I agree with MINK, war is hell and documenting it is one of the most important jobs anybody in it can do.

Look beyond photographers and look at the bigger picture. Did anyone else know that the red cross is so committed to remaining neutral that it will not testify at war crimes tribunals? In order to try and do the most good in a war people have to make compromises. Those compromises aren't the easy ones we normally face either, people are often faced with nothing but terrible options. If photographers or red cross workers stick to the plan they made before getting into the chaos it's hardly something we can criticize from the outside looking in. Even soldiers face the same terrible choices. Say a rebel army is defending villages from a murderous regime that is coming through and killing all civilians. If their only way of defending those villagers is to heavily mine every village they face the consequence that even if they succeed, the villagers they defended will be dying for years to come from the very mines used to protect them.

When people talk about war as though there are absolutes and with unrelenting refusal to accept any compromises they are part of the problem, not the solution. The peace niks and the hawks are both equally guilty of that and are equally responsible for the tragedies they both refuse to recognize.

The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.


White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the IDF said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/red-cross-israels-use-white-phosphorus-not-illegal

The reporter never would have badgered a Hamas spokesperson like this.

The basic idea here is: how ethical is it to fight under the banner of the UN/Red Cross and does using innocent human shields provide impunity to retaliation.

Imagine if the sides were reversed... no-one would talk about the Hamas rockets but rather the immoral cowardice of the Israelis.

I mean come on... why use a SCHOOL? Aren't there any fields you can use to fire mortar? If you want to fight, don't hide behind children then blame the other side for casualties.

If you're in a boxing match and the other guy pulls out a blade... only a fool would stick to his fist.

>> ^messenger:
Unbelievable. I can't imagine what worse they could possibly do than target and kill people delivering humanitarian aid.


Sit by with the power to put a stop to it and do nothing...

/looks at George Dubbya and Obama

^ ^ ^ I agree completely. The sad part is that Israel and spokesperson know exactly what they are doing. It purposefully is trying to seem strong, not apologize, and thumb their noses at suffering and the Red Cross.

They want more and more rockets and they really probably want problems in the West Bank.

Unfortunately, Obama is a coward on this one.

Oh Pallywood? See I don't need to say you're an idiot you just prove it yourself.

Pallywood is an allegation thrown about pro-Israel media watchers like you who armchair events from YouTube videos from sources you don't even know. It's centered around a few events in the entire history of the conflict and hasn't even been touched by CAMERA and MERMI TV because its such a heinous allegation, to claim that the suffering of the Palestinians is staged in anyway.

Why? Because it's fucking stupid. But you buy it willingly. What next you're going to claim the reported deaths are also made up by Pro-Palestinian sources like Red Cross and the UN?

By the way me calling you stupid is not a ad hominim it's just a statement of facts, because you add nothing logical or constructive to the discussions simply a right wing interpretation of the situation that benefits neither Israel nor Palestine.

Yes Hamas is bad, we get the fucking picture. But you can't lance an organization like Hamas out with military action, no bombs, guided missiles or IDf incursions will stop this. Israel went from roundly defeating Arab armies along its entire border zones in the 60s to being unable to stop Hezboallah or Hamas from occasionally firing the odd missile. The unilateral military actions simply don't work, there needs to be a re engagement of how Israel deals with this situation instead of shooting itself in the foot by coming off as a unnecessary aggressor.

But you don't see that and actually think Israel can win this through bombs and war. Israel asked for this and will keep getting it as long as it believes this is the only course of action.

But what do you care right? You can say whatever you want I mean this all really doesn't affect you anyway. So yeah Pallywood and lets kill all the muslims.

>> ^Rambaldi:
Actually, the piece says "fewer than 10 deaths have been reported", leading me to believe this is actually a pro-palestinian piece. It seems as though the piece is trying to present the terrorists as an unorganized, unequipped, bunch of hooligans, who fire animal manure rockets that don't even get off the ground.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are such groups. However, there are also well-equipped, well-organized terrorists, as evidenced by rockets still being fired so late into the current conflict. The other thing that piece doesn't refer to is that the goal and effect of terrorism is much more than deaths. In that, at least, the Palestinian terrorists are extremely successful.
Since I consider myself somewhat biased, I looked up some statistics:
According to Israeli security services, 790 rockets and mortar shells were fired into Israel since the current conflict began. Each of those rockets and shells sends population of entire cities into shelters.
MDA (the Israeli Red Cross) has treated 800 psychological trauma and injury victims since the beginning of the conflict.


To bad there is no music when that 105 millimeter round misfires. Acting like one side doesn't aim to kill the other sides civilians is something I find very amusing. Please continue. Each side is out to destroy the other, that is the crux of the situation. A petty situation at that.

Actually, the piece says "fewer than 10 deaths have been reported", leading me to believe this is actually a pro-palestinian piece. It seems as though the piece is trying to present the terrorists as an unorganized, unequipped, bunch of hooligans, who fire animal manure rockets that don't even get off the ground.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are such groups. However, there are also well-equipped, well-organized terrorists, as evidenced by rockets still being fired so late into the current conflict. The other thing that piece doesn't refer to is that the goal and effect of terrorism is much more than deaths. In that, at least, the Palestinian terrorists are extremely successful.

Since I consider myself somewhat biased, I looked up some statistics:

According to Israeli security services, 790 rockets and mortar shells were fired into Israel since the current conflict began. Each of those rockets and shells sends population of entire cities into shelters.

MDA (the Israeli Red Cross) has treated 800 psychological trauma and injury victims since the beginning of the conflict.

For the record, these Israelis are monsters. They are killing UN and Red Cross drivers.

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepened yesterday when the main United Nations aid agency suspended its work in the Strip after one of its drivers was killed by an Israeli tank shell.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also said it would restrict its operations after one of its lorry drivers was hurt when a convoy carrying drugs for Gaza hospitals and transferring intensive care patients to Egypt came under fire from Israeli troops south of Gaza City. Both organisations said their convoys had been co-ordinated with the Israeli military.

"If [the Israeli military] give us clearances to move, then it is fully unacceptable that their soldiers on the ground are going to fire on our workers. Believe me, the verbal assurances [from the Israelis] have run out in terms of credibility."

The UN decision to halt aid came on the 13th day of Israel's offensive. A second three-hour ceasefire allowed rescue workers and doctors into some of the most heavily-targeted zones and to retrieve about 50 bodies, bringing the Palestinian death toll to 758. The UN, which claims civilians have borne the brunt of the bloodshed, said 257 of the dead were children under 18.

The UN driver was the third to be killed during Israel's offensive. The UNRWA said a second convoy seeking to recover the body of another UN casualty during yesterday's ceasefire was also fired at but no one was hurt.

<sigh>

Guys, google "Geneva Convention Medical Transport" before you flame each other.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/365-570043?OpenDocument
"The military authorities must take the greatest care to ensure that the red cross sign is removed as soon as a vehicle is no longer employed as medical transport, and strict orders to this effect must be given to all ranks. It is essential that the serious abuses which occurred during the Second World War should not be repeated. (2)
For although there were very good reasons for introducing the principle of a distinctive emblem which could be removed, the risk of abuse has certainly been increased as a result. After the wounded have been taken to the rear under the protection of the red cross sign, there [p.282] will be a great temptation to load the empty vehicles returning to the front with war material. If the emblem then remains on the loaded vehicles, there is a grave breach of the Convention, even if the sign has simply been left on through negligence or because there has been no time to remove it. Such cases have occurred. Constant vigilance is therefore essential."

Does "grave breach of the (Geneva) Convention" mean war crime? I'm not a human rights lawyer, but I suspect the answer is "hell yeah"...

1) autumn
2) poli rock, 5 miles N of honolulu, oahu, hawaii, usa
3) where the wild things are
4) six-million dollar man
5) pensive
6) jacob's ladder, fearless, R&GaD, true romance, american beauty, etc
7) fuck
wolf
9) being 19
10) james burke

11) neither current, have had both, prefer dog
12) sweet
13) cereal
14) tan
15) barefoot
16) desktop
17) walk, or bike/skateboard
18) drama, by a nose
19) sex
20) Simpsons

21) very tough, but probably this
22) ...which makes this easy
23) choggie
24) very tough. but how about zomgunicorns
25) comedy
26) here's a recent one
27) schmawy's gallery. but currently, blahpook's 'more cowbell' obama is lol
28) mostly berticus & kulpims
29) yes
30) dunno', but this upcoming lounge thing sounds pretty good

31) rochester, ny, usa
32) smoker
33) mostly right
34) dark brown
35) single
36) 6' (183cm)
37) none, biologically
38) yes
39) no idea. eyebrows?
40) i'm concerned about you

41) lou gehrig
42) american red cross
43) bin laden, though a bullet's cheaper
44) being 19
45) telepathic
46) wavicality
47) bitching about the toilet seat position
48) enact IRV, confront the Federal Reserve/IRS and the MIC
49) bad idea (because clearly, we still haven't even fully learned from the holocaust)
50) free my 7 billion cousins from bondage, or at least buy 'em all a soft drink

Favourites

1) Spring
2) Beijing, China
3) Mike Mulligan and his Steam Shovel
4) South Park
5) Knemidokoptes
6) Beauty and the Beast
7) Don't know
Snakes
9) The French Revolution
10)Not sure

Which one?

11) Dog
12) Sweet
13) Cereal
14) Tan
15) Barefoot
16) Laptop
17) Walk
18) Drama
19) Food
20) Futurama

The Sift

21) Duck Amuck
22) "* promote" - various vids
23) blankfist
24) Fjnbk
25) Comedy, but I don't spend any time looking at single channels.
26) Everything I've done here
27) mlx's
28) YouTube
29) Some
30) Non-charters get to choose handle colors

About you

31) Michigan
32) Non-smoker
33) Right handed
34) Black
35) Single
36) 5' something
37) No
38) No
39) All of me
40) Brilliantly stupid, humbly narcissistic

If you could...what, who, when etc

41) John Lennon
42) Red Cross
43) Kevin Trudeau
44) 9th grade
45) Telepathy
46) Albert Einstein's last words
47) Umm...
48) Ban teaching of creationism and intelligent design by executive order.
49) The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Terrible time.
50) Win a Nobel Prize

*quality

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:

YES! I very much do disagree! If you took 9.9million from this dude with 10 million dollars he's still got 100,000 bucks! If you take 9,900 from a dude with 10,000 bucks, that guy is going to have a much, much harder time then that dude who lost a lot more but had a lot more to lose. You see what I'm saying? Again this is oversimplifying the situation to such a degree that its not worth arguing about, but I'm not comfortable leaving my position unclear on this point.

What person is going to be okay with losing 9.9 million dollars or 99% of their wealth? Why would anyone risk losing 99% of their total wealth when they can protect it by paying a mere 7% on their annual income? My guess is that everyone would donate to police and national defense because no one wants to lose 99% of their money. My point was that even if all the poor people didn't contribute the rich people would pay for it in its entirety because given the choice between 7% of their income or 100% of their wealth, any economically minded person is going to choose the former!

One however, can take it to the extreme to show that your logic breaks down. Imagine an example where one man has $1 trillion and another has $1 dollar. Who benefits most from a police/national defense system? if you take away 99% from each man, does your argument still work? How can changing the dollar amounts possibly change the principle? All that matters is those who have more, have more to lose, and thus benefit most from protection of what they have.

What you're really saying is that the millionaire is a better target, thus he would want to have better defense of his assets. But why couldn't he do this privately? Buy some guns, some dogs, some fences, some security guards. And what neighborhoods are the most crime-ridden? I'll give you a hint, ... no I'll just tell you answer; its poor neighborhoods. So maybe now you have a grasp as to why I thought this was the most outrageous of your claims.

How are the fences and security guards going to help him when China invades, or when 1000 poor people form a mob and storm his house? How much would you have to pay a security guard, in a system of anarchy, to guard $10 million? How will he live a normal life when everyone knows who he is and how much money he has? How can he walk down the street? Is he to remain in his fortress, if so what kind of life is that? This is the point I was making--everyone benefits from a police system and national defense, but the rich people benefit the most precisely because they have the most to fear, and the most to lose.

Maybe what you're referring to are Non-Governmental Organization, and not Non-Profit Organizations? Non-profits are not able to compete with private businesses if their funding/property/assets/operations are taxed. There would be absolutely no point to have a non-profit company if there was no tax incentive to do so. If there were no taxes on any businesses then nonprofits would not exist as they do today... their entire structure is based around being tax exempt. So,... um... yeah! Sorry to break the news to you!

Thats just not true. The majority of todays non-profits were formed in the 19th century (red cross, salvation army, art museums, etc.) when there was no income tax, and taxes were a very small portion of peoples income, and there was little to no regulation in the economy. If you think that people only donate blood, or only appreciate art, or only listen to operas, or only donate clothes, food, or help the homeless because of tax incentives, then you really have a sad view of humanity.

A person strictly interested in their individual choices would by necessity disregard the choices of everyone else! There are not individual rights in strict individualism, because there is no community to guarantee these rights. Its every man for himself.

Thats not what "the right to life" is about. Did you read my definition on my bio? It clearly says this: "As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." It specifically says you cannot violate the rights of others.

aloha. if that avatar is a self-portrait, you should eat something.

oh, and i answered your question...

In reply to this comment by alizarin:
Did they bomb a red cross tent at 1:19?

Did they bomb a red cross tent at 1:19?