Israel continues operation in Gaza - Thread II

[Gogf]

Continuation of the discussion from the other thread.

Link to old thread.

 

[brennan]

The killing of civilians for little military advantage is a Warcrime, as per article 57:3 of the first protocol to the Geneva Conventions, as already stated and not refuted, despite repeated challenges.

The suggestion that HAMAS' use of human shields relieves Israel of the obligation to avoid such civilian deaths is refuted by article 51:8 of the same Protocol.

nuff said.

 

[brennan]

In the interests of impartiality, it should be noted that HAMAS' use of Human shields is also a Warcrime. As is their use of indiscriminate weapons.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Collateral damage in a military operation that will not yield effective results is useless.

 

[MobBoss]

The killing of civilians for little military advantage is a Warcrime, as per article 57:3 of the first protocol to the Geneva Conventions, as already stated and not refuted, despite repeated challenges.

The suggestion that HAMAS' use of human shields relieves Israel of the obligation to avoid such civilian deaths is refuted by article 51:8 of the same Protocol.

nuff said.

Can you explain to me in detail what advantage Israel is getting by killing civilians?

Cause I really dont see one.

Btw, you misquote the article. It states:

3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.

This does not refer to killings civilians for advantage....it refers to when having multiple objectives with similar military advantage the one selected should be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives.

Please note that this does not gurantee civilian safety. Nor does it gurantee that such choices are even possible or even madatory. Gaza is a comparatively small area.....military objectives are going to be limited, probably to the point where the IDF isnt going to be able to pick and choose them based on 57.3 criteria.

It sure as hell does NOT protect a compound housing rockets and mortars simply because civilians are also located there.

Your nuff said has only shown your level of ignorance where the law of war is concerned. Thanks for that.

 

[capslock]

If we use the geneva conventions to determine who is worse, its clearly Hamas and other such terrorist organizations. Its not even close.

In the interest of impartialiaty, though, it should be noted that Hamas does....

dang I can't think of anything good they do.

 

[Mandeville]

This does not refer to killings civilians for advantage....it refers to when having multiple objectives with similar military advantage the one selected should be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives.

Please note that this does not gurantee civilian safety. Nor does it gurantee that such choices are even possible or even madatory. Gaza is a comparatively small area.....military objectives are going to be limited, probably to the point where the IDF isnt going to be able to pick and choose them based on 57.3 criteria.

It sure as hell does NOT protect a compound housing rockets and mortars simply because civilians are also located there.

Your nuff said has only shown your level of ignorance where the law of war is concerned. Thanks for that.

That's all aside because the killing of civilians for little military advantage is a Warcrime, as per article 57:3 of the first protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

A violation of that protocol does not permit further violations of the Geneva Convention.

 

[brennan]

Btw, you misquote the article. It states:

Pardon me, it's article 57:2:iii not 57:3. But you know the thing inside out, right? Rofl.

refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated

dang I can't think of anything good they do.

They had a good line going in education and healthcare for Palestinians IIRC. Before they became the democratically elected government and aid to Palestine was cut off I mean.

 

[MobBoss]

That's all aside because the killing of civilians for little military advantage is a Warcrime, as per article 57:3 of the first protocol to the Geneva Conventions.

A violation of that protocol does not permit further violations of the Geneva Convention.

Dude, what are you? A muppet?

I just cut and paste 57:3 for all of use to read. I quoted it precisely. Destroying a site actively firing rockets, morters, (known as 'attacking' you), confers far more than just a 'little' military advantage. You cant simply ignore enemy troops firing at you from such locations.

Now go away and play with Fozzie, Animal and Kermit.

Pardon me, it's article 57:2:iii not 57:3. But you know the thing inside out, right? Rofl.

No, I dont profess to know it inside and out...but I do know how to read it.

I suggest you try actually reading it prior to trying to allege it says something it doesnt. It will save you a lot of embarassment.

Btw, you didnt answer me question and I expect one. Again, what advantage do you allege Israel gains by purposefully killing civilians?

I really, REALLY, would like to hear your answer to this.

Lets examine 57:2.

2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

I have bolded the part you have failed to comprehend. 57:2.iii actually pertains more to Hamas than it does to the IDF. When Hamas launches an attack from a UN school for example it is a direct violation of 57:2.iii because it purposefully and directly puts civilians and civilian objects in danger. The IDF counterattack against a rocket or mortar site in a civilian school does not violate this rule for the simple reason the law of war assumes adherants to the law of war are not going to use civilians as shields to mask their attacks from locations such as a UN school. In other words, it is Hamas direct responsibility to ensure civilians are as far away/secluded from the location of their attack as possible if they are going to use a school/hospital or other protected site as a base of attack on IDF forces. The part I have bolded is why the IDF is indeed allowed to counter-attack Hamas forces attacking from sites otherwise protected via the law of war.

Again, your singular reading of the article has led to a direct failure to comprehend its application and meaning.

Once more I suggest you stop trying to talk about things that arent in your field of expertise before you embarass yourself further.

 

[Merkinball]

Conversely the deaths of 30 children in a school should be compared to the almost remote possibility of saving a few lives caused by the rocket fired. The disproportionality is obvious. - Brennan

Someday you'll understand the purpose of asymetric warfare. Someday.

Do you understand how utterly asinine this is? Surround yourself with up to thirty civilians and the IDF can't attack you. Get a bunch of kids around you and the IDF can't attack you. It's ridiculous. It doesn't matter HOW many kids are surrounding a beligerent on the battlefield, if someone is using human shields to launch attacks against another beligerent, then the other beligerent has EVERY RIGHT to protect himself from his enemy.

It is not the IDFs job to die simply because Hamas is violating God knows how many rules of war.

It's incredible, because just last night you were saying about Hamas is scum and whatnot. But now you continue your partisan babble about how IDF soldiers are just supposed to die for the sake of children that THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW ARE THERE! If a school is being used as a fighting position, I have every right to protect my safety. I am not endowed to die like a coward because I don't know how many civilians may be around.

You're being ridiculous Brennan. But I suppose it's real easy to draw these conclusions when you're sitting nice, warm, and comfortable as a priveleged western European.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think it's fairly clear that Hamas are completely legitimate targets, in a moral sense. I'm a bit confused about this idea of 'presenting', where it's okay to kill a soldier amongst civilians in some cases, but not in others (assuming the same amount of collateral damage)

 

[capslock]

It is OK to kill the enemy if he surrounds himself by civilians. If the civilians die, then a horrible war crime was commited, no doubt.

By the enemy.

 

[El_Machinae]

It is OK to kill the enemy if he surrounds himself by civilians. If the civilians die, then a horrible war crime was commited, no doubt.

BY THE ENEMY.

You're gonna understand someday, maybe.

Okay. I'll remember that the next time I bomb a nightclub with soldiers visiting on R&R!

 

[capslock]

Are they fireing on your position? Is it during an engangement?

There you just answered your own question form your previous post.

 

[MobBoss]

Okay. I'll remember that the next time I bomb a nightclub with soldiers visiting on R&R!

If you really cant tell the difference in a terror bombing of a night club with soldiers in it

and

A hamas firebase being operated from a school with civilians present getting counter-attacked

then

you really have no business posting opinion in this thread.

Or at least add a big /facepalm in your signature to show how silly you and your opinions are.

 

[nonconformist]

So pretty much the beirut barracks bombing was cool, yo

 

[El_Machinae]

LOL, anyone can see the difference in the practical and extreme scenarios

 

[nonconformist]

Que ?

 

[Merkinball]

So pretty much the beirut barracks bombing was cool, yo

Not cool. But I have MUCH less problem with targeting military personel than I do targeting civilians, or using civilians as pawns in a disgusting asymetric style of warfare.

It's like I told you the other night. I enlisted to catch the bullets and the shrapnel so my friends and family didn't have to.

In my opinion government officials are the people who should be targeted, and we should play by the rules.

Hitting garrisoned troops during peace-time in a premeditated fashion is a pretty cowardly, sick, and uncool move though.

 

[MobBoss]

So pretty much the beirut barracks bombing was cool, yo

Was the attack legal under the law of war?

No.

It was essentially committed not by a legitimate mililtary force, but rather a terrorist organization (i.e. spies under the convention descriptions) and also resulted in civilian loss of life.

The barracks would be a legitmate military target under the law of war by a legitimate military attack. Thats not what occurred.

What occurred has been historically recognized as a terrorist attack employing methods associated with terrorism. No more, no less.