15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:03 am
Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

It is clear from the above that the Hez rockets, packed with ball bearings to kill as many humans as possible, violate the Conventions. Moreover, the rockets are fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:07 am
Advocate wrote:
Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

It is clear from the above that the Hez rockets, packed with ball bearings to kill as many humans as possible, violate the Conventions. Moreover, the rockets are fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel.


I can't argue with that, however, that don't negate Israel's violating of the GC or other international laws concerning how to conduct wars.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:15 am
We are seeing this sort of thing in the white phosphorus thread, in which people rant about the actions of the Palestinians, without being willing to recognize that Israel has consistently violated the terms of the General Assembly Resolution which created the state of Israel, and has consistently violated the Geneva Conventions. One member just rants continually about an Israeli schoolbus being blown up. I pointed out that an apartment building had been hit by an Isreali rocket. That member continued to ask how i could compare a school bus being blown up to an attack on a munitions factory. It was not until i posted a press release from the United States Embassy in Israel which stated that the Shrub condemned the attack that the member in question finally acknowledged that the attack was an atrocity. I first mentioned the attack on the apartment building at the top of page four of that thread. It was not until the middle of page fifteen that this member finally stopped comparing a school bus bombing to bombing a "munitions factory" and acknowledged that it is atrocious to launch missles into an apartment building.

People who have bought into the pro-Israel propaganda, which sees all Msulims as always terrorists and always guilty, and all Israelis as always innocent victims are, apparently, completely incapable of seeing both sides of the story, and the inherent evil of the policies on both sides.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:19 am
revel wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

It is clear from the above that the Hez rockets, packed with ball bearings to kill as many humans as possible, violate the Conventions. Moreover, the rockets are fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel.


I can't argue with that, however, that don't negate Israel's violating of the GC or other international laws concerning how to conduct wars.


But you have argued against that when you said that Hezbollah had no choice but to fight the way they were fighting.

Establishing rules for human rights and decency is appropriate. Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly. The only practival way to conduct war is to break things and kill people until somebody raises the white flag in unconditional surrender. When that happens peace is generally the result at least for a generation or two at least when the victor has respect for human rights and decency. When it is not allowed to happen, the result is invariably renewed hostilities or somebody has to stay there forever to babysit the two sides.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:26 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly.


Oh yeah. By all means, let's do away with those silly Geneva Conventions. Why would you want indiscriminate targeting of a civilian population to be illegal, anyways? As long as it helps to win the war... Biological weapons? Hey, why should anyone want them to be outlawed? And why shouldn't you be allowed to torture your enemy? The least you can get out of it is that it's bad for their moral. Death squadrons, genocide, internation camps - hey, all just means of fighting a war, right?

No, establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly. Really.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:26 am
That's a pretty naive set of statements. Israel defeated their Arab neighbors in 1948--they were at war again in 1956 (until Eisenhower warned them to back down). Having defeated their neighbors in 1956, Israel was back at war in 1967. Having defeated them in 1967, Isreal was at war again in 1973. Having defeated her neighbors in 1973, Israel was back at war with an unprovoked invasion of the Lebanon in 1982 (same scenario, roughly--blaming the Lebanon for PLO attacks, they invaded and bombed, including bombing Beirut and the international airport.)

Basically, Fox just attempts to claim that a lame description of the disastrous policies of Israel are the norm in history, which isn't even remotely true. It is ridiculous to assert that all wars end in unconditional surrender of one side, after which there is peace for a generation or two. Israel has been at war with her neighbors constantly, and has never forced an unconditional surrender of her enemies, and has never enjoyed more than about ten years of "peace."

But, of course, it's never the fault of the poor, innocent, peace-loving Israeli government, is it? It's always the evil islamo-fascist terrorists, of whose number every Muslim is always potentially to be included.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:34 am
Foxy wrote:
Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly.


Hope Foxy doesn't try to make people believe she's a Christian. This is the type of stuff atheist believe in, if we are to believe what Christians say.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:35 am
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly.


Oh yeah. By all means, let's do away with those silly Geneva Conventions. Why would you want indiscriminate targeting of a civilian population to be illegal, anyways? As long as it helps to win the war... Biological weapons? Hey, why should anyone want them to be outlawed? And why shouldn't you be allowed to torture your enemy? The least you can get out of it is that it's bad for their moral. Death squadrons, genocide, internation camps - hey, all just means of fighting a war, right?

No, establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly. Really.


You sort of ignored the qualifying point to my quote didn't you? Was this intentional? People who respect decency and human rights don't target civilians just to kill civilians and they don't torture or employ death squads or methodically round up whole populations and exterminate them.

Those who do are not going to follow any rules no matter what rules are put into force.

In the current conflict Israel has been abiding by the normal rules a decent people would utilize. Hezbollah has not. And still, so many of you wish to make Israel the villain and Hezbollah the victim in this war.

I'm not buying that and no amount of straw men you build will change my mind on that. And you built a lot of straw men into one short quote there.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:36 am
Bush, Cheney in deep funk after Israel war performance

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been extremely disappointed by Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah.

Government sources said the Israeli failure has led to deep pessimism within the National Security Council and Pentagon regarding U.S. goals in the Middle East, particularly the effort to

stop Iran's advance in Iraq and toward nuclear weapons. The sources said the Israeli experience has been used by the Pentagon to explain the U.S. difficulty in halting the deterioration of order in Iraq.

"There's a lot of doom and gloom in the White House over the U.S. future in the Middle East," a source said. "Everybody feels there's been a significant strategic shift in favor of the bad guys."

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Funk.htm
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:42 am
Setanta wrote:
We are seeing this sort of thing in the white phosphorus thread, in which people rant about the actions of the Palestinians, without being willing to recognize that Israel has consistently violated the terms of the General Assembly Resolution which created the state of Israel, and has consistently violated the Geneva Conventions. One member just rants continually about an Israeli schoolbus being blown up. I pointed out that an apartment building had been hit by an Isreali rocket. That member continued to ask how i could compare a school bus being blown up to an attack on a munitions factory. It was not until i posted a press release from the United States Embassy in Israel which stated that the Shrub condemned the attack that the member in question finally acknowledged that the attack was an atrocity. I first mentioned the attack on the apartment building at the top of page four of that thread. It was not until the middle of page fifteen that this member finally stopped comparing a school bus bombing to bombing a "munitions factory" and acknowledged that it is atrocious to launch missles into an apartment building.

People who have bought into the pro-Israel propaganda, which sees all Msulims as always terrorists and always guilty, and all Israelis as always innocent victims are, apparently, completely incapable of seeing both sides of the story, and the inherent evil of the policies on both sides.


How is this any different from the members who always rant about the Israelis without being willing to recognize that some muslims are indeed terrorists and that there are many organizations formed around the middle east whose primary goal is the eradication of Israel?

I don't recall seeing a single post stating that ALL muslims are terrorists. I believe that to be hyperbole on your part. There is NO doubt that some muslims are terrorists and the perpetrate their acts with zero regard for civilian casualties. You will have to excuse those of us that are upset about that fact and that we condemn it repeatedly on these threads.

Without the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and bombardment of northern Israel, Israel would not have invaded Lebanon. Without the repeated car bombings and suicide bombings, Israel would not be occupying the west bank and parts of Gaza. Without the constant attacks from muslim terrorists, the middle east would not be in a constant war.

Israel uses unorthadox tactics to be sure, but they do so to protect their country. Palestinians will never be given their land back in Israel and the sooner they accept that fact, the sooner a peace process will be formed. Israel has the right to exist and will fight to protect that existance to the very last Israeli.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:43 am
Foxfyre wrote:
revel wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Under Article 85 of the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime to launch "an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population in the knowledge that such an attack will cause an excessive loss of life or injury to civilians." Under the Hague Conventions, Article 22 and 23, "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and "It is especially forbidden to kill treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army."

It is clear from the above that the Hez rockets, packed with ball bearings to kill as many humans as possible, violate the Conventions. Moreover, the rockets are fired indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel.


I can't argue with that, however, that don't negate Israel's violating of the GC or other international laws concerning how to conduct wars.


But you have argued against that when you said that Hezbollah had no choice but to fight the way they were fighting.

Establishing rules for human rights and decency is appropriate. Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly. The only practival way to conduct war is to break things and kill people until somebody raises the white flag in unconditional surrender. When that happens peace is generally the result at least for a generation or two at least when the victor has respect for human rights and decency. When it is not allowed to happen, the result is invariably renewed hostilities or somebody has to stay there forever to babysit the two sides.


Actually I said that Palestine has no choice but to fight with what it has since they have been under occupation under horrible conditions for 60 years. I also said that Palestine bombing civilians and Hezbollah bombing civilians and Israel bombing civilians is all horrible and all the same. I don't know enough about Hezbolllah to say one way or another but if they are firing rockets into civilians areas rather than military targets then that is violating the GC. So is Palestine for that matter, but to me they are desperate people and I can at least understand why they feel compelled to at least do something when they keep getting slaughtered by Israeli missiles and bombs and bulldozers. They keep getting the shaft in these peace deals and told to either accept whatever crumbs they are handed or be labeled as obstructionist meanwhile having to live under Israel's blockades, land grabs and bombs and missile attacks. Now they have even backed out on the Gaza withdrawal such as it was.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14473425/

However, one country's (or region) guilt does not negate the other country's guilt. Israel is just as guilty of violating international war laws and the GC as is Hezbollah and Palestine.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:47 am
Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly.
You sort of ignored the qualifying point to my quote didn't you? Was this intentional? People who respect decency and human rights don't target civilians just to kill civilians and they don't torture or employ death squads or methodically round up whole populations and exterminate them.


Do I understand you correctly:

Establishing rules for human rights and decency is appropriate. :
"People who respect decency and human rights don't target civilians just to kill civilians and they don't torture or employ death squads or methodically round up whole populations and exterminate them."

Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly.

If there's a war, no rules at all. Everyone does what she/he likes until the other waves a white flag [that rule seems to be there?].

I think, it explains a lot - but as far as I know, even the USA officially think different.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:49 am
Foxfyre wrote:
You sort of ignored the qualifying point to my quote didn't you? Was this intentional? People who respect decency and human rights don't target civilians just to kill civilians and they don't torture or employ death squads or methodically round up whole populations and exterminate them.

Those who do are not going to follow any rules no matter what rules are put into force.


I didn't see a qualifying point in your statement. Correct me if I missed the context.

In my opinion, people who respect decency and human rights establish rules for the conduct of war and abide by them, no matter what. Yes, that means I'm not going to send a suicide bomber over to their side and blow up a marketplace, even if they do this to me. And yes, it means that I refrain from employing methods like indiscrimately targeting areas or civilian structures. Not even as "retaliation".

Following the rules means following the rules. If you maintain that those who don't follow the rules lack the respect for decency and human rights, then start to blame the Israelis as well, and stop justifying their violations of the rules.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 08:55 am
Perhaps it's like in sports: if one plays unfair, the other can do even worse; if one takes drugs, the others must do the same ...

Seems that rules are for Foxfyre only vald until someone breaks them

Oh, I have to admit that I "sort of ignored the qualifying point to her quote" as well. Must be that my American English isn't good enough.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:02 am
The problem I have with Foxy's approach is that she categorically brushes away atrocities committed by the guys in uniforms. Somehow, the fact that they are acting on orders, in the course of a military operation, seems to be justification enough.

If the NYPD, knowing there is a killer living in an apartment, would blow up the complete appartment building, killing 30 other inhabitants during that "operation", would that be justified as well? After all they got the killer. The killer did morally condemnable things. The appartment building harbored the killer. Hey, everything peachy, right?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:02 am
McGentrix wrote:
How is this any different from the members who always rant about the Israelis without being willing to recognize that some muslims are indeed terrorists and that there are many organizations formed around the middle east whose primary goal is the eradication of Israel?


As that does not describe me, you'd have to ask someone who holds such an opinion how they justify it.

When people claim they don't consider all Muslims to be terrorists, but then immediately thereafter claim that "Palestinians" blow up school buses, without stipulating that only some Palestinians do that, they are, rhetorically at least, condemning all Muslims.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:03 am
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
You sort of ignored the qualifying point to my quote didn't you? Was this intentional? People who respect decency and human rights don't target civilians just to kill civilians and they don't torture or employ death squads or methodically round up whole populations and exterminate them.

Those who do are not going to follow any rules no matter what rules are put into force.


I didn't see a qualifying point in your statement. Correct me if I missed the context.

In my opinion, people who respect decency and human rights establish rules for the conduct of war and abide by them, no matter what. Yes, that means I'm not going to send a suicide bomber over to their side and blow up a marketplace, even if they do this to me. And yes, it means that I refrain from employing methods like indiscrimately targeting areas or civilian structures. Not even as "retaliation".

Following the rules means following the rules. If you maintain that those who don't follow the rules lack the respect for decency and human rights, then start to blame the Israelis as well, and stop justifying their violations of the rules.


All the 'rules of war" can include is what normal people consider to be human decency. Where it gets silly is that normal people do not initiate war at all, and those that do are not likely to be at all inclined to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I haven't seen the Israelis doing anytning that is unreasonable to do in a time of war or committing indecencies so far as conduct of war is concerned. They are not using biological or chemical weapons. They are not torturing people or commiting genocide. They are not utilizing suicide bombers. They are not targeting civilians or intending to kill civilians. They are targeting the weapons that are attempting to kill, maim, or terrorize the Israelis, and they are targeting the means to rearm and resupply those weapons.

So how about you condemning Hezbollah for not abiding by any rules of decency and stop condemning Israel for doing what is reasonable to stop indecent activities of Hezbollah?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
ithout the repeated car bombings and suicide bombings, Israel would not be occupying the west bank and parts of Gaza.


This is an outright lie. Israel occupied the Gaza strip and the West Bank militarily in the 1967 war. Car bombings and suicide bombers were unknown in those days. The Israelis had had their eye on those territories, and espeically on the West Bank and Jerusalem, for a long time, and could hardly wait for an excuse. You're just making **** up now.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:06 am
Since it might got forgotten, here's the original response again:

Foxfyre wrote:
But you have argued against that when you said that Hezbollah had no choice but to fight the way they were fighting.

Establishing rules for human rights and decency is appropriate. Establishing rules on how to conduct war is absolutely silly. The only practival way to conduct war is to break things and kill people until somebody raises the white flag in unconditional surrender. When that happens peace is generally the result at least for a generation or two at least when the victor has respect for human rights and decency. When it is not allowed to happen, the result is invariably renewed hostilities or somebody has to stay there forever to babysit the two sides.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Aug, 2006 09:15 am
Foxfyre wrote:
So how about you condemning Hezbollah for not abiding by any rules of decency and stop condemning Israel for doing what is reasonable to stop indecent activities of Hezbollah?


I strongly condemn Hezbollah for not abiding by the Geneva Conventions, and you will find no post of mine where I have ever said anything to the contrary.
I don't condemn Israel for doing what is reasonable. I strongly condemn Israel for not abiding by the Geneva Conventions, though.

It's really not that hard, in my mind, once you get past the wrong perception that one side automatically can claim the moral high ground, for whatever reason, and start looking at the violations of both sides.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/09/2024 at 05:13:56