Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

These are nasty buggers and it's a war crime to use these in civilian areas. The BBC report says there are concerns about unexploded cluster bombs.

This is especially concerning in regards to kids who may play with these bombs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5263616.stm

Not sure if this is what was being reported as 'toy bombs' left behind.. these aren't disguised as toys, but in other conflicts have killed kids who tried to play with them.

Cheers,
Shafique

I those were what were referred to as toy bombs.

As far as I know, all militaries try to get away with all kinds of unethical practices. Even Hezbollah hides themselves amonst the general population - hardly an admirable war tactic. In Sierra Leone and other African conflict zones the children were given guns and machetes to become warriors who kill others or chop their limbs off. The US continues to develop nuclear weapons like bunker busters. Finland won't give up its land mines in case Russia decides to invade again. I don't know one army that behaves itself and follows international law 100%.

please stop apologizing for israel, what they have done is a war crime. I don't know what zionist garbage dump you get your information, but the iof has a penchant for using these ing and heavy handed tactics against civilian populations. i'm sorry if i offended you, but the terrorist state of israel should be held accountable for its actions.

i personally would like to see olmert and bush charged (and sentenced) for war crimes, but unfortunately that will never happen.

I didn't apologize for Israel. I am just reminding some of you that Israel is not the only country in the world using illegal weapons.

I like to play devils advocate here when all I see are people demonising Israel and US - meanwhile other countries and governments can be accused of some of the same crimes.

Saddam Hussein is finally on trial for using chemical weapons on the Kurds, but no one here talks about it. Why? Because they are upset that Hussein was ousted by the US/Coalition forces, and they think it is a puppet trial. Who cares about the Kurds finally getting some justice, right? They are just a secondary issue.

Well Hezbollah was a guerilla army Isreal and the world new it.... they didnt have tanks etc... so like Stalingrad they took cover and shot... Stalingard is different cos it was long time ago when international laws werent strong. Saddam deserved what he had done with the support of Americans delivered by the same man - Rumsfield to him and the same man claimed he has WMDs! now Americans deliver cluser bombs on th eeve of war and they dont have any right to criticize Isreal of using it ......Isreal ahs done most damage compared to Hezbollah 100 times moreand i guess they must pay to build up the country and so shall hezbollah do it

Kanelli - I've spoken out about Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds.

Two wrongs don't make a right - Saddam was an oppressive dicator and was supported by the US who supplied much of the weapons that killed tens (if not hundreds) of thousand muslims.

Invading Iraq has led to the death of more Iraqis and precious little 'freedom' - and looking back objectively, the world is a worse place now because of the invasion.

Therefore, I would be careful about equating opposition of the war in Iraq (which is an unqualified disaster) with support of Saddam Hussein.

Remember that according to the WHO report, over 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 died as a result of sanctions against Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. These sanctions were opposed by all the humanitarian groups as being disproportionate and targetting the poor Iraqi populace instead of the ruling elite. The other measures had worked and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

The invasion, sanctions etc, in many peoples view, was more to take control of oil fields that Saddam had started to sell in Euros instead of Dollars, in defiance of the US. If the aim was to bring peace to the region - then it has undoubtedly failed.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound as if I'm having a go at you - but I think it's worth reviewing the facts (and for the record, I have the same views as Kanelli on the majority of issues we've discussed).

Finally, we seem to all acknowledge the fact that cluster bombs against civilians is a war crime (under international law). The fact that Israel may not be the only aggressor that violates international law is fact, but not an excuse. 'Everyone else was breaking the law designed to safeguard civilians' does not make it ok - it shows the level of immorality of that nation/army.

On an objective basis, therefore, Hizbollah has been the least unjust military power in this recent conflict. They initially only attacked military targets and immediately called for exchange of prisoners. They only started targetting Israeli villages in great numbers AFTER the Israelis bombed civilian targets (the Israeli spokespeople keep saying that the invasion was a result of rocket attacks into Northern Israel for the past 6 years... but a quick search of the facts of Hizbollah attacks reveals the actuality - Israel has attacked more civilians than Hizbollah has, and of late the attacks have been against IDF and not Israeli civilians).

Therefore, Hizbollah has acted the most just in this conflict. Where they had sophisticated weapons, they targetted military targest (the gun ship, tanks etc etc). The missiles sent into Israeli settlements were deadly, but not as deadly as the cluster bombs and other armaments that rained down on Israel.

Therefore, objectively, the impartial observer has to condemn Israel more than Hizbollah for violations of international law. This is not theoretical, but what has actually happened. Human Rights watch and Amnesty International have both called for Israel to be tried for war crimes.

To agree with Human Rights Watch does not necessarily mean one is anti-West or is biased against Israel.

Cheers,
Shafique

Where is the evidence that the US helped Hussein gas the Kurds? Was it also the Americans who actually dropped the bombs on the Kurds too, or did Hussein's people have their fingers on the triggers?

It was the UN that was criticising Israel for using cluster bombs, not the US, as far as I have seen.

If Hezbollah had cluster bombs they would have used them too.

kanelli wrote:Where is the evidence that the US helped Hussein gas the Kurds? Was it also the Americans who actually dropped the bombs on the Kurds too, or did Hussein's people have their fingers on the triggers?

It was the UN that was criticising Israel for using cluster bombs, not the US, as far as I have seen.

If Hezbollah had cluster bombs they would have used them too.

well US didnt mention on directly condemn iraq for gasing Kurds at the same time they did impose soem minor sanctions. Yeah Yeah Hezbollah WOULD HAVE done it but the fact here is Isreal HAS DONE it so why dont they suffer why should they get away with murder when Arab ally is paying for his sins

Kurds were a threat to Iraq so the dictator used same logic as Isreal or states except he used gas.

Kanelli,

The US after the gassing at Halabja tried to blame the attack on Iran and not Iraq. It was only years later that the CIA changed it's tune and blamed it on Iraq.

This is fact and can easily be verified by a search on 'Halabja'.

The gassing took place during the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 and there was no, I repeat no, condemnation by the US or others from the international community at the time.

The CIA produced a number of reports blaming Iran for the massacre, which were disputed at the time by eye-witness accounts and Human Rights Watch etc. They later changed to blaming Iraq only after the US stopped supporting Saddam Hussein.

Will the above suffice for the US complicity in the gassing?

As for Hezbollah using cluster bombs - the evidence is against your statement Kanelli. Where the Hizbollah had access to sophisticated weapons they used it against military targets - the use of cluster bombs against civilians is what is a war crime.


Cheers,
Shafique

You can argue round and round about this stuff. But one thing you all forget that war is never a nice thing, it's gruesome, it's bloody and yes people get killed both military and civilians.

Personally they should settle things the old fashion way, pick a battle grown, the two generals ride out, shake hands, may the best side win blah blah blah and take it from there in hand to hand combat, up close and personal.

None of this hiding behind missiles and planes etc.

Shaf, I haven't mentioned the invasion of Iraq once, I mentioned the gassing of the Kurds. The US did not gas the Kurds. It doesn't matter if they blamed Iran, or there wasn't a lot of international outrage - it was Hussein who dropped the gas bombs. (Talk about lack of international outrage - Africa is almost always completely ignored and it suffers constantly from war, genocide, and starvation.)

Let's not play games about why Israel used cluster bombs in civilian areas. We all know that Israel views civilian areas as Hezbollah military targets. Why? Because Hezbollah attack from civilian areas. It still makes it atrocious that Israel would use those kinds of weapons in areas that they know people will be coming back to rebuild in, but they do have a point about Hezbollah using civilian areas to conduct attacks from. I think it was unethical to use cluster bombs when they could have used something else. I am not in any way condoning the use of cluster bombs.

I also never said Hezbollah used cluster bombs, but they would if they had them. How convenient for Hezbollah that the Israeli army has such a strong presence that they make easy and clear targets. Also, Hezbollah has fewer weapons compared to Israel, so focusing on military targets is smart - not wasting them on civilian areas and killing civilians.

Agree Chocs - war is nasty.

However, there still is a set of International Laws and most of the world has signed up to an International Court of Justice that holds people and countries accountable for breaking laws they have signed up to.

War crimes should be denounced (at the very least) and punished.

It adds insult to injury for those at the receiving end of war crimes to have the crime not even acknowledged. It is in this regard that it is, in my opinion, worth debating and highlighting the condemnation and punishment for war crimes.

It is a way to bring some sort of closure and restore justice. If not, there is an on-going sense of grievance that leads to more loss of life later on.

The evidence is that where people are brought to justice for war crimes, there is less violence after this. Look at post WWII Germany for example and more recent examples in the Balkans and Africa.

It is sad that people need to argue about what is a war crime or not - and that Amnesty and HRW have to stand up against Israel, US and the UK and state the obvious - that war crimes were committed in Lebanon.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, it always rubs me the wrong way when I see countries complaining about war crimes when they have commited them themselves. I can never forget that the US chose to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modern weaponry is dirty and nasty. If armies fought like in the old days, with limited weapons and hand to hand combat - then it would be a much more secure world than what we have today. I think it is really yellow-bellied to fly over a country and bomb the crap out of it, so that you don't suffer casualties, but the other side is devastated. There would be fewer wars if countries had to deal with mustering up large armies that needed to be transported by surface or air to gather in an area to fight on the ground. In the end, I suppose that civilians always did pay a price.

Kanelli - re. cluster bombs.

I refer you to the article linked in the original post above. Human Rights Watch is the one saying that Israel committed war crime of dropping cluster bombs in civilian areas. You will therefore excuse me if I take their viewpoint rather than your one which says 'Israel was justified in using cluster bombs in civilian areas because Hizbollah used these as firing positions'.

I'm actually more inclined to agree with the reports that Hizbollah actually used orchards and plantations to launch missiles from because they could not be spotted by drones overhead, and by the time planes came to target the launches, they were long gone.

Of course it was Iraq who gassed the Kurds - but at the time the US tried to cover up for the Iraqis who were friends of the US. You know that in most countries it's a crime to try and pervert the course of justice and cover up a crime? I wonder why?

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html


Cheers,
Shafique

kanelli wrote:Yes, it always rubs me the wrong way when I see countries complaining about war crimes when they have commited them themselves. I can never forget that the US chose to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modern weaponry is dirty and nasty. If armies fought like in the old days, with limited weapons and hand to hand combat - then it would be a much more secure world than what we have today. I think it is really yellow-bellied to fly over a country and bomb the crap out of it, so that you don't suffer casualties, but the other side is devastated. There would be fewer wars if countries had to deal with mustering up large armies that needed to be transported by surface or air to gather in an area to fight on the ground. In the end, I suppose that civilians always did pay a price.

Agree with everything you say.

Well, almost everything - I still think you should have the right to complain about war crimes if they occur, even if the nation had committed them.. but hey, that's just me.



Cheers,
Shafique

I hate to play devils advocate but to be honest I find the 'rules of engagement' a weird concept. It's war! It's dirty and nasty by nature, people will always break rules if you try and implement them.

If one side is out armoured and out manouvred, then of course they will use underhand tactics to overcome this.

It's the nature of the thing, to do whatever is necessary to gain the upper hand and ultimately to defeat the other side.

There's no strategy anymore, it's just bomb the hell out of everything and see what's left afterwards.

I did not say Israel was justified - I was merely acknowledging their viewpoint. Please show where I said they were "justified" in using the cluster bombs in civilian areas. In fact, I said it was unethical of them to do so.

I never claimed that Hezbollah attacked only from cities or towns. Are you sure that they attacked Israel exclusively from orchards or unpopulated tracts of land? Is it not possible that they attacked from both types of areas, whichever suited their purpose?

I'm well aware that Israel overreacted and purposely killed innocent civilians. I have acknowledged this in previous posts and condemned Israel's actions. Somehow people keep missing that part.

Human Rights Watch is not the US government - but an independent international organisation, so there is nothing hypocritical about Human Rights Watch complaining about Israel using cluster bombs.

Well, perhaps some people think that just because an army or guerrilla group is Islamic it is somehow more "moral" or "ethical" in the way it attacks.

Shaf, please don't get me wrong. Everyone has a right to complain. I was simply pointing out before that countries/armies all over the world are flouting the laws and using illegal weapons. I wish every country would practice what they preach and not even develop or stock illegal, unethical and awesomely destructive weapons.

I wonder how many countries have developed or bought cluster bombs and keep them stocked. It would be interesting to find that out.

kanelli wrote:Yes, it always rubs me the wrong way when I see countries complaining about war crimes when they have commited them themselves. I can never forget that the US chose to use nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Modern weaponry is dirty and nasty. If armies fought like in the old days, with limited weapons and hand to hand combat - then it would be a much more secure world than what we have today. I think it is really yellow-bellied to fly over a country and bomb the crap out of it, so that you don't suffer casualties, but the other side is devastated. There would be fewer wars if countries had to deal with mustering up large armies that needed to be transported by surface or air to gather in an area to fight on the ground. In the end, I suppose that civilians always did pay a price.

well victors have priveldge to write the history so america being most powerful wont do anything to jeopradise it's power. UN itself is not democratic so the powerful countries have say over other countries. how do u determien the power yes they all have nukes.... fighting with hands or planes is the same thing it results in death...it only depends on the leaders on the bot sides.
whatever be the case we as human had fought for nation race, money, ideals. politics etc... I have one of my fav saying "it is for the differences we flourish and for the differences we perish"
we as humans either accept the differences among us in a good way and make oursleves more productive or fight until other is suppressed.

whatever is th ecase.......isreal threw cluster so it MUST suffer sanctions as iraq did during it's time.

kanelli,

"We all know that Israel views civilian areas as Hezbollah military targets. Why? Because Hezbollah attack from civilian areas."

This statement is not only exagerrated but it contradicts what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have to say about Israel's use of cluster bombs and its targeting of civilians. Are you pretending to know more than Amnesty International and HRW

As to the replies to Shafique's comments; if you want some evidence on how the US really didn't care much about the Iraqi population during Gulf War I (for example) the US did have a chance to support at least two uprisings that might have possibly toppled Sadam. But they provided no such support. And as to a group of Kurds that were fleeing Sadam's army, the US marines where witnesses to a massacre, and they did nothing. If you want to see some of the footage, of Kurds being sprayed with bullets while the US marines watch, check out the archives on pbs.org (it was a Frontline report).

Another issue that I'm sure you're aware of Kanelli is what is happening to some Kurdish territories in Northern Iraq now. You do know that the US has shown support for Turkey in going after certain Kurdish groups (PKK specifically) in Iraq, right? There are reports that Turkish troops have actually entered N. Iraq and that both Turkey and Iran have shelled some areas. Do you think that the US didn't somehow "allow" this to happen? Now it's ok to attack some Kurdish areas because of potential Kurdish terrorists... So much for loyalties ...


"If Hezbollah had cluster bombs they would have used them too." Sorry but this statement is just idiotic! How could you say this? Do you have like a crystal ball or something where you can see what would happend "if" so and so had such and such weapons? Didn't you learn anything from "pre-emptive" wars and ridiculous "if" WMD claims?

Okay, the US and Israel are to blame for everything wrong on this planet.

I expect a round of applause from everyone, and to become the most popular person on this forum. You may begin now...

It would have been wiser if you would actually base your claims on facts rather than emotionally-tinged opinions. Also, defend your arguments, if you can....

Freza, why don't you teach us all how to be as wise as you?

Shaf, by the way, what is IDF? I'm reading the Human Rights Watch report and they mention IDF without writing out in full what it actually is. The report is definitely saying that they can find little to no evidence of Hezbollah launching attacks from some areas where Israel dropped bombs.

kanelli wrote:Okay, the US and Israel are to blame for everything wrong on this planet.

I expect a round of applause from everyone, and to become the most popular person on this forum. You may begin now...

i expected better from u kanelli.......ofcourse u cant blame enirely everything on US but they do have their hand in every unfortunate incident in this world . the place u r living in Dubai the US supports monarchy there and they know democracy in arab world wont do good for them.......they unilaterally support Isreal, they supplied taliban and iraqis weapons during soviet war and iran iraq war repectively wh cant the take the blame now?from eqypt to jordan to kuwait to uzbekistan to north korea us is turning blind eye to the plight of ppl there and supporting repressive regimes so they cna benfit from it . So bad the country which was made for freedom is become repressive.

Come on Sniper, I'm allowed to be sarcastic now and then. Besides, I wanna be in the cool crowd, so I had better blame the US for all the world's woes if I want to fit in.

kanelli wrote:Freza, why don't you teach us all how to be as wise as you?

I'm not wise, don't I wish... I hope I'll be wise after graduate school... but as a bonus tip: get rid of the phony smile.

IDF = Israel Defense Forces

Thanks for defining IDF.

Freza, we should meet in person one day. And you can meet the other DFers too who have been my friends for heading towards a year now. Together we can educate you on whether I am a phony person or not. You are most welcome to join us sometime.

kanelli wrote:Freza, we should meet in person one day. And you can meet the other DFers too who have been my friends for heading towards a year now. Together we can educate you on whether I am a phony person or not. You are most welcome to join us sometime.

Thanks for the invite. I've already met some DFers in person actually, and I'm glad to have had the honor; there are some really cool people on this forum. What would you allow yourself to learn from me? That I am not the rude, childish, arrogant person that you think I am? Actually, I am all that and more... still interested in meeting me?

Yes, it may be the only way we will ever get along. I don't think you are a bad person at all, and have already tried to give you a break when everyone else was jumping on you a few weeks back. I would just appreciate some changes in the way you communicate your messages. As I have said before, you make some great points - you just don't need to make everyone else feel like they are idiots if they don't agree with you. You are not an expert on Middle East political affairs, you are just like everyone else posting opinions and having what should be "discussion" based on the current knowledge they have. I have no problems meeting you whatsoever - it did wonders for me and Liban (who were often at each other's throats ).