human it is. Google the golf war syndrome, and you will find your answer how human it is and how much colletaral damage it does. Especially the long effects are so nice. People who experience it would rather wished they died on the spot.  If you meet one of those gia's who has been in the first gulf war and has the syndrome be sure to ask him how he feels. And you will get a very detailed explanation on how Humane Uranium is.

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently, they would rather keep poking the badger in his den.  Knowing he will rake them with his claws because he just wants to live in peace in his den.  Yet they keep coming back for more.  I'm surprised the badger hasn't torn them a new one yet.

I suppose you can't really empathıse wıth the fact that the arabs WILL NEVER gıve up because the USA has never been ınvaded. You would change your tune at least slıghtly ıf the US had suffered sımılar ın the recent past. I doubt you'd sıt ıdly by ıf ıt happened to the US. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you would be lıke those French that let the Germans march through Parıs unhındered and waıt for someone else to baıl them out.

I cannot empathize, that's correct.  We've been fortunate not to be invaded.  Mainly because of the strength of our military.  I refuse to sympathize with the Palestinians who have deluded themselves into thinking the land is there's and needlessly fight on.  IF the Palestinians had been invaded, I'd express sympathy.  However, as I've stated in other posts, Israel has a much longer claim to that land before the Palestinians showed up.  In ancient times, Israel was carried from her homeland by her captors and returned numerous times.  In modern times she returned in 1947.  No matter how much land Israel gives up, you said yourself, the Palestinians (arabs if you will) will not be satisfied until Israel is gone completely.  Peace is only a reloading period for Israel's enemies and as such is not true peace.  So I encourage Israel to be ever vigilant and not give up her security for a fake peace deal with her enemies.

If you're going that far back then there is evidence of Jews driving the indigenous occupants from the land, because they had been promised it by god. The people living in Palestine have only been known as Palestinians since the land was renamed Syria Palaestina by the Romans. The ancestors of the Palestinans had been living there since before any Jewish settlers arrived.

In the early 20th century after the mis-interpretation of the Balfour declaration by the Zionist movement Jewish immigration into Palestine was immense. The clarification of this declaration in a white paper led to restrictions on Jewish immigration. The British attempted to enforce these restrictions with naval blockades. The illegal immigration into Palestine and the attempts to circumvent British blockades were known as Aliyah Bet.

All the reports on the situation in Palestine at that time comment on the economic and social oppression of the indigenous Palestinian populace by the Jewish immigrants. The Arabs, after many were reduced to living in poverty, riotted. Not unexpected as their land was being subversively taken over by illegal immigrants (which is where the Mexican example so many people quote becomes appropriate).

The Jewish settlers responded by forming terrorist organisations; Haganah, Irgun and Lehi. These organisations conducted a number of terror attacks against Palestinian and British targets. The best known of these attacks is the King David hotel bombing. Many of the leaders of these terror groups later held senior Israeli government and Knesset positions, such as Prime Minister. The terror campaign led to the withdrawal of the British which prompted the Jewish settlers to declare themselves a independent nation. Since Israel had US backing there was little anyone could do about it. The UN declared Israel a nation in 1947 and drew up a map of Israels borders. This was the 1947 partition plan.

Since the borders were drawn up in 1947 Israel has continually expanded it's borders. Many advocates of Israeli policy claim that border expansion through military activity is perfectly natural. Despite the fact that it is highly illegal in every sense. No other nations have been allowed to annex tracts of land in a manner simillar to the Israelis - look at what happened when Saddam tried to annex Kuwait. It is a very simillar situation.

In short the formation of Israel was an illegal act by illegal immigrant terrorists who continue to indulge in acts of state terrorism to this day. Not that I am condoning the acts of Hamas and the PLO, but the Israelis are certainly no better and are probably worse.

TDRE666 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

ATG wrote:

Are these types of munitions outlawed by international treaty?

If not, then oh well.

Not outlawed explictly and totally, yet. Incindiary weapons are banned by the geneva convetions, as are chemical weapons, two characteristics that phosphorus munitions display. Phosphorus is just the US loophole around the ban on napalm after Vietnam. So, depending on how far in denial they are, no, they are not banned. But any reasonable human being must concede they are banned by the Geneva Conventions.

This just in:  The international community will now rely on some guy on the internet's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions to determine the legality of international conflict in the future.  Thank you for your time.

Oh, so you think chemical weapons ARENT against the geneva conventions? Back it up or don't try to mock me.

ghettoperson wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

you know whats funny, we werent issued DU rounds during OIF II because the armor threat no longer existed like during the invasion.  no more enemy tanks, no need for radioactive projectiles.

But unless you're a tanker, you wouldn't be given them anyway, would you? I was under the impression they only use them once you get over about 0.30cal, or something like that. Correct me if I'm wrong though, you know more about it than I do.

http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/StudentWebP … hPaper.htm

there is a great picture with all the forms of DU rounds towards the middle of the webpage

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2006-10-28 14:44:18)

ok, so israel uses weaponry that minimizes collateral damage, and that's evil.
Hezbollah fires rockets into heavily civilian populated areas, and we should feel sorry for them, is that right?

kr@cker wrote:

ok, so israel uses weaponry that minimizes collateral damage, and that's evil.
Hezbollah fires rockets into heavily civilian populated areas, and we should feel sorry for them, is that right?

That's not exactly accurate. The point of the post is that using any sort of Uranium based warheads will leave lots of Uranium dust around. Potentially causing horrible problems. Deformed children, massive increases in cases of cancer etc.

Israel didn't seem to concerned about collateral damage anyway. Have you seen the pictures of Beirut?

No one is condoning Hezbollah firing rockets into civilian centres. But the Israelis did the same thing. In fact it has been widely reported that many Israeli artillery positions were based in civilian centres and some Hezbollah attacks were supposedly targeted at these positions. By no means all of them though. Whereas the myth of Hezbollah firing rockets from within civilian centres has been massively overplayed. Yes, rockets were stored in civilian centres, but predominantly not fired from them (though there have been exceptions). Indiscriminate killing of civilians has been an unpleasant part of the continued conflict in the region on both sides. No one is free of blame here.

ATG, it's Sumerians, not Summarians.. 

I just don't understand why this keeps coming back to ancient history.  The history that matters here is from 1948 onward.

Nevertheless, Lebanon got what it deserved for not controlling its extremists.  They did nothing to prevent Hezbollah from sending rockets into Israel, and Israel reacted.  Personally, I'm surprised they didn't go further, because now Lebanon is festering with hate from the wounds it sustained.  It's like a wounded animal ready to strike Israel now.  Surprisingly, few Lebanese seem to blame Hezbollah, when it was their attacks that set off Israel.

Zephyr, I understand your anger, but let me explain...

I think the use of chemical weaponry is to be avoided, but when Saddam used them, it didn't bother me much.  The same goes for Israel.

Both the left and the right talk a lot about the terms of war, what's acceptable and what's not, but in the end, everything is practically fair in war.  When people commit to killing each other, it doesn't surprise me when people pull out the stops.  I agree with several other posters that it's hypocritical for us to condemn most other countries that use chemical weapons and forgive Israel, but I personally am more consistent about it.  It's not the kind of weapons used that I condemn, it's usually the act of war itself that I do.

War isn't as evil in my opinion when the action is defensive.  I think a lot of people see it this way, which is why the government tried so hard to make the invasion of Iraq look like a defensive move for our "national security."  It was bullshit, but people wanted to believe it, in order to feel better about it.

Maybe you could say the same about Israel against Lebanon, but I have little sympathy for a nation that doesn't deal with its own extremists.  Israel could have used nukes on Lebanon, and I wouldn't be that bothered.

bogo24dk wrote:

OpsChief wrote:

bogo24dk wrote:

I am such amazed about the lack of any empathy and the profoundness of showing ignorance as a tool to prove a point.

The point you seem to have missed is that ANY complaint about ANY munition being humane or inhumane is ludicrous - the scale of collateral destruction by a particular munition may be valid but limiting damage to the exact target seems relatively humane doesn't it?

Do you know what Uranium is. Let me give you a good example how human it is. Google the golf war syndrome, and you will find your answer how human it is and how much colletaral damage it does. Especially the long effects are so nice. People who experience it would rather wished they died on the spot.  If you meet one of those gia's who has been in the first gulf war and has the syndrome be sure to ask him how he feels. And you will get a very detailed explanation on how Humane Uranium is.

Having been a tanker in the US Army I don't need to google depleted uranium lol I know what it is and does, how to load it and handle it too. I saw how it could punch through the length of a tank and push the engine pack out the grill doors.

But I thought we were talking about relative collateral damage meaning the number of unintended enemy/non-combatant targets being effected? Do you remember the Neutron Bomb effects? It was designed with extremely enhanced radiation yields but small blast effects to kill people but leave structures/equipment relatively intact!

We agree with the point "what munition/collateral is humane?" none. What is acceptable? Only the Axiomatic Moral High Ground holder can say after a war is done. (ref: SunTzu, et al)

If we had a smart bullet that could be fired from 10,000 miles away and hit its intended individual target 7 out of 10 times there would still be opportunist complainers on the international stage decrying the inhumanity of impersonal sniping and the horrible 30% miss rate o.0 

Complaining about the enemy's evil ways is older than the concept of collateral damage I bet.

The Italian reporters sent samples of the particles found in wounds of injured in the Gaza Strip to a laboratory at the University of Parma. Dr. Carmela Vaccaio said that in analyzing the samples, she found "a very high concentration of carbon and the presence of unusual materials," such as copper, aluminum and tungsten. Dr. Vaccaio says these findings "could be in line with the hypothesis" that the weapon in question is DIME.


Well, I dont see anything truely evil with that weapon system they are using.  No where in the report does it say DU was found.  only "slight traces" of radiation.  I think that weapon sounds like a keeper.  And IM an Infantryman, you dont see me crying about Anti-Infantry rounds that tanks are packing now days.
The intent of that weapon is to kill or disable, while minimizing civilian targets. Thats the key. 
The intent of the Anti infantry tank round is to flood the air with flechettes, and kill the grunts while minimizing structural damage.  And its very good at its job....IE why my name is Cannon Fodder...as good as my squad is on the ground, we are as good as splattered as soon as accurate indirect or even direct fire gets called.  I chose my job, I knew what I was getting into, and I to this day know what could happen to me at any given moment. 

All I can say is "Armor gets more advanced each day, for every 10 people designing better ways to protect troops, and equipment there are 100 other designing new weapons to defeat that armor.  Its an endless cycle suck it up and drive on.  Could be worse, you could be the guy running around for 4 monthes with an incurable case of athletes foot.  (Tinactin ain't working, GBMFP aint working, and niether is the army issued foot powder...Haha sucks to be me) 


(The athletes foot comment was made souly to lighten the mood on this foruma nd to remind people that war is hell...all we can do is do our damnedest to try and not get into a fight...sometimes its unstoppable, Iraq has been brewing for some time, and we would've gone back sooner or later no matter who was president, just like Isreal and Lebanon)

Last edited by CannonFodder11b (2006-10-29 02:40:18)

Ok, I'm not claiming to be a nuclear expert or anything but:
1.  If it was a "dirty bomb" (i.e. one meant to spread radioactive material all over the place but not give off the signature mushroom cloud.) wouldn't we be seeing a lot of radiation sickness in the area?
2.  If it was some sort of fission device, wouldn't we be hearing reports along the lines of these bombs giving off incredibly bright flashes when they went off?  (Seeing as a nuclear detonation is basically creating a very small star)
3.  If it's the "bunker-busting conventional bombs using uranium" I don't see what the big deal is.  The US uses depleted Uranium (as in a non-radioactive isotope) it a lot of it's munitions because it's heavy and quite hard, two qualities that are useful in a bunker-buster.

ATG wrote:

Are these types of munitions outlawed by international treaty?

If not, then oh well.

ATG was killed in a drive-by today?

Oh well.
















Apathetic attitudes are SOOOOOOO nice.

Last edited by HM1{N} (2006-10-30 03:41:25)