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

And it does not escape those willing to see it that Amnesty International had no intention of criticizing Hizbollah at all until they were accused of being to biased against Israel.

International humanitarian law and war crimes
International humanitarian law (the laws of war) governs the conduct of war. It seeks to protect civilians, others not participating in the hostilities, and civilian objects (all objects that are not military objectives).
Hizbullah is bound by a number of rules and principles of international humanitarian law. Some of these obligations, including the requirement to treat humanely at all times people taking no active part in hostilities, are contained in common Article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. Other principles and rules specific to the conduct of hostilities have been accepted by the international community -- including Israel, Lebanon and most other states -- as binding on all parties to international and non-international armed conflicts. These rules are encapsulated in the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions.

It's interesting to see how you accused Amnesty of being biased, just because they condemned war crimes committed by "your" side, too.

In the past, this organization and others have been disproportionately interested in isolated incidents of U.S. military excess in Iraq and the legality and morality of a well-appointed detention camp for non-state terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, while paying only lip service to the nature of the foe the United States faces.

The first article McG posted was dated 8/22/06 and I saw many similar to it during that period. The second article McG posted was dated today, and I believe it is the first MSM reporting of any A.I. criticism of Hizbollah.

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.
The human rights group says attacks on homes, bridges, roads and water and fuel plants were an "integral part" of Israel's strategy in the recent war.

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

old europe wrote:

It's interesting to see how you accused Amnesty of being biased, just because they condemned war crimes committed by "your" side, too.

It is interesting that this poster accuses others of being idiotic and not able to research before posting an opinion as well.

Foxfyre wrote:

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

And it does not escape those willing to see it that Amnesty International had no intention of criticizing Hizbollah at all until they were accused of being to biased against Israel.

Just your opinion, Foxy, or anything to back that up?

AI has a pretty good track record of reporting on violations of human rights.

The first article McG posted was dated 8/22/06 and I saw many similar to it during that period. The second article McG posted was dated today, and I believe it is the first MSM reporting of any A.I. criticism of Hizbollah.

Okay. Just your opinion, then, and nothing but your prejudices to back it up.

Here's an article Amnesty International published on 26 July 2006, addressing both sides:

ISRAEL/LEBANON
ISRAEL AND HIZBULLAH MUST SPARE CIVILIANS
Obligations under international humanitarian law of the parties to the conflict in Israel and Lebanon

It's interesting to see how you accused Amnesty of being biased, just because they condemned war crimes committed by "your" side, too.

I must be missing something as I don't find any clear list of sins committed by either side. It rather appears to be a list of A.I.'s interpretation of the rules for conducting war.

Hizbullah's use of Katyusha rockets and longer-range missiles against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack, even when they appear to have been directed at legitimate targets, such as military bases. This is due to the inherent inaccuracy of these weapons at long distances.

"Even when they appear to be directed at legitimate targets". And this after the Hizbollah leadership admitted he was targeting civilians?

Only somebody completely anti-Israel could not read that as blunting direct criticism of Hizbollah's actions. Their motive was pure; it was only their process that was flawed. Bull.

Hizbullah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah suggested that rocket attacks against civilian population centres were justified by illegal Israeli actions: "When the Zionists behave like there are no rules and no red lines and no limits to the confrontation, it is our right to behave in the same way."

According to the Rome Statute, intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities is a war crime. (Article 8 (2) (b) (i)) The states negotiating the Rome Statute did so on the basis that the list of war crimes in the statute reflected customary international law.

"Even when they appear to be directed at legitimate targets". And this after the Hizbollah leadership admitted he was targeting civilians?

Only somebody completely anti-Israel could not read that as blunting direct criticism of Hizbollah's actions. Their motive was pure; it was only their process that was flawed and only that because the rockets were so inaccurate. Bull. Show me any paragraph that exhonerates Israel's motives.

Hizbullah's use of Katyusha rockets and longer-range missiles against Israeli cities and towns violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack, even when they appear to have been directed at legitimate targets, such as military bases. This is due to the inherent inaccuracy of these weapons at long distances.

Translation:

"Bloody hell, they have critizised Hezbollah, too. Let me find a new way of putting them down."

Foxfyre wrote:

"Even when they appear to be directed at legitimate targets". And this after the Hizbollah leadership admitted he was targeting civilians?

Only somebody completely anti-Israel could not read that as blunting direct criticism of Hizbollah's actions. Their motive was pure; it was only their process that was flawed. Bull.

From the AI article:

Quote:

Hizbullah leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah suggested that rocket attacks against civilian population centres were justified by illegal Israeli actions: "When the Zionists behave like there are no rules and no red lines and no limits to the confrontation, it is our right to behave in the same way."

According to the Rome Statute, intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities is a war crime. (Article 8 (2) (b) (i)) The states negotiating the Rome Statute did so on the basis that the list of war crimes in the statute reflected customary international law.

Why do I have to help you with everything here, Foxy? Do you absolutely refuse to read the article yourself? Is Amnesty really that evil?

You just don't see the disconnect do you? You think separate paragraphs disconnected from a specific action are the same thing as connecting those two things? Well they aren't. Yes they paraphrased Nazarallah, but nowhere does it say that Hizbollah intentionally targeted civilians. The implications was that they were targeting legitimate targets but it was illegal because the rockets were so inaccurate that they endangered civilian populations.

That's the hypocrisy that I see. Again, show me anywhere they come that close to justifying Israel's motives.

Again, show me anywhere they come that close to justifying Israel's motives.

Foxfyre wrote:

Again, show me anywhere they come that close to justifying Israel's motives.

And, by the way, Amnesty International has no business in "justifying Israel's motives". I would very much question their impartiality when they, all of a sudden, started to justify the rationale of either party, in whatever conflict, for committing war crimes.