War

Are you arguing with me about what the Geneva conventions say, or disagreeing with them?

Both.
According to a strict interpretation, these "civilian" terrorists, are only deemed to be combatants when they are "taking a direct part in hostilities".
So once they are fleeing from hostilities, or sitting their planning hostilities, they would be protected.
And because of that, it is crap.

Ignoring parts of it to make it not a morally bankrupt pile of garbage, would be to distinguish between the conditions required to be a POW and the conditions required to be a combatant, and the simplest way is to effectively copy the section on POW, and remove any requirement to abide by international law.
That would make Hamas recognised as a military body with all its members being deemed combatants.

As far as I’m concerned your personal opinion on whether they are good or bad is completely irrelevant.

i.e. you have no interest in any discussion on this clearly opinion based topic.
You have your opinion and don't care about the opinion of others.

The only way to make it not opinion based is if you take the morally bankrupt position of appealing to the letter of the law of the Geneva convention; which means all the members of Hamas and Hezbollah, except those currently taking a part in direct hostilities, would be deemed protected civilians; so all these air strikes on Hezbollah leadership would be illegal because they are targeting "protected civilians". The pagers would have to be illegal, not for the reasons you have provided, but because the members of Hezbollah that had them were not currently taking a direct part in hostilities, so even if it only took out Hezbollah fighters, it would still be illegal.
And the capture and death of Osama Bin Laden would have to be illegal, as he would be deemed a protected civilian.

Is that the morally bankrupt path you wish to take? That terrorists, not currently engaged in committing an act of terror, should be deemed protected civilians?

Sure you did.  Right here:

Working in a Hezbollah run hospital is not quite the same as working for Hezbollah.
Organisations can run things without people there working for them.
But otherwise, my point stands. If they are members of a terrorist organisation, or they are knowingly working for terrorists, then as far as I'm concerned, they are terrorists, and are valid targets.

Now, getting back to you, who the fuck made you a moderator here anyway!? You're not even a Flat Earther ffs! I was always suspicious about you and now you're showing you're true colours! I nominate Wise to take your place. At least his a Flat Earther!

How dare you question the Viceroy. 

Back in your place peasant!

In other news,  I'm a dinner jacket, has revealed that the Iranian spy agency set up to counter Mossad, was in fact headed by a Mossad agent.

Can't make this shit up.

"You would think it is a joke, but it isn’t

Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an interview with
@cnnturk
 said that Iran’s secret services had created a special unit to combat Mossad operating in Iran. However, turns out the head of this unit was himself a Mossad agent, along with 20 other agents, who were responsible for multiple intelligence operations in Iran including stealing nuclear docs and assassinating several Iranian nuclear scientists before allegedly fleeing to Israel"

Well that just makes good sense.  Clearly he was extremely qualified.

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2024, 05:46:23 AM

Are you arguing with me about what the Geneva conventions say, or disagreeing with them?

Both.
According to a strict interpretation, these "civilian" terrorists, are only deemed to be combatants when they are "taking a direct part in hostilities".
So once they are fleeing from hostilities, or sitting their planning hostilities, they would be protected.
And because of that, it is crap.

Nope.  Hamas fighters are organized paramilitary units, operating under a chain of command, notably the Al-Qassam Brigades.  They are basically the armed forces of Hamas and therefore not civilians. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on September 30, 2024, 05:46:23 AM

Sure you did.  Right here:

Working in a Hezbollah run hospital is not quite the same as working for Hezbollah.
Organisations can run things without people there working for them.
But otherwise, my point stands. If they are members of a terrorist organisation, or they are knowingly working for terrorists, then as far as I'm concerned, they are terrorists, and are valid targets.

And this is completely wrong.  People are either part of the military (or paramilitary) side, or they are civilians.  Civilians are supposed to be protected unless they they start fighting.

Nope.  Hamas fighters are organized paramilitary units, operating under a chain of command, notably the Al-Qassam Brigades.  They are basically the armed forces of Hamas and therefore not civilians.

Depends on exactly how you want to interpret article 43, as they do not follow international law, by engaging in acts of terror, they are not given the protections for POWs, and therefore do not count as "combatants" and therefore do count as civilians.

Again, article 50 of protocol I:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol.

Article 43 of Protocol I

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

Notice a key part here:
Such armed forces shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.

So if they are not doing it, do they count as armed forces?

To help with this, we can turn to Article 4 of the third geneva convention:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

• Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
• Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
  
  • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  • that of carrying arms openly;
  • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
• Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
• Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
• Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
• Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Being primarily a resistance movement, rather than a formal armed force of a formal government, they should fall under category 2.
But notice that that requires them to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, which they do not do.

But regardless of if Hamas classifies or not, the fact that some groups need to conduct "their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" to be counted as combatants and otherwise they count as civilians that are to be protected shows a massive fault with the Geneva Conventions.
Likewise, having them hide their arms or not have a fixed, distinctive sign recognisable at a distance also can make them civilians, means another big fault.

The distinction of combatant vs civilian should NEVER require the combatant to follow any particular law or requirement.

Again, from my understanding, Osama Bin Laden would classify as a non-combatant, i.e. a civilian, and thus not a valid target, according to the Geneva Conventions.
So again, is that the morally bankrupt position you want to take?

And note: This is not just my view.
e.g. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1455&context=jil
That is from the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, declaring terrorists to be unlawful belligerents, not unlawful combatants. That would classify them as civilians, afforded the protections of civilians. Meaning they would not be valid military targets as soon as they are not directly involved in hostilities and instead would need to be arrested and stand trial.

Likewise, you have this:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/israel-law-review/article/abs/between-the-geneva-conventions-where-does-the-unlawful-combatant-belong/AE396748DCCDB0995C652AAEBCF606A5
Which says among other things:

The terrorist takes part in unlawful belligerency, and is therefore denied a POW status. Terrorism itself has no status under international law, but the individual terrorist has, since he is first and foremost a civilian.

And this is completely wrong.  People are either part of the military (or paramilitary) side, or they are civilians.  Civilians are supposed to be protected unless they they start fighting.

No it isn't.
People are either part of the terrorist organisation and thus are terrorists and valid targets as far as I'm concerned, and NOT civilians; or they are not.

And note that article 43 indicates all members, except a few protected ones, are deemed combatants.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 01, 2024, 01:15:57 AM

Nope.  Hamas fighters are organized paramilitary units, operating under a chain of command, notably the Al-Qassam Brigades.  They are basically the armed forces of Hamas and therefore not civilians.

Depends on exactly how you want to interpret article 43, as they do not follow international law, by engaging in acts of terror, they are not given the protections for POWs, and therefore do not count as "combatants" and therefore do count as civilians.

Combatants who break the rules are still combatants, they just lose the right to be treated as POWs.

You are trying to find excuses to treat civilians as combatants.  Your twisted logic is that if the military break the rules they become civilians, so therefore civilians become legitimate targets.  Absolute horseshit and deeply immoral.

No it isn't.
People are either part of the terrorist organisation and thus are terrorists and valid targets as far as I'm concerned, and NOT civilians; or they are not.

And note that article 43 indicates all members, except a few protected ones, are deemed combatants.

Does it fuck.  Articles 50 and 43 indicates that non-military personnel are civilians.  “Terrorist organizations” are not even mentioned at all.

“As far as you are concerned” means nothing.  Civilians or combatants.  Them’s the rules.

If you want to argue that Israel should ignore the Geneva conventions because you hate Palestinians and think they deserve to die, go ahead.

My position is that Israel either complies with international law, or Netanyahu and relevant members of his government of far right fanatics and military leadership should be hauled in front of The ICC at the Hague.

Oh they have intelligence pointing them to targets, artificial intelligence.  https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-ai-system-wheres-daddy-strikes-hamas-family-homes-2024
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

Quote

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

A very exciting AI innovation from the most moral army in the world!

If this is true, it’s very fucked up. 

Sadly it’s very believable.  The number of civilian causalities and level of destruction indicates at least an extremely lax threshold for collateral damage.

I think what the people that act all hard about the death of civilians forget, especially banding about “but Terrorists!” as explanation for their lack of empathy, is that one mans freedom fighter is another’s terrorist, that two of the current Israeli government, (Smotrich, & Ben-Givr) were labelled as terrorists or at least members of an organisation branded so by Shin Bet, that a host of former Israeli leaders were former members of the Stern-gang or other proscribed groups, that targeted civilians and soft targets, and that ultimately this all leads to an endless cycle of violence.

Only when the two sides talk will peace come, but Netanyahu has nailed his mast to the ultra-right who when Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo accord and shook hands with Arafat, called him a traitor and had him assassinated.

As he said.

Military cemeteries in every corner of the world are silent testimony to the failure of national leaders to sanctify human life.
— Yitzhak Rabin,


But keyboard warriors have to do what they do.

Quote from: Crouton on September 30, 2024, 08:09:50 AM

Oh they have intelligence pointing them to targets, artificial intelligence.  https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-ai-system-wheres-daddy-strikes-hamas-family-homes-2024
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

Quote

Moreover, the Israeli army systematically attacked the targeted individuals while they were in their homes — usually at night while their whole families were present — rather than during the course of military activity. According to the sources, this was because, from what they regarded as an intelligence standpoint, it was easier to locate the individuals in their private houses. Additional automated systems, including one called “Where’s Daddy?” also revealed here for the first time, were used specifically to track the targeted individuals and carry out bombings when they had entered their family’s residences.

A very exciting AI innovation from the most moral army in the world!

If this is true, it’s very fucked up. 

Sadly it’s very believable.  The number of civilian causalities and level of destruction indicates at least an extremely lax threshold for collateral damage.

If this is true, yes. I included the link to business Insider because I think they've got a good reputation. But I'm skeptical of a lot of what I hear about this war.

Russia vs Ukraine, extremely transparent. Everyone is live streaming everything. Both sides can't keep a secret to save their lives.

Israel vs all of their neighbors, I have no clear idea. There are no reporters allowed, very little footage and both sides aren't saying anything that would contradict their leaders. Our government and a lot of our press are lying to us about it. I think they've been unnecessarily brutal to Gaza but for all I know that could have been the opening months and now they're being more reasonable. Or they could be killing civilians at a faster rate. I really don't know and if someone told me I would be skeptical that they really knew.

2019

egypt 100M
iran 83M
iraq 40M
saud 34M
syria 18M
isaerl 8.5M
lebanon 6M



did trump unit the jews with the sauds?

who does egypt aolign with?
does egypt have any power?




https://preview.redd.it/11y4t5jk4ji21.png?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=b700a7fe5e3e7ff367bc1680f233eceaecfa94d0

Egypt are allies, as are Jorden, Saudi Arabia and a few others (sort of).  They’d all feel better about it with the Palestinian issue properly resolved though.

The idea some peddle that Israel is totally surrounded by countries that want to wipe them out is bollocks.  It might have been true in the late 40s, or even 60s, but that was a long time ago.

Crouton: 

I agree.  Business Insider is pretty good for non partisan news.  I’ve used up my free articles though, so only read the other lot.  They don’t sound particularly impartial, being a left wing Israeli outfit with a focus on Palestinian rights, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

Combatants who break the rules are still combatants, they just lose the right to be treated as POWs.

And civilians who take a direct part in hostilities are still civilians, not combatants.
That means they do not get to be treated as POWs and as soon as they stop being actively involved, they regain all the protections of being a civilian and are therefore not legitimate targets according to the morally broken Geneva Conventions.

Again, the mere fact that in order to be classified as a combatant instead of a civilian as per Protocol I requires some groups to obey various rules shows it is fundamentally broken.
The regulations identifying individuals as combatants to be deemed valid military targets, instead of protected civilians should place no requirements on these combatants following various rules.

You are trying to find excuses to treat civilians as combatants.

Quite the opposite.
I'm pointing out the FACT that these conventions typically treat terrorists as civilians, not combatants.
These rules are made for wars between states with armed forces following the "laws of war".
It is not made for terrorists.

And again, this is not just my opinion. I provided 2 other sources which indicate terrorists should be classified as civilians.

Your twisted logic is that if the military break the rules they become civilians, so therefore civilians become legitimate targets.

No, that is not my logic at all.
My logic is that all members of a terrorist group are a valid military target.
And any system of classification that tries to define individuals as valid or invalid targets, which relies upon the targets following laws for them to be deemed targets is fundamentally broken.

Apparently, you have no rational objection to this.

Does it fuck.  Articles 50 and 43 indicates that non-military personnel are civilians.  “Terrorist organizations” are not even mentioned at all.

No, instead it says:

1. The armed forces of a Party to a conflict consist of all organized armed forces, groups and units which are under a command responsible to that Party for the conduct or its subordinates, even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party. Such armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which, inter alia, shall enforce compliance with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.

If Hamas or Hezbollah are declared to be "armed forces", then members of that are combatants.
It does not limit it to only those with guns.

Civilians or combatants.  Them’s the rules.

And those "rules" indicate terrorists are civilians, not combatants.

And appealing to "Them's the rules" to avoid moral accountability is saying things like Turing should have been chemically castrated, because "Them's the rules". In places where homosexuality is punishable by death, they should be put to death because "Them's the rules".
And plenty of other morally bankrupt positions. Is that really the path you want to go down?

If you want to argue that Israel should ignore the Geneva conventions because you hate Palestinians and think they deserve to die, go ahead.

I have never suggested anything like that.
Instead, I have pointed out the Geneva conventions are fundamentally broken, and anyone suggesting people bind themselves to the literal text of such a broken convention is morally bankrupt.

And apparently the argument is so good you can do nothing except ignore it at all costs.
You are completely incapable of actually engaging with that argument and instead need to repeatedly strawman me.

My position is that Israel either complies with international law, or Netanyahu and relevant members of his government of far right fanatics and military leadership should be hauled in front of The ICC at the Hague.

So you think they should be hauled in front of a an organisation which stems from something established to promote victor justice, where there was a discussion of if there should be a trial at all or just a summary execution; which only bothered prosecuting the "losers" of the war, and which has had the still living victims of these BS trials pardoned. Not really a great place to start.

Rumors floating around that Israel is targetting Iranian Nuclear facilities as a response to the missile attack.

Since Israel has systematically reduced the effectiveness of the Iranian proxies, Iran now steps into the firing line.   

I hope that this leads to regime change in Iran.   

I think I read somewhere that any nuclear facilities they have are deep underground.  Could be wrong on that.  But it would make trying to blow it up very difficult.

I've heard speculation that they might target their oil producing infrastructure which would probably do more damage to Iran.

it's spectacular to see the logic behind all this


BLM bad.
Jan06 patriots.

Ukraine bad for being so sexy to russia.
Israel defending themselves.

Russia hitting civilians and hospitals and silos must be stopped!
Israel hitting civilians and hospitals and silos smooort!

I think I read somewhere that any nuclear facilities they have are deep underground.  Could be wrong on that.  But it would make trying to blow it up very difficult.

I've heard speculation that they might target their oil producing infrastructure which would probably do more damage to Iran.

Israel is trying to precipitate regime change,  and thus is going to be carefull not to alienate the civilian population, so power stations and other civilian infrastructure is probably off the table.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 01, 2024, 04:08:53 AM

You are trying to find excuses to treat civilians as combatants.

Quite the opposite.
I'm pointing out the FACT that these conventions typically treat terrorists as civilians, not combatants.
These rules are made for wars between states with armed forces following the "laws of war".
It is not made for terrorists.

And again, this is not just my opinion. I provided 2 other sources which indicate terrorists should be classified as civilians.

Nope.  Not a fact.  The conventions simply fail to define terrorism or how terrorists should be treated.  It’s quite a grey area, leading to much debate about how they should be treated and ongoing efforts to properly formalise that within international law.

Part of the problem is that acts of terror can be committed by civilians, by organised paramilitaries or by state armed forces.  They can be international or domestic.  They can happen in  peacetime or during war.  In cases of domestic terrorism during peacetime, it certainly makes much more sense to treat them as civilian criminals.  If a terrorist was hiding out in your home town, would you prefer the police to kick their door in and arrest them or the Air Force drop a bomb on a block of flats housing dozens of innocents?

Israel is quite clearly not using peacetime rules.  They have chosen war, and as such need to abide by the rules of war.  The fundamental principles of distinction between civilians and combatants, proportionality and necessity regarding collateral damage, etc.

As for your sources, I’ll highlight a pretty important part.

The terrorist takes part in unlawful belligerency, and is therefore denied a POW status. Terrorism itself has no status under international law, but the individual terrorist has, since he is first and foremost a civilian.

A terrorist is someone who takes part in terrorism, planning or implementation.  Not someone who belongs to whatever political movement or party.

If Hamas or Hezbollah are declared to be "armed forces", then members of that are combatants.
It does not limit it to only those with guns.

There’s no remotely reasonable interpretation of the rules that would class Hamas departments of health, education or other civilian branches as “armed forces”. The “armed forces” of Hamas would comprise the paramilitary units such as the Al-Qassam Brigades. 

It’s entirely your argument to expand the list of “legitimate targets” to include civilians who have absolutely nothing to do with either terrorist attacks on Israel or fighting the IDF in the current war.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 01, 2024, 04:08:53 AM

Civilians or combatants.  Them’s the rules.

And those "rules" indicate terrorists are civilians, not combatants.

And appealing to "Them's the rules" to avoid moral accountability is saying things like Turing should have been chemically castrated, because "Them's the rules". In places where homosexuality is punishable by death, they should be put to death because "Them's the rules".
And plenty of other morally bankrupt positions. Is that really the path you want to go down?

Er, no.  I have not said that Turing should have been chemically castrated. Try to focus.

If you think the rules are shit and should just be ignored, then stop appealing to them to support your own argument. 

However, Israel IS party to the Geneva conventions, including additional protocol 1 which you keep quoting, along with various other international laws.  Which means they are obliged to follow them as best they can.

Israel is trying to precipitate regime change,  and thus is going to be carefull not to alienate the civilian population, so power stations and other civilian infrastructure is probably off the table.

What happened to getting the hostages back? 

There’s some serious mission creep going on here.

PS Israel being careful not to alienate the civilian population?  That’s not really their MO.

Nope.  Not a fact.  The conventions simply fail to define terrorism or how terrorists should be treated.  It’s quite a grey area, leading to much debate about how they should be treated and ongoing efforts to properly formalise that within international law.

The point is it doesn't need to define it, as it is already quite binary, as pointed out by the sources I cited.
That means there can be no grey. And that is part of the point, there is no grey.
Either they meet the requirements to be defined as combatants, or they are civilians. And if in doubt, they are civilians.
So if it is a grey area, they are civilians according to the Geneva Conventions.

Part of the problem is that acts of terror can be committed by civilians, by organised paramilitaries or by state armed forces.  They can be international or domestic.  They can happen in  peacetime or during war.  In cases of domestic terrorism during peacetime, it certainly makes much more sense to treat them as civilian criminals.  If a terrorist was hiding out in your home town, would you prefer the police to kick their door in and arrest them or the Air Force drop a bomb on a block of flats housing dozens of innocents?
Israel is quite clearly not using peacetime rules.  They have chosen war, and as such need to abide by the rules of war.

And the point is that under the Geneva conventions, they still need to abide by the standard rules of law for civilians.
That you can't just ignore them.
That you can't just decide to kill a civilian. Instead you need to arrest them, have them stand trial and so on. And that includes if a civilian from another country/territory has engaged in acts of terror against you.

A terrorist is someone who takes part in

Yes, takes part in, which can be very broad.
For example, is someone who is funding them taking part?
Is someone who is training them taking part (including general training, fully knowing they are terrorists, not necessarily for a specific operation)?

But again, the point here is that they would be civilians. Not combatants.
At least according to these crappy rules.

There’s no remotely reasonable interpretation of the rules that would class Hamas departments of health, education or other civilian branches as “armed forces”. The “armed forces” of Hamas would comprise the paramilitary units such as the Al-Qassam Brigades.

Sure there is, by declaring Hamas to be the armed force.

It’s entirely your argument to expand the list of “legitimate targets” to include civilians who have absolutely nothing to do with either terrorist attacks on Israel or fighting the IDF in the current war.

If they are members of Hamas, they certainly have something to do with it.
Likewise for the members of Hezbolah.

If they denounce these organisations and refuse to support them in any way, then they have nothing to do with it.

Er, no.  I have not said that Turing should have been chemically castrated. Try to focus.

And I never said you did.
Why don't you follow your own advice, and try to focus and actually understand the argument showing how morally bankrupt your position is.

Appealing to "Them's the rules", is no better than saying Turing deserved to be castrated because "Them's the rules".
It is a morally bankrupt position where you are merely appealing to the rules themselves rather than moral principles or trying to justify those rules.
It isn't what decent people do.

If you think the rules are shit and should just be ignored, then stop appealing to them to support your own argument.

I am using them to show why they are crap.
To show why no one should bother appealing to them.
Did you not notice that?

However, Israel IS party to the Geneva conventions, including additional protocol 1 which you keep quoting, along with various other international laws.  Which means they are obliged to follow them as best they can.

Unless they decide to discard them.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 02, 2024, 12:30:15 AM

There’s no remotely reasonable interpretation of the rules that would class Hamas departments of health, education or other civilian branches as “armed forces”. The “armed forces” of Hamas would comprise the paramilitary units such as the Al-Qassam Brigades.

Sure there is, by declaring Hamas to be the armed force.

Which would be nonsense.  Anyone can just declare their enemies to be whatever they want to get around international law?  It can’t work that way.

Quote from: Unconvinced on October 02, 2024, 12:30:15 AM

It’s entirely your argument to expand the list of “legitimate targets” to include civilians who have absolutely nothing to do with either terrorist attacks on Israel or fighting the IDF in the current war.

If they are members of Hamas, they certainly have something to do with it.
Likewise for the members of Hezbolah.

If they denounce these organisations and refuse to support them in any way, then they have nothing to do with it.

And how would that work?  Everyone in Gaza and Lebanon writes a letter denouncing them and mails it to Israel?  Or can they do it online?

I doubt the IDF would care what they say.

It is a morally bankrupt position where you are merely appealing to the rules themselves rather than moral principles or trying to justify those rules.
It isn't what decent people do.

I don’t take lessons on morality from people who advocate the deliberate targeting of civilians, thanks.

Does anyone else find it curious that JackBlack's avatar is the same Unconvinced's avatar but upside down. 


Seriously guys, do better!

I didn’t bother with a picture (or a very interesting name).

Quote from: Life Is Easy on September 30, 2024, 07:44:43 AM

Now, getting back to you, who the fuck made you a moderator here anyway!? You're not even a Flat Earther ffs! I was always suspicious about you and now you're showing you're true colours! I nominate Wise to take your place. At least his a Flat Earther!

How dare you question the Viceroy. 

Back in your place peasant!

I have never been a peasant! When most people around the world were still playing Street Fighter 2 on the Snes/Genesis/Megadrive I was playing it on the 3DO!


By the way, Erdogan is scared shitless right now and telling his supporters that Israel will eventually hit parts of Turkey too! I know he says dumb things regularly and always barks but never bites, but... I dunno Israel is not playing!

Why would Israel attack Turkey?

Which would be nonsense.  Anyone can just declare their enemies to be whatever they want to get around international law?  It can’t work that way.

They can already pretty much just reject international law, and not have it apply to them. It only applies if either the country is willing to allow it to apply, or if another country can force them to.
That was why the allies who committed "war crimes" didn't get charged, but the Germans did.

But no, it is not nonsense. Hamas is currently engaged in military activities against Israel.
Hamas is armed, with plenty of weapons.
They have a doctrine of wiping out Israel - Note this is not just the military wing.
Sure sounds like they could be classified as an armed force.
The same applies to Hezbollah.

Remember the source I provided?
Explaining how lots of those "civilians" that were involved in the pager attack were actually Hezbollah reservists that could be called up when needed to fight?
They would certainly count as part of the "armed forces" if you wanted it to fall under that category rather than a civilian terrorist group.

And how would that work?

To start with, not joining the terrorist groups and not working for them.

I don’t take lessons on morality from people who advocate the deliberate targeting of civilians, thanks.

And I have never said to do that. I have said to target terrorists, whom I would not deem civilians, regardless of what the morally bankrupt Geneva Conventions say.

But it appears you don't take lessons on morality at all. Instead you continue to operate without any morality and just appeal to "Them's the rules".

Why would Israel attack Turkey?

It is unlikely that they would. But Turkey supports Hamas.
They appear to support lots of Islamic terrorist groups.

Why would Israel attack Turkey?

Did turkey back syria?
Are the jesw mad at suria?

Quote from: Crouton on October 02, 2024, 07:36:22 AM

Why would Israel attack Turkey?

Did turkey back syria?
Are the jesw mad at suria?

It's very simple.  Just look at this chart and you'll understand.

Why would Israel attack Turkey?

If Israel attacked Turkey ( a member of NATO ) then Turkey could invoke article 5 and the USA, and the rest of NATO would be at war with Israel.

So no way,  Israel will not attack Turkey. 

And I have never said to do that. I have said to target terrorists, whom I would not deem civilians, regardless of what the morally bankrupt Geneva Conventions say.

But it appears you don't take lessons on morality at all. Instead you continue to operate without any morality and just appeal to "Them's the rules".

Your personal definition of terrorist  just happens to include civilians who have nothing to do with terrorist attacks.  Including public services in Gaza such as healthcare and education.

And no.  I happen to agree with the Geneva conventions.  The agreements near universally adopted after the Second World War to try to prevent the horrors happening again (special mention to the holocaust), while still giving countries the right to defend themselves.  I support the UN, to which Israel owes its existence, and ironically  continually complains about.  And I support the ICJ and ICC’s jurisdiction for such things.

None of the above are perfect, but they all exist to try to prevent the world descending into barbarism.  Sorry if you find that morally bankrupt.

But this started with talking about what is legal under international law  The term “legitimate target” only makes sense with respect to a system of rules.  Hence me trying to explain the rules.  You have since completely changed your argument to basically “fuck the rules”. 

Not sure if there’s much else to discuss.  We’re just saying the same thing over and over.