Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
So if journalists didn't report it, how do you know it happened?
(my point is that this is obviously not an effective way to achieve that goal if it's their goal.)
ETA: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_155157.html
They admit using phosphorus in 2006 in Lebanon and apparently it's not illegal to use as a smokescreen.
And they now claim that they were attacked from near the school: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7823204.stm
Who puts something likely to be a target of returned fire 30 meters from a school? Is that much better than it not being at the school itself? |
I never said journalists aren't reporting it.
Idk about using it in Lebanon, but they are currently using it in Gaza.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090112/...ite_phosphorus
It might not be illegal to use but according to the article:
Quote:
|
Under customary laws of war, however, Israel would be expected to take all feasible precautions to minimize the impact of white phosphorus on civilians, Human Rights Watch said.
|
It's just a little shady to use it when Israel obviously has the upper hand, there is no need to be using things that will obviously be detrimental to civilians.
And yeah, the militants were supposedly in the vicinity of the school, but the thing is Israel KNEW before they bombed it. They knew before that the militants were actually not in the school, but they decided to bomb it anyways.
Threaded Mode
