Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
It also says:
"the IDF used this type of munitions according to the rules of international law."
There are different rules for weapon use in urban settings. I should have clarified that. In an urban situation you can use them for the purpose of lighting but not for other purposes.
In open warfare, it's game on. How is a soldier getting hit by white phosphorous any different than a soldier getting hit by a regular shell, a high powered bullet, or napalm? Warfare sucks. It's not a tickle fight.
|
Gee, the defense minister didn't indict himself for war crimes. I guess we should just take his word on it.
Jesus, is this what passes for logic?
Here's the relevant part of the article. Hint: It's not the fluff quote from the guy being questioned about war crimes.
Quote:
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.
|
So, it's not a war crime because Israel doesn't recognize the law. Convenient. Like using cluster bombs.