[rockwool]

It's been on the radio all day but I haven't found an article yet.

The country I love to critisize, Israel... , has since this summer started using a new weapon on Palestinians. It's a bomb that blows up but doesn't create much damage to the surrounding and the fragments don't go that far. The victimes that've been taken to hospital show low external body injuries but their internals are filled with dust. The victimes had been examined by members of the organization Doctors For Human Rights.

In an interview, a military expert said that the new weapon is of the LCD, Low Collateral Damage, type. The reporter called it something else though, and I will edit that name after the next time I hear the news.


EDIT: The weapon, that was first used during this summer offensive in Gaza, caused little external injuries but heavily burnt internals. According to some Italians (don't remember) the weapons were called DIME (at least it was pronounced like that) weapons and were produced in the US. The Israelis dismissed that they have such weapons and that they had no means of getting them eather.

 

[Westy]

So you are upset that Israel is using new less lethal weapons? Those bastards, next thing you know they will start using nerf bullets and strong language.

 

[MMike]

So you are upset that Israel is using new less lethal weapons? Those bastards, next thing you know they will start using nerf bullets and strong language.

Stop kavetching.....

 

[H8R]

The victimes that've been taken to hospital show low external body injuries but their internals are filled with dust.

Dust bunny cannons?

 

[rockwool]

Dust bunny cannons?

No, it was smaller, maybe mice.

 

[RenegadeRick]

...but their internals are filled with dust...

Do you mean their lungs were filled with dust, or it is like their organs were turned into dust?

That latter sounds way scarier.

 

[DRB]

Watch its going to be that the bombs cause cancer.

 

[Westy]

Watch its going to be that the bombs cause cancer.

Or allergies.

 

[skatetokil]

terrorists have been known to infect themselves with horrible terminal illnesses and then blow themselves up so that if you catch a piece of shrapnel you also get the aids or whatever.

 

[rockwool]

Do you mean their lungs were filled with dust, or it is like their organs were turned into dust?

That latter sounds way scarier.

=) I meant that their wounds were filled with dust as the weapon partially contains something that is like dust. I picture a claymore that has had the sharpnells exchanged for that dusty thing, which also explains why the reach of the weapon is so limited.

 

[rockwool]

terrorists have been known to infect themselves with horrible terminal illnesses and then blow themselves up so that if you catch a piece of shrapnel you also get the aids or whatever.

Terrists have the "crazy cow disease".

 

[Jeremy R]

=) I meant that their wounds were filled with dust as the weapon partially contains something that is like dust. I picture a claymore that has had the sharpnells exchanged for that dusty thing, which also explains why the reach of the weapon is so limited.

So, this bomb might actually kill exactly who it was intended for, and leave the other 20 people around him alive although dusty.
Oh, the humanity.

 

[BurlyShirley]

By leaving more people alive, they're only creating more terrorists.

 

[DRB]

Its not full of dust. The casing is made of carbon fiber which upon detonation basically turns to dust. The part folks are having a problem with is that the explosives uses inert metals to limit the size of the explosion. Those inert metals are claimed to cause cancer.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Its not full of dust. The casing is made of carbon fiber which upon detonation basically turns to dust. The part folks are having a problem with is that the explosives uses inert metals to limit the size of the explosion. Those inert metals are claimed to cause cancer.

Yeah so are hot dogs and arabs eat those things like crazy.

 

[LordOpie]

I'll reserve comment until Israel develops a laser weapon that strictly kills bad people, but ruins cell phone reception for a few seconds.

Those bastards. I hate dropped calls!

 

[rockwool]

So, this bomb might actually kill exactly who it was intended for, and leave the other 20 people around him alive although dusty.
Oh, the humanity.

40 years of occupation is not humane. Besides, that type of eapon might not be legal, specialy not on civilians.

 

[LordOpie]

so, this weapon causes less bodily collateral damage, but there's more dust in the fewer wounds?

Do you have any idea how complaining about that sounds so dumb?


I never did understand why people complain about certain explosive weapons. Dead is dead.

 

[rockwool]

Its not full of dust. The casing is made of carbon fiber which upon detonation basically turns to dust. The part folks are having a problem with is that the explosives uses inert metals to limit the size of the explosion. Those inert metals are claimed to cause cancer.

That could also be it, but as it was reported it was like it had purposefully been built in extra dust (probably instead of sharpnel).


Lord Unbanned, cellphones are killer even today, but we will only know when several decades have passed. Many of us keep them in our pants, that radiation will probaly have an affect on our balls, and therefore our reproductivity or the outcome of that. Others have them close to the heart, but mostly towards our brains when we talk. I can't imagine what that will do, make me dumber?

 

[Slugman]

40 years of occupation is not humane. Besides, that type of eapon might not be legal, specialy not on civilians.

"Civilians"... because we all know that terrorist wear a uniform that identifies them as such.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all (or any) "bystanders" are actually innocent.

 

[rockwool]

so, this weapon causes less bodily collateral damage, but there's more dust in the fewer wounds?

Do you have any idea how complaining about that sounds so dumb?


I never did understand why people complain about certain explosive weapons. Dead is dead.

Well, there are allways more casualties than dead in a war (or when such weapons are used). The wounds arent fewer, jsut different, maybe even worse but that I don't know anything about.

 

[rockwool]

"Civiclians"... because we all know that terrorist wear a uniform that identifies them as such.

Don't be fooled into thinking that all (or any) "bystanders" are actually innocent.

I'm not. But if you look at how many women and children have been killed or injured during those years, you will see that they don't care who they hit. Can't explain it in any other way. Numbers speak for them selves.

 

[Slugman]

I'm not. But if you look at how many women and children have been killed or injured during those years, you will see that they don't care who they hit. Can't explain it in any other way. Numbers speak for them selves.

So the terrorist never use women or children?

News flash - they use who ever they think the Israeli solders might not suspect.

 

[LordOpie]

Lord Unbanned, cellphones are killer even today, but we will only know when several decades have passed. Many of us keep them in our pants, that radiation will probaly have an affect on our balls, and therefore our reproductivity or the outcome of that. Others have them close to the heart, but mostly towards our brains when we talk. I can't imagine what that will do, make me dumber?

Are you honestly concerned by this? If so, how do you leave your house or sleep? Seriously, that's way too much anxiety to enjoy life.

So the terrorist never use women or children?

News flash - they use who ever they think the Israeli solders might not suspect.

You can't have a reasonable conversation with him about palestinian terrorists. He sees the conflict as strictly one-way, Israel is wrong, Palestine is the victim.

 

[novarider]

man, bandwidth must be getting cheaper these days

 

[BurlyShirley]

I'm not. But if you look at how many women and children have been killed or injured during those years, you will see that they don't care who they hit. Can't explain it in any other way. Numbers speak for them selves.

If they "didnt care" who they hit, there wouldnt be an "issue" anymore.

 

[sanjuro]

What about using nerve gas? No collateral damage...

How about a dirty nuclear bomb? Incendiary shells? Fletchette cannons?

I think the point is skirting the Geneva Conventions causes more death and destruction than conventional weapons.

Not that bullets and bombs are much better...

 

[LordOpie]

If they "didnt care" who they hit, there wouldnt be an "issue" anymore.

That's really the bottomline, isn't it.

With the Arab world's assertion of "Israel's death or bust", that the end result will have to be the destruction of Palestine or Israel. I say that cuz while the Arab world might hate Israel, they're only willing to allow Palestine to take the damage. No way would they want Israel bombing their precious cities. So they use Palestine as pawns.

Unless the UN/USA takes control of Palestine. Which they should for 10-20 years. Build schools, hospitals, and Wal-marts... that'll make them too fat and lazy to want war.

 

[rockwool]

So the terrorist never use women or children?

News flash - they use who ever they think the Israeli solders might not suspect.

Yes, but it could also be used as an excuse by the Israelis to cover their indiscriminate killings.

Are you honestly concerned by this? If so, how do you leave your house or sleep? Seriously, that's way too much anxiety to enjoy life.

You can't have a reasonable conversation with him about palestinian terrorists. He sees the conflict as strictly one-way, Israel is wrong, Palestine is the victim.

In some of the Greek islands, when a person dies they gather after the serimony to eat and dance, both things are done to symbolize that life goes on.

If I attack you with a knife, you have a right to self defence. That self defence may not be overly violent (at least according to Swedish law). That means that after you have disarmed me you may not stab me 40 times. It also means that if you've disarmed/pacified me and by doing so you had to stick your knife in me, you are not allowed to hold it in there for indefinate time. Not even 39 years.

If you do so, you have exceeded your legal rights and I am in turn alowed to defend my self from you (not exessively of course).

That's the Palestinian conflict right now. A people has the right to fight for its freedom against an occupier, but that don't mean that they are alowed to hit anything Israeli (like civilians). That in turn doesn't give the Israelis the right to crave the Palesinian people not to act irrational after 39 years of dehumanizing treatment.

The conditions that the Israelis force the Palestinians to live under indicate their view of the worth of human value. How are the Palestinians to know better when everything around them tells them that human life is worth exactly nothing. Is it unnatural for them to come to the conclusion "if I and my whole family is worth dick, then the value of Israeli civilians must be the same"?

If they "didnt care" who they hit, there wouldnt be an "issue" anymore.

Well, of course the can't exterminate them in huge numbers. That would be genocide, and huge numbers don't slip through the screening eye of the world as easily as small numbers.

I think the point is skirting the Geneva Conventions causes more death and destruction than conventional weapons.

Not that bullets and bombs are much better...

Like shown in the movie Lord Of War with Nicholas Cage when they said that the true weapon of mass destruction is the portable firearm.

 

[rockwool]

That's really the bottomline, isn't it.

With the Arab world's assertion of "Israel's death or bust", that the end result will have to be the destruction of Palestine or Israel. I say that cuz while the Arab world might hate Israel, they're only willing to allow Palestine to take the damage. No way would they want Israel bombing their precious cities. So they use Palestine as pawns.

Unless the UN/USA takes control of Palestine. Which they should for 10-20 years. Build schools, hospitals, and Wal-marts... that'll make them too fat and lazy to want war.

My view of that is that you are confusing the public with the various administrations. In my view most Arabs don't hate Israel or want it to vanish. Now, they do hold something against it/and/or its people, but it would be strange if they didn't after all these years... What they want is for this unhuman occupation to end, and for Jews to live in peace with Moslems once again.

That they don't want their own cities bombed is natural. That they don't take it personal enough for them to want that is also natural. You wouldn't take it as personal if your cousin or neighbour got harmed as you would if it was you.

Thing about UN presence in Palestine is that they aren't alowed to be there by the Israelis! Wicked ain't it?

 

[dan-o]

If I attack you with a knife, you have a right to self defence. That self defence may not be overly violent (at least according to Swedish law...

What a bull$hit concept.

 

[Strakar]

What they want is for this unhuman occupation to end, and for Jews to live in peace with Moslems once again.

Sorry, but for the majority this just isn't so. Blame it on central government, the media, cultural rivalry or years of disguised war, but the fact remains, Arabs will reject Israel existence as they did in 1947.

The fact is that you can have an Israeli manifestation pro-peace (lets say "pro-negotiating-with-the-Palestinians"). Do the reverse in any Arab Country and you'll have yourself a lynching...

 

[DaveW]

It's been on the radio all day but I haven't found an article yet.

The country I love to critisize, Israel... , has since this summer started using a new weapon on Palestinians. It's a bomb that blows up but doesn't create much damage to the surrounding and the fragments don't go that far. The victimes that've been taken to hospital show low external body injuries but their internals are filled with dust. The victimes had been examined by members of the organization Doctors For Human Rights.

In an interview, a military expert said that the new weapon is of the LCD, Low Collateral Damage, type. The reporter called it something else though, and I will edit that name after the next time I hear the news.


EDIT: The weapon, that was first used during this summer offensive in Gaza, caused little external injuries but heavily burnt internals. According to some Italians (don't remember) the weapons were called DIME (at least it was pronounced like that) weapons and were produced in the US. The Israelis dismissed that they have such weapons and that they had no means of getting them eather.

Are you sure your not refering to the use of Phosphorus bombs??

 

[rockwool]

What a bull$hit concept.

Huh?

Sorry, but for the majority this just isn't so. Blame it on central government, the media, cultural rivalry or years of disguised war, but the fact remains, Arabs will reject Israel existence as they did in 1947.

The fact is that you can have an Israeli manifestation pro-peace (lets say "pro-negotiating-with-the-Palestinians"). Do the reverse in any Arab Country and you'll have yourself a lynching...

Arabs and Palesitnians must after 60 years have realized that they can't make that happen and wishing won't eather. I have the impression that the majority of Palestinians want to live in peace with the Jews again.

That second thing is pure BS. I can't see how one possibly can come to a conclusion like that. Fill me in.

Are you sure your not refering to the use of Phosphorus bombs??

I'm jsut passing over what has been said on the radio. Jewish doctors had examined victimes as well. They didn't mention phosphorus, they said it was a new type first viewed used on humans. This was in Gaza, not Lebanon.

 

[Strakar]

Huh?



Arabs and Palesitnians must after 60 years have realized that they can't make that happen and wishing won't eather. I have the impression that the majority of Palestinians want to live in peace with the Jews again.

60 years?? this didn't start 60 years ago. Before the "Jewish oppression" there was the "Arab oppression" and so forth. Egg and chicken really.

The status quo is not totally inconvenient for the Arab world. The problem lies there too.

That second thing is pure BS. I can't see how one possibly can come to a conclusion like that. Fill me in.

Too tired and still a lot of work to do to dwell in the Internet to find "proof" to link here. The pure BS you speak of is the result of years of paying attention to the media and from speaking with a few persons that have been to the middle east. I remember a few examples, but too loosely to quote. If you want to label it as BS, so be it. But denying that institutionally Israel is a lot closer to an occidental democracy than the great majority (and I'm being P.C. here) of the Arab countries, tells me a great deal about your vision on this matter.

 

[LordOpie]

60 years?? this didn't start 60 years ago. Before the "Jewish oppression" there was the "Arab oppression" and so forth.

Arabs oppressed Jews before 1947?

I mean wide-spread and recognized oppression.

I ask cuz I know that the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before israel, Jordan and the rest of it was divided by the Brits and French. I know that Arabs were oppressed by the Catholic Church. And I know the jews were oppressed by the Romans, but I thought the jew-arab hatred thing was a recent invention?

I don't need any links, just your comments to clarify.

 

[rockwool]

60 years?? this didn't start 60 years ago. Before the "Jewish oppression" there was the "Arab oppression" and so forth. Egg and chicken really.

The status quo is not totally inconvenient for the Arab world. The problem lies there too.



Too tired and still a lot of work to do to dwell in the Internet to find "proof" to link here. The pure BS you speak of is the result of years of paying attention to the media and from speaking with a few persons that have been to the middle east. I remember a few examples, but too loosely to quote. If you want to label it as BS, so be it. But denying that institutionally Israel is a lot closer to an occidental democracy than the great majority (and I'm being P.C. here) of the Arab countries, tells me a great deal about your vision on this matter.

"Arab oppression"? Arabs oppressing Palestinians or Arabs oppressing Jews?

Why, is the Arab world in need of an external enemy to unite against something?

I'm sorry I called it BS, sometimes I react to hard.. No need to proove it, just wanted to know the big picture. I've viewed my self about the media quite a few times, and there are lot of things I wish for when it comes to them. Objectivity is one of them.

I didn't deny that. But sometimes that don't mean all to much in general, and in this case I don't think it prooves anything. People are too quick to draw conclusions, like the one you did, and that is why I reacted.

 

[DaveW]

Arabs oppressed Jews before 1947?

I mean wide-spread and recognized oppression.

I ask cuz I know that the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before israel, Jordan and the rest of it was divided by the Brits and French. I know that Arabs were oppressed by the Catholic Church. And I know the jews were oppressed by the Romans, but I thought the jew-arab hatred thing was a recent invention?

I don't need any links, just your comments to clarify.

That's from the 30's I think??

Palestinians land ownership was feudal.... Most of the time they owned the orange and olive groves..... but not the Land under the groves (just the trees) and Jewish imigrants from europe arived with a totally different view on land ownership......If they brought the land they owned the land and everything on it, and so when the by compasison far richer Jews moved into palestine they would buy the land off the ottoman owners and promptly boot the locals out.
Needless to say this was rather resented by familys who had been farming the land for generations.

Since then the anger of both sides has just fed off each other, till today neither side is IMO competent to make rational unclouded decisions about what to do.

 

[rockwool]

Arabs oppressed Jews before 1947?

I mean wide-spread and recognized oppression.

I ask cuz I know that the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before israel, Jordan and the rest of it was divided by the Brits and French. I know that Arabs were oppressed by the Catholic Church. And I know the jews were oppressed by the Romans, but I thought the jew-arab hatred thing was a recent invention?

I don't need any links, just your comments to clarify.

That is my view of it to. It's us Europeans that have oppressed the Jews for ages.

 

[Strakar]

Arabs oppressed Jews before 1947?

I mean wide-spread and recognized oppression.

I ask cuz I know that the land belonged to the Ottoman Empire before israel, Jordan and the rest of it was divided by the Brits and French. I know that Arabs were oppressed by the Catholic Church. And I know the jews were oppressed by the Romans, but I thought the jew-arab hatred thing was a recent invention?

I don't need any links, just your comments to clarify.

Well there has always been ethnic tension between both parts. Before 1947 jews were the underdogs, there were a few riots that led to "massacres" and such.

edit: (I just read about the widespread)

Most of these riots were had unofficial "approval" by the authorities, and served as a vent for tensions resulting from Jewish immigration.