Forum menu
Not sure how I can help you thols. You've cut and pasted that quote twice now, but you still don't seeem to have read it. Writing "if X happens then Y might happen" is not in any way a suggestion that X ought to happen. I was saying that the Palestinians have (in effect) attacked civilians because they had no choice of target. Supplying them with HIMARS would give them a choice of target, but that's absolutely not the same as saying that this should happen (the US has much more direct and effective ways to rein in the Israelis, if it wished to do so).
I hope you've managed to understand now. You've wasted dozens of electrons on this ridiculous straw man, and I'm not going to conspire in such a waste of resources by commenting on it further.
I was saying that the Palestinians have (in effect) attacked civilians because they had no choice of target.
That's a war crime.
May well be. So?
War crimes are considered to be bad. Good guys don't commit war crimes. If Palestinians are deliberately committing war crimes, it makes it difficult for Western countries to support them. If you believe that committing war crimes is fine, you are not on the side of the good guys.
So, do you really think that committing war crimes is ok?
If Palestinians are deliberately committing war crimes, it makes it difficult for Western countries to support them
But it's OK to support the Ukrainians and Israelis, despite both of them committing war crimes. The Israelis bomb a school and we shrug our shoulders, right?
So, do you really think that committing war crimes is ok?
There you go again, claiming I said things I didn't. This is getting tiresome.
By? Oh yes, the allies of Ukraine.
FWIW, Amnesty Int has been criticised internally too, most notably by Amnesty itself in Ukraine who allegedly, were sidelined in writing the report and the head of strongly criticised said report.
How much you 'think' into that is your call.
Think about how this sounds.
DrJ
Free Member
That’s a war crimeMay well be. So?
Think about how this sounds.
To whom? To a mother of a child who was blown to bits by the Israelis only to hear that this bombing was not, legally speaking, ipso facto, by a party of the second part, sub judice, a war crime, your honour ? Whether something is a "war crime" or not is of little interest to to the victims.
DrJ
Free Member
Think about how this sounds.To whom?
To someone who thinks that war crimes are bad.
FWIW, Amnesty Int has been criticised internally too
I'm sure, but my point was that if we go looking for something to call a "war crime" we will usually find it, so labelling one side as "war criminals" is not a very good way to sort the bad from the good.
To someone who thinks that war crimes are bad.
Dear god 🙁
OK, in the absence of forum functionality, I will engage my wet-wear-based killfile. I will not be responding to you further, thols.
if we go looking for something to call a “war crime” we will usually find it, so labelling one side as “war criminals” is not a very good way to sort the bad from the good.
This is intended as good advice, I know you may not take it that way. I share your concern for Palestinians, I think everyone who has contributed to this thread does. There have been some boilovers and the mods stepped in from time to time to clean things up, but those were just people who cared about the world and got emotional. That is easy to understand, I bear no hard feelings about that.
However, dismissing war crimes with, "So" is quite a different thing. You really should think about what you are saying, it does not reflect well on you.
I've asked the moderators to close this thread. I believe that responding to war crimes with "So?" is not a healthy thing. I don't know whether the mods will close it or not, but I'm not going to waste time with people who think war crimes don't matter.
Bye.
If Palestinians use civilians as human shields, that is a war crime.
And what about when Israelis use Palestinians as human shields, is that a war crime too?
The IDF has been using Palestinian civilians, often young children, as human shields for years.
In fact they have freely admitted doing so claiming that it is justified as the Palestinian resistance will not attack if civilians are placed close to IDF forces, and is therefore effective.
Obviously Israelis themselves don't worry about attacking and killing civilians so it would be pointless the Palestinians doing the same.
Among the many problems for the Palestinian resistance is that Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on earth.
That’s a war crime
May well be. So?
That rather exposes the hypocrisy in your argument. You might not like what tools and a couple of others have said, but they understand and have denounced the war crimes on all sides. And have a proper understanding of what using human shields means and why it's a war crime.
And have a proper understanding of what using human shields means and why it’s a war crime.
The IDF doesn't seem to care that human shields are a war crime:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-use-human-shields-rising
And the IDF openly admits in court to having used Palestinians as human shields on 1,200 occasions in defiance of international law :
The claim that the Palestinian resistance themselves also use Palestinians civilians as human shields is an Israeli myth.
The very fact that the IDF openly admits to using Palestinian civilians as human shields because according to them it stops Palestinian resistant fighters from attacking, proves that the Palestinian resistant will not unnecessarily risk the lives of Palestinian civilians.
Everyone knows that the Israelis don't care if they kill innocent civilians, they do it all the time. In contrast the IDF claims that Palestinian fighters will not risk killing innocent Palestinian civilians, they even made that point in the supreme court.
The Palestinian resistance has to launch attacks from civilian areas because that is all that they have. They do not have air bases hundreds of miles away.
That rather exposes the hypocrisy
Indeed.
That rather exposes the hypocrisy in your argument.
No hypocrisy at all (thanks). I don’t need something to be labelled a “war crime” by some lawyer to know if it’s right or wrong. Maybe your morality is poorly developed and you rely on those sort of things.
And just to emphasise how shamelessly absurd IDF claims can be:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/israel
It said the military's claim to have amended the procedure to allow civilians to "volunteer" to work with the army was still unacceptable because it was unlikely anyone would freely do so.
Yes that's right, the IDF have claimed that Palestinians have "volunteered" to be human shields for them.
Edit : btw that Guardian link is from 2005, my previous link concerning the IDF using human shields is from a couple of months ago, proving that the IDF ignores all laws concerning war crimes, international and national.