Political Cartoons

On that note, Hamas should DIAF.

On that note, a lot of them have been. And civilians too. White phosphorus will do that.

From:

weswilson

Jumped on that bit of mythology pretty quick, huh?

ISRAEL WAS BEHIND 9/11!!!!

From:

it ain´t mythology. i´ve seen the footage, which is banned in the US, naturally.

i´ll ignore your second sentence.

From:

weswilson

BANNED IN THE U.S.!!!!?!?! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

From:

not broadcast, anyway. try youtube.

From:

weswilson

No news is BANNED from broadcast tv. You're being terribly dramatic.

From:

Yes, we in the west have a 100% fair and balanced news. We brag about it.

So, what lit the ground forces path?

From:

weswilson

YAY! More hyperbole! JUST what we need when talking about serious issues!

From:

My mistake, didn't realize this was a serious thread with a serious tone.

The American media doesn't need to ban stuff, when omission, snuffing, and overwhelming works much better.

Did Israel use Whitey Petey to light the troops way into Gaza?

From:

weswilson

So you agree. No news is banned.

I have no doubt that white phosphorous was used in smoke generation and flares. We do that too. Claiming it is being used as a weapon is another thing entirely. I have yet to see any credible evidence of such activity.

From:

So you agree. No news is banned.

You are talking about human beings.

I have yet to see any credible evidence of such activity.

Well, is using it for smoke generation and flares acceptable in the most densely populated area on the planet?

From:

weswilson

Yes... I am talking about human beings.

Yes... it is.

From:

al jazeera, the only network with reporters inside gaza, is only available in three towns in the US and then only to cable subscribers. tantamount to a ban on information.

From:

weswilson

Al Jazeera is not known for unbiased or necessarily honest reporting. I'd believe their reporting about as often as I'd believe the reporting from Fox News. You can have reporters in there all day long and still not be credible.

From:

i´ve had the opportunity to watch quite a bit of al jazeera tv in central america. i was surprised, and i think you might be as well, by the quality of the reporting. if anything, they give more time to interviews with israelis who support the war than US networks give, and they have reporters inside gaza as well. they are not known for their fondness for US middle east policy, but neither am i. they don´t strike me as a propaganda tool like fox often is. they actually have very little editorial programming. they make the US look bad, but only because they show in graphic detail the results of our policies, which our own allegedly liberal media do not.

From:

weswilson

I've seen good reporting on Fox as well. But I will not accept anything they say at face value without an additional source that I consider to be credible.

If you think they make the U.S. look bad because they are doing FAIR reporting, then perhaps you should reconsider what you think is fair. They regularly embed their reporters with known terrorist groups, soaking in the rhetoric of these maniacs and distributing it as fact. Al Jazeera will also speak in support regimes who are funding their operation. They had regular dealings with Saddam Hussein and spoke favorably of him in response to the financial backing he provided to the network.

No... I'll get my credible news elsewhere.

From:

Hahaha, you've never been in the military, have you?

There's any number of photos of White Phos being used, including this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece) and multiple (http://www.imemc.org/article/58449) scenes (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fPiRy3fKofw) of WP shells airbursting over urban Gaza. 11 seconds in to the video is your "mythical" White Phos. They're easily distinguished, because they airburst like fireworks and leave a trail of smoking, flaming particles.

Just because it doesn't fit in with your neat little worldview doesn't mean it's not true.

Damn Keyboard Napoleons. Next time do some research before you make yourself look like an idiot.

From:

fleaplus.livejournal.com

I think part of your confusion is that there's two different types of WP devices. The first is regularly used as a smokescreen, and are basically just big fireworks; they do quite a bit less damage to people than normal explosives, but you probably don't want to be right next to one when they go off. The other one is an anti-personnel device.

From:

they do quite a bit less damage to people than normal explosives, but you probably don't want to be right next to one when they go off

Probably? You 'probably' don't want to be next to something that will stick to your skin and burn right through to the bone? Just because it's used to generate smoke doesn't mean its not lethal. It's absolutely nothing like a 'big firework' in effect, only in appearance. And WP is actually more effective as an incendiary than high explosive, and over a much wider area due to the dispersion caused by the airburst. Less effective than napalm, of course.

There is actually no real difference between the anti-personnel WP weapons and those used primarily to generate smoke. They're both just WP packed around a high explosive charge to disperse it. The difference is only how they are employed (or supposed to be employed). I'm not suggesting Israeli is using anti-personnel WP weapons, they are clearly smoke shells. But to the civilians on the ground, in a tightly-packed urban area, the difference is fairly academic.

I also have serious doubts that Israel is using WP only as a smokescreen, since the footage I linked to comes from Gaza City on the first day of the ground assault - several days before Israeli forces actually entered Gaza City. Why would they require smokescreens - at night - in urban Gaza when they have no friendly forces for miles?

From:

fleaplus.livejournal.com

> There is actually no real difference between the anti-personnel WP weapons and those used primarily to generate smoke.

My understanding is that the difference is that in the first case you have a weapon packed with WP which gets directly spread onto the skin of those around when the weapon detonates. In the other case you have pieces of felt soaked in WP, which prevents it from dispersing, makes it burn more slowly, and reduces its incendiary effect. This makes it less effective as an anti-personnel weapon, but more effective for smoke-screening, illumination, target-marking, etc.

Of course, you probably don't want to have either detonating a couple of feet away from you.

From:

In the other case you have pieces of felt soaked in WP

Some do, some don't. The M825A1 uses felt but other WP smoke rounds don't. I believe all WP rounds currently in service in Western armies are technically termed 'smoke' rounds. But they're in effect the same as incendiary rounds.

A rose by any other name, so to speak...

From:

Why would they require smokescreens - at night - in urban Gaza when they have no friendly forces for miles?

To light the area for recon.

From:

They don't need white light for recon, they have thermal imagers on their UAVs, jets, Apaches, tanks, hell even their infantry have thermal sights these days. All white light does is let Hamas see too.

Also, if they WERE going to use white light for recon they would use parachute flares. They have artillery-delivered illumination rounds. They last much longer, and they don't obscure what you're trying to observe with IR-opaque smoke.

From:

Makes sense. Thanks.

From:

drivebyluna.livejournal.com

Ok I'm a newb but what does DIAF mean?

From:

xladymissiex.livejournal.com

Die in a fire.

From:

drivebyluna.livejournal.com

Thanks!

From:

jblaque.livejournal.com

"On that note, Hamas should DIAF."

Give it a little more time. We're making progress.

From:

pentha.livejournal.com

Yup. Among the pile of civilian corpses, you might find one or two of them.

From:

jblaque.livejournal.com

Bit of an overstatement (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944263.html), but yes, the civilian deaths are a terrible thing. I think if someone were firing rockets from my backyard then hiding behind my garage, I'd run 'em off so my family wasn't stuck - quite purposefully - in the crossfire.

The real question is, what do you suppose these people were expecting when they elected Hamas? A new path to a free and peaceful homeland of their own? You have read the Hamas charter, I take it.

From: