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

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Neither Israel nor Lebanon has ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Besides, the court doesn't act by itself but only after the prsosecution started investigations. Which they can't.
a) because no other state asked for,
b) because neither Israel nor Lebanon ratified the protocol.

True!

Because of these facts, Protocol I has been rendered by default for Israel-Lebanon-Hezbollah merely an opinion and not a real component of international law.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
Then you are willfully ignoring that the IDF response was not to target Hezbollah, but to attack the Lebanon indiscriminately.

That's simply a bullshit statement.

No, it isn't.

Cluster rounds used in civilian areas = indiscriminate targetting.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ican, that is supposedly a list of "terrorist" acts but most of the attacks described target the IDF, and some of them don't show any proven connection to Hezbollah, like "fire at IDF outpost".

Now that you've linked your list, though, I want to say that lists like these are very easy to compile. For instance, if I compiled a list of Israeli attacks on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians, since 2000 and without context for each incident, how long do you think it would be? How bad would it make Israel look? What if I threw in "acts of war" like settling outside of their recognized borders?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Then you are willfully ignoring that the IDF response was not to target Hezbollah, but to attack the Lebanon indiscriminately.

That's simply a bullshit statement.

No, it isn't.

Cluster rounds used in civilian areas = indiscriminate targetting.

Cycloptichorn

So, you believe Israel just pointed the guns north and hit the fire button? That sure seems to be what both of you are suggesting.

0 Replies

They announced that every target was a legitimate target -- and that's almost a quote. I don't see any discrimination in that statement. They specifically targeted infrastructure which is against international law.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

They announced that every target was a legitimate target -- and that's almost a quote. I don't see any discrimination in that statement. They specifically targeted infrastructure which is against international law.

No it isn't. Were I Setanta, I would now go into a diatribe about your lack of knowledge and how you should not speak about subjects you obviously know nothing about and go on and on like that.

But, I am not, and I won't.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Then you are willfully ignoring that the IDF response was not to target Hezbollah, but to attack the Lebanon indiscriminately.

That's simply a bullshit statement.

No, it isn't.

Cluster rounds used in civilian areas = indiscriminate targetting.

Cycloptichorn

The IDF response was to target Hezbollah. The location of cluster bombs in Lebanese civilian areas is consistent with the location of Hezbollah rocket firing sites in Lebanese civilian areas.

Any nation that knowingly and willingly serves as host to a group that acts as the deliberate killers of citizens in another state, is knowingly and willingly jeopardizing the lives of every man, woman, and child among its own citizens.

The Lebanese government knowingly and willingly served as host to Hezbollah, a group that acted and acts as the deliberate killers of citizens in Israel. We know the Lebanese government took zero action to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon. Lebanon's government didn't even request the UN peace keeping force in Lebanon to help it remove Hezbollah from Lebanon. It didn't even request such help from anyone to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon. The Lebanese government did thereby knowingly and willingly jeopardize the lives of every man, woman, and child among its own citizens.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
They announced that every target was a legitimate target -- and that's almost a quote. I don't see any discrimination in that statement. They specifically targeted infrastructure which is against international law.

No it isn't. Were I Setanta, I would now go into a diatribe about your lack of knowledge and how you should not speak about subjects you obviously know nothing about and go on and on like that.

But, I am not, and I won't.

Well, I will certainly admit that I don't know a lot about international humanitarian law, but based on what I've read and the things that revel posted two pages back, it certainly looks to me like targeting civilian infrastructure is both collective punishment and failure to try to limit collateral damage. I'm interested in how you interpret it.

0 Replies

It seems to me that Free Duck has taken the trouble to inform herself well.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then you are willfully ignoring that the IDF response was not to target Hezbollah, but to attack the Lebanon indiscriminately.

That's simply a bullshit statement.

No, it isn't.

Cluster rounds used in civilian areas = indiscriminate targetting.

Cycloptichorn

So, you believe Israel just pointed the guns north and hit the fire button? That sure seems to be what both of you are suggesting.

Given that so many of the cluster munitions were delivered as artillery shells, which are, essentially, "dumb weapons," that's a very accurate description.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I doubt Israel was sitting there with an invasion force waiting for Hezbollah to cross the border and kidnap Israeli soldiers so they could counter with an immediate invasion and destruction of specific Hezbollah sites.

I doubt that, too--which is why i've said that the Israeli government went off half-cocked without an effective operational plan--the result of which was the death and maiming of thousands of Lebanese and Israeli civilians.

Quote:

I also have no doubt that the PM and IDF High Command cares very much about Goldwasser and Regev and want to get them back.

Then i consider you to be, as i said before, naive.

Quote:

The highways and bridges and airports connect Lebanon to the outside. SE Lebanon isn't exactly a flat desert where trucks can just go wherever they wish. If Hezbollah had time to dig in and prepare that would mean they expected the reprisal they received. The UN was supposed to be monitoring the area making sure Hezbollah did not actually do as you suggest.

The highways and highway bridges which Israel immediately attacked in no way prevented Hezbollah from receiving logistical support from Syria. Hezbollah's military arm is concentrated in the southeast of the Lebanon near the Shebaa Farms, which are a part of the disputed Golan Heights, formerly Syrian territory (taken by Israel in the 1967 war). Syria was then in the process of negotiating the return of the Shebaa Farms to the Lebanon, and the Syrians were willing to drop their claims to the territory. This probably explains why Hezbollah acted when they did, as the return of the Shebaa Farms is one of the excuses Hezbollah has used for refusing to disarm.

The United Nations personnel in the area were observers only, they had no brief to interfer militarily with anyone. They were only there to report to the United Nations. When Israel began to shell the area, the United Nations repeatedly told them that their artillery were landing ordnance near observation posts, and requested them to lift the bombardment, or change the targetting. Israel ignored the request, with the result that three U.N. observers were killed. I find it disgustingly ironic that conservatives sneer at the U.N. as ineffective and irrelevant, but are so quick to condemn for not acting effectively.

Quote:

I did not suggest that Hezbollah did kill any civilians in the raid. They did however in their subsequent missile campaign.

How refreshing to actually find a conservative acknowledge that Israel attacked the Lebanon before Hezbollah began their rocket attacks.

Quote:

I am sure the US and Israel would have jumped at the chance to Help Lebanon rid their country of Hezbollah if they were asked.

I seriously doubt that. Apart from the fact that it would be political suicide for any Lebanese politician to even suggest such a measure, it would very likely lead to a Syrian invasion. The Syrians only withdrew from the Lebanon last year, 30 years after the Lebanese government blackmailed them into intervening in the civil war (search for Lebanese Civil War, and look for a timeline with events in 1975)--and that after the CIA-engineered "Cedar Revolution." Do a web search on that, you might (gasp!) even educate yourself.

Quote:

It doesn't matter if Hezbollah has a single seat or a hundred seats. Fact remaiuns they are a part of the Lebanese government and that means they have a say in making policy and defending the civilian population under the governments control.

I'll keep that in mind after the new Congress is sworn in in January. At such time as you complain about the Democrats, i'll point out that the Republicans are a part of the government, which means they have a say in making policy. (Insert extravagant rolly-eyed emoticon here.)

Quote:

Starting a war with Israel does not seem a good way to use ones power.

What do you expect? They are an international terrorist organization which the CIA considers to be the equal of al Qaeda. You are always on about how they don't care about civilian deaths--your indignation is a phoney as most of your posts.

Quote:

Quote:
Then you are willfully ignoring that the IDF response was not to target Hezbollah, but to attack the Lebanon indiscriminately.

That's simply a bullshit statement.

You are the one who insisted on Olmert's statement that he held the Lebanon responsible for an act of war, which Olmert said would lead to very painful consequences. Are you having trouble keeping track of the conversation?

Quote:

Maybe they could have used some of that Hezbollah goodwill or roads they were using to get weapons and reinforcements. You said earlier that the highways were of no use to Hezbollah, so couldn't the civilians simply used the same roads Hezbollah was using?

As i pointed out, Hezbollah's military component is concentrated in the southeast, communicating with the Syrian border. Do you seriously suggest that the Lebanese civilians should have gotten out of the way by heading for the area in which Israel was going to attack Hezbollah? That's a pretty idiotic suggestion even by your low, low standards. Hezbollah doesn't even need to use roads. They are a light infantry force which relies upon assault rifles, RPGs, Katyusha or Katyusha-like rockets, and IEDs. They don't need no stinking roads.

Quote:

Another bullshit statement. Israel was very discriminate in what they bombed.

Your evidence for that is? Do you consider using artillery shells with cluster munitions to be "discriminate?" Yeah, there sure is a lot of bullshit around here, but it's coming from you.

Quote:

Hezbollah is at fault for every single death in the short war between Israel and Lebanon. Their actions precipitated Israel's response and nothing you can say will change that.

Yeah, i know that's the rightwing party line. Nothing you can say will change the fact that Israel acted in a criminal manner, violating the solemn engagements they have made as a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

Quote:

Hamas also enjoyed some respect in Gaza. So much so the people elected them into a ruling party and the world rightly abandoned them. People make bad choices, but the fact that the Lebanese government is weak is no reason to allow a terrorist organization to roam free within the bounds of their country.

If you acknowledge that the Lebanese government is weak, how do you propose that they rid themselves of one of the two most powerful terrorist organizations in the world? You contradict yourself right and left. If Hezbollah, with its paltry 14 seats in the Parliament is responsible, as you claim, for national policy, by your own criterion, they would easily be able to prevent the government from acting. You can't seem to keep your arguments straight.

0 Replies

Leaving aside the argument whether Lebanon should have stoped Hezbollah, they are still legally civilians unless they take a direct part in combatant activities.

Also, While Israel did not sign the protocol which deals with civilians/victims of armed conflicts, all parties are bound by the customary laws which prohibits targeting civilians or otherwise not taking reasonable safeguards to protect civilians. This applies even if parties did not sign or in the case of human shields.

Quote:

The fundamental provisions of Protocol I, including the rules cited below, are considered part of customary international law and are therefore binding on all parties to a conflict.(20) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I amount to war crimes. The accepted definitions of these crimes under customary international law are contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The rules citied which are binding on all parties regardless of signatures because they are customary laws are in the link I previously provided, but just in case

source

My whole point is that Israel may or may not have been justified in invading and attacking Lebanon in July 2006, but they way they went about it with no regard for civilian life erased any moral high ground they may have started out with.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...
While Israel did not sign the protocol which deals with civilians/victims of armed conflicts, all parties are bound by the customary laws which prohibits targeting civilians or otherwise not taking reasonable safeguards to protect civilians. This applies even if parties did not sign or in the case of human shields.

This is only an opinion about what the law should be. It is not a statement of any actual law.

Quote:
The fundamental provisions of Protocol I, including the rules cited below, are considered part of customary international law and are therefore binding on all parties to a conflict.(20) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and of Protocol I amount to war crimes. The accepted definitions of these crimes under customary international law are contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This too is only an opinion about what the law should be. It is not a statement of any actual law.
...
My whole point is that Israel may or may not have been justified in invading and attacking Lebanon in July 2006, but they way they went about it with no regard for civilian life erased any moral high ground they may have started out with.

My whole point is that the civilian life for which the Israelis allegedly had no regard were civilians guilty of hosting Israel's murderers and not innocent civilians who made some kind of effort to remove these murderers. Hezbollah has been murdering Israelies for a long time before 2006 as well as in 2006. By hosting them without protest, the guilty Lebanese civilians "erased any moral high ground they may have started out with."

It is my opinion that the law should be: When you shoot at my civilians from behind the willing shields of your civilians, both you and your civilians are murderers. You are a first degree murderer; your willing civilian shields are second or third degree murderers. I should make no distinction between you and your willing shields in defending my civilians.

0 Replies

Ican, the Human Rights Watch, cited direct references to the law from the International Humanitarian Law with references to the articles and numbers so people can cross check it. It is more than just opinion.

Otherwise, I am weary of going over this ground with you as you are irrational on the subject and offer nothing in rebuttal but your own opinions which are badly screwed.

0 Replies

Ican't resembles the christian who says the bible is divinely inspired, and when asked to demonstrate as much, replies that it says so in the bible. He offers an oversimplistic and simple-minded view of the middle east and of Muslims, displays an arrogant refusal to amend his ignorance, and makes claims about what "rational" people would believe. But is is all self-referential--his so-called rational people would only believe those things if they, too, had those oversimplistic and ignorant views. In short, he habitually begs the question by setting the terms in advance.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Ican, the Human Rights Watch, cited direct references to the law from the International Humanitarian Law with references to the articles and numbers so people can cross check it. It is more than just opinion.
...

My point, revel, is that "International Humanitarian Law" is a misnomer. It was not legislated by any freely elected legislature delegated by a legal authority such as a signed international treaty of nations to establish international law. It is an advocated law that is apparently supported by many (i.e., it is a supported opinion and not a legislated law).

The Protocol I opinion we have been discussing is an advocated inhumane law.

When you shoot at my civilians from behind the willing and knowing shields of your civilians, both you and your civilians are would be murderers. You are a would be first degree murderer; your willing and knowing civilian shields are would be second or third degree murderers. I should make no distinction between you and your willing shields in defending my civilians. You should adopt the same principles. In fact, if I were ever to willingly and knowingly act as as a shield for those shooting at you, you in defence of your civilians should make no distinction between me and those shooting at you. Not to do so would be a betrayal of your civilians.

If Protocol I prohibiting that degree of self-defense were ever to be adopted by an authorized legislature, it would deserve to be ignored and not enforced, or be repealed immediately.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ican't resembles the christian who says the bible is divinely inspired, and when asked to demonstrate as much, replies that it says so in the bible. He offers an oversimplistic and simple-minded view of the middle east and of Muslims, displays an arrogant refusal to amend his ignorance, and makes claims about what "rational" people would believe. But is is all self-referential--his so-called rational people would only believe those things if they, too, had those oversimplistic and ignorant views. In short, he habitually begs the question by setting the terms in advance.

You are damn near what you have alleged I am. The evidence of that is your frequent resort to irrational criticisms of the persons whose opinions are different than your own, rather than resort to rational criticisms of their opinions.

Setanta resembles the atheist who says there is no god, and when asked to demonstrate as much, replies there is nothing in books that proves their is a god. He offers an oversimplistic and simple-minded view of the middle east and of Muslims, displays an arrogant refusal to amend his ignorance, and pretends to a knowledge he does not possess. But is is all self-referential--his so-called rational people would only believe those things if they, too, had those oversimplistic and ignorant views. Most indicative of his faulty perceptions is he recognizes the use of ad hominem argument when it is employed by those with whom he disagrees, but never when he employs it himself. In short, he habitually begs the question by setting the terms in advance.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

He offers an oversimplistic and simple-minded view of the middle east and of Muslims, displays an arrogant refusal to amend his ignorance, and pretends to a knowledge he does not possess.

This is perhaps where you'll find the inherent flaw in cutting and pasting someone else's claims about you and applying it to them.
Reading your posts, it does not appear that you are in a position to speak against Set's knowledge of the ME. But then, that sort of was his point.

0 Replies

Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Actually, i do consider myself an atheist--to the extent that i know of no god, i am without god--atheist. But i don't assert that there is no god, i simply point out that no one has ever demonstrated that there is a god.

However, we have learned that logic is not one of Ican't's strong points, and that he is happy to proceed to sweeping pronouncements without a shred of evidence.

However,no one has ever demonstrated that there is NOT a God either.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know