To be honest I don't even think it's a new thing, it's a continuation of stuff like the use of napalm and Agent Orange in South East Asia. I think the only difference is that the bogeyman whose insidious evil justifies the indiscriminate use of force has shifted from communists to Islamists. In British history basically every revolutionary war of the 20th century saw the same sort of thing happening, just obviously the lack of technology meant they had to burn Cork down manually to terrify the Irish instead of carpet bombing it.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
To be honest I don't even think it's a new thing, it's a continuation of stuff like the use of napalm and Agent Orange in South East Asia. I think the only difference is that the bogeyman whose insidious evil justifies the indiscriminate use of force has shifted from communists to Islamists. In British history basically every revolutionary war of the 20th century saw the same sort of thing happening, just obviously the lack of technology meant they had to burn Cork down manually to terrify the Irish instead of carpet bombing it.
Morally touchy issue but no you aren't actually. At least not by the standards of International humanitarian law which actually permits certain degrees of collateral damage if it can be justified on the basis of military necessity and if the attack is proportionate. This is why international humanitarian law also forbids the warring parties from using their civilian populations as a human shield.
So... back to the Zeitoun and Gaza Beach bombings then...
Because you keep deviating from the main question, you asking me about Hamas if they are considered a terrorist organization? when did I ever state the opposite? I based my question on your logic, If you consider Hamas a terrorist organization (based on terrorizing civilians) then so is Israel based on hundreds of examples not one. It is easy.
Or Sabra and Shatila, or or or or or hundreds of examples.
Over 63 children have died in the last week.
You're excuses for anything Israel does is pretty nauseating, and you're trying to crowbar what Hamas does as some sort of justification.
Indeed
Do you have some googled pedantry that explains why what the IDF did as described in other two paragraphs of my post was perfectly above board too?
So did the USA gov find the WMD that was behind the war in Iraq and caused the death of 150-800k Iraqi to justify the necessity of the military attack?
Last edited:
This.
Makes total sense.
I know non-binding resolutions can be attached to arms sales, would such a block like this actually be enforceable?
What on earth are you talking about?
Where have I asked you this or even any questions for that matter?
That's not what military necessity means. And it's not even relevant because I never said they were right to do this.
You and others are replying to conversations that were centered on a specific question of what the objective definition of terrorism is.
You entered the discussion when you said the US, UK, and Israel are guilty of the definition of terrorism.
I asked you whether they really specifically target civilians, as I have pointed out that this is the key feature.
You said they do. I left it at that.
End of discussion. You are now pivoting to the question of the rightness or wrongness of these wars and arguing against my previous arguments -- but my arguments were never about right or wrong.
It was only about the meaning of terrorism while stating that there are other violations of International Humanitarian Law that could more accurately characterize disproportionate harm to civilians.
I really hope this is clear.
What does this have to do with what I posted?
Your comment that " Every army in the world will have isolated incidents of discipline failure or poor judgment" is total horseshit if you can kill 63 children in the space of a week.
It would require every Dem to support it which will of course not happen, which means this is little more than a PR move.
You do realize that I was responding to a particular issue?
The question was do the referenced States (USA, UK, Israel) have an actual policy of targeting civilians. A particular incident was brought up and I pointed out the fact that isolated incidents don't make a policy.
Read the post I replied to and the one that person replied to. If you insist on misbehaving after that, please do it with other people.
At least it is something to raise the issue to the forefront. Will also awaken much of the on the fence with Bernie crowd.
I think they are mostly already awoken. The fighting appears to be nearing an end, after which I expect everything to return to how they were before it began.
You're just being obtuse, those are obviously 63 unfortunate isolated incidents.
Googled pedantry indeed. It's the law whether it suits your perspectives or not.
The second half of your post was ignored because you're arguing with yourself. I don't see what this:
To take the word targeted literally, and also to demonstrate how tenuous the "its Hamas' fault we kill women and children" line is,
has to do with what I've posted, unless you are saying the Israeli (and US and UK) army does this routinely. As I understand it, you are trying to show that Israeli soldiers have committed acts that could be war crimes -- so go and argue with someone who has said that they haven't.
Sabra and Chatila stretches way beyond an Israeli-Palestinian conflict...
It is well in the parameter of the atrocities done or aided by Israel.
American aid towards apartheid Israel is not ending any time soon. Israel also has not been held accountable for the crimes.
Does that even matter, innocent people were terrorized on a daily basis in these countries by the US, UK, Israel military. Countless lives lost in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine. Sure you can "legalize it" and put it under the "collateral damage" despite the fact the killing was systematic and on daily basis.
I have to stay away from this thread, the amount of people pushing agendas and painting war crimes as collaterals is nauseating.
Last edited:
Correct, and US support for Israel will continue after this recent round of fighting subsides. Nothing has changed since the 2014 war, nor will it change anytime soon.
So politicians should not bother changing anything because nothing will change? Weird logic. Bernie shouldn't try to pass a bill because it won't get passed...?
They should take action that actually results in tangible change. This will not result in any meaningful change in US policy since it doesn't have the votes to pass. What this will do is provide people who think its a serious attempt at policy making, the illusion that things are being done, when in fact they aren't.
Okay well I see what you mean but I disagree. I think it pushes politicians to answer the questions more vocally and brings the issue further to the forefront.
This thread will be potentially more grounded without absolutist rhetoric like yours.
It is part simple PR, but the discussion should remain at the forefront no matter what the process is.
The sad thing is that it requires conflict to keep pressure on our politicians. It’s hard to sustain otherwise.
Good luck defending war crimes. Bye.
Whether it's 'legal' wasn't relevant though. My point was that if you drop a bomb with an area of effect, you've targeted everything within that area of effect. If there are civilians in that area, even if they're not in the bullseye, you've targeted them. Your counterpoint was that targetting those civilians might be legal, but that's besides the point.
I raised the bit you bolded because your argument appears to be that the IDF doesn't routinely target civilians, they target militants and routinely happen to kill civilians as an unfortunate by-product. So I've given you a very clear example that the IDF has been known to intentionally target civilians (others have given other examples, so I guess that covers 'routinely'), and which demonstrates that when the Israeli government says they're targetting militants they're not always telling the truth. I'm not sure it's legal under international law to kill civilians when targetting 'enemy combatants' when you're well aware that the 'enemy combatants' are actually civilians.
See ya!
I have a few Israel supporting people on Instagram. It’s embarrassing what they’re posting. Basically their agenda is that criticism of Israel’s ‘war’ is all antisemetic and has compared death numbers to other recent wars complaining that these haven’t been hyped. The reason this has all this coverage is because of antisemitism. Today’s post by then mentioned how there’s no outcry about Hamas’s rockets killing Palestinians today.
Forever acting the victim…
Forever acting the victim…
Geraldo and Bongino...at it again
Just on the International Humanitarian Law, is this only to be used with likes of Hamas?
Because any criticism of Israel, and there is plenty from IHL and UN and NATO and likes of Amnesty gets brushed under the carpet.