Israel at war

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
I've already answered this:


Obviously I haven't been clear. I'll try to do better.

Hague, Geneva, and Rome all say the same thing: "Thou shalt not attack a protected target such as a hospital unless it is being used for military purposes." That does not mean if it's being used for military purposes you can remove it from the map with no considerations of any sort. "Being used for military purposes" is the thing that allows you to apply the proportional proportionality analysis. If it isn't being used for a military purpose, you can't touch it for any reason at all. None, zip, zilch.

If a hospital is not being used for a military purpose but you can prove that blowing it up will somehow end the war tomorrow and save a billion lives, it's still a war crime to blow it up because you are prohibited from attacking it. You can't apply proportional proportionality because it is not being used for military purposes; it is strictly off-limits. Put a command and control facility in the basement though, and yes, now you can apply a proportional proportionality analysis to it and turn it into a crater because it's saving a billion lives.

Obviously every country on the planet would just blow it up if it was going to save a billion lives and no one would complain. But that's not the point; I'm using this invented, ridiculous example to explain what the law means and not to say I would object to saving a billion lives.

I hope that's clear: "military purposes" let's you apply proportional proportionality, it does not simply make a target fair game.
I understood that the first time and I understand the rules of war. You had give the example of rockets being fired from windows. I am asking if ther is something below ground only then what is the proportional response.
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
It's not that simple. There is no "but they started it" doctrine in the rules of war.

There are 3 considerations: proportional proportionality analysis (yes, it's a reductive name, take it up with the lawyers), non-reciprocity, self-defense. These come from the 2 primary statutes: the Geneva Conventions governing the treatment of victims and the Hague Conventions governing the conduct of armed forces. The armed forces in question, be they Israel or Hamas, do not need to ratify for the Conventions to apply; they are universal.

1. Doctrine of Non-Reciprocity

It is unlawful to attack any protected (i.e. protected under the Geneva convention - schools, hospitals, etc) target merely out of revenge or lust for battle.

2. Self-Defense

Attacks against a protected target in response to an active and ongoing threat which is clear and present, even if the attack is pre-emptive, are lawful.

3. Proportional Proportionality Analysis

Any action with defined military objectives where the savings of lives and materiel as a result of said action exceed the loss of life and materiel are lawful (note that for something like a hospital one must consider ongoing losses caused by the loss of life-saving personnel and equipment).
Yes I recall this and I know it is not that simple, even the saying "only return fire if fired upon" is not universal.
Every target needs to be considered for collateral damage, you wouldnt drop a 2,000 pound bomb on a stadium filled with civilians because a single missile was fired from it.
Maybe well placed 30 Caliber rounds would be considered "acceptable" in this case.
The response to a threat in an urban battlefield needs to be considered at all times.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
I've already answered this:


Obviously I haven't been clear. I'll try to do better.

Hague, Geneva, and Rome all say the same thing: "Thou shalt not attack a protected target such as a hospital unless it is being used for military purposes." That does not mean if it's being used for military purposes you can remove it from the map with no considerations of any sort. "Being used for military purposes" is the thing that allows you to apply the proportional proportionality analysis. If it isn't being used for a military purpose, you can't touch it for any reason at all. None, zip, zilch.

If a hospital is not being used for a military purpose but you can prove that blowing it up will somehow end the war tomorrow and save a billion lives, it's still a war crime to blow it up because you are prohibited from attacking it. You can't apply proportional proportionality because it is not being used for military purposes; it is strictly off-limits. Put a command and control facility in the basement though, and yes, now you can apply a proportional proportionality analysis to it and turn it into a crater because it's saving a billion lives.

Obviously every country on the planet would just blow it up if it was going to save a billion lives and no one would complain. But that's not the point; I'm using this invented, ridiculous example to explain what the law means and not to say I would object to saving a billion lives.

I hope that's clear: "military purposes" let's you apply proportional proportionality, it does not simply make a target fair game.
Shack will never stop asking the same questions over and over.
There are lots of testimonies from foreign aid workers who have worked in these hospitals across Gaza who say the IDF claims are nonsense.
Not that it would change shack's mind.

 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,845
5,629
113
Yes I recall this and I know it is not that simple, even the saying "only return fire if fired upon" is not universal.
Every target needs to be considered for collateral damage, you wouldnt drop a 2,000 pound bomb on a stadium filled with civilians because a single missile was fired from it.
Maybe well placed 30 Caliber rounds would be considered "acceptable" in this case.
The response to a threat in an urban battlefield needs to be considered at all times.
So far in this instance it has been considered...Israel didn't just bomb buildings willy nilly...they have strategically picked a few targets...they gave warnings (which terrorist org give warnings?) they always inform the media what they will do next, they inform them results....I'm still waiting for a video of Israeli soldiers dancing around palestinian corpses and parading them in Tel Aviv but so far there's none...maybe @Frankfooter can help me out....
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmontrealer

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
So far in this instance it has been considered...Israel didn't just bomb buildings willy nilly...they have strategically picked a few targets...they gave warnings (which terrorist org give warnings?) they always inform the media what they will do next, they inform them results....I'm still waiting for a video of Israeli soldiers dancing around palestinian corpses and parading them in Tel Aviv but so far there's none...maybe @Frankfooter can help me out....
Warning someone you are about to commit a war crime doesn't make it not a war crime.
Israel is now using chemical weapons on civilians, also a serious war crime.

 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything and I've been wrong before. I find it difficult to operate on the assumption I'm wrong, but it's always possible. Just because my sources don't list it and I don't recall ever hearing it doesn't mean it's not true, so it's very possible you're right and it was part of the selection.


Or maybe it says exactly what you think it does. It's this one?


I've never read it but I've ordered a copy now. Thanks for mentioning it.
Not sure if you knew this but there was a third bomb being prepped by the US military to be dropped on August 19th, with as many as 7 more bombs to be dropped by the end of October.

"The pilot of the plane that dropped Little Boy, Colonel Paul Tibbets, told varied accounts. According to his earliest recollection, it would take five atomic bombs to force surrender. He had fifteen bombers and trained crews ready to go in case they needed to drop more atomic bombs during the war. "

The only reason the third was not dropped was because President Truman stepped in.

"While the military continued to prepare for a third atomic strike on Japan, President Truman asserted control. When he learned that a third bomb would be ready in about a week, he ordered that there be no more atomic bombs dropped without his direct approval. When Truman was later asked why he wanted to halt nuclear strikes against Japan, he said that the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people and killing “all those kids” was too horrible."

Since then, only a President can authorize the use of US nuclear weapons.

https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/third-shot
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
26,804
4,902
113

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
13,845
5,629
113
Not sure if you knew this but there was a third bomb being prepped by the US military to be dropped on August 19th, with as many as 7 more bombs to be dropped by the end of October.

"The pilot of the plane that dropped Little Boy, Colonel Paul Tibbets, told varied accounts. According to his earliest recollection, it would take five atomic bombs to force surrender. He had fifteen bombers and trained crews ready to go in case they needed to drop more atomic bombs during the war. "

The only reason the third was not dropped was because President Truman stepped in.

"While the military continued to prepare for a third atomic strike on Japan, President Truman asserted control. When he learned that a third bomb would be ready in about a week, he ordered that there be no more atomic bombs dropped without his direct approval. When Truman was later asked why he wanted to halt nuclear strikes against Japan, he said that the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people and killing “all those kids” was too horrible."

Since then, only a President can authorize the use of US nuclear weapons.

https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/third-shot
My Dad told me this once (he was a war vet fighting "Japos" in the mountanous regions in the PHilippines). After the bombs were dropped...Japanese Imperial army just left their bases...quietly....just left...some did surrender...I guess they were too far out to get news...
 

PeteOsborne

Kingston recon
Feb 12, 2020
2,125
1,941
113
kingston
My Dad told me this once (he was a war vet fighting "Japos" in the mountanous regions in the PHilippines). After the bombs were dropped...Japanese Imperial army just left their bases...quietly....just left...some did surrender...I guess they were too far out to get news...
Even though the Japanese surrendered the US military continue preparations for a third strike, just in case there was a military coup.

" Even after Japan surrendered on August 15th, there were fears of a militarist coup in Japan that would restart the war. Preparations for the third atomic strike continued until September 2nd—the day the American Occupation of Japan began."
 
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,424
9,979
113
Toronto
You admitted you know Israel is apartheid, shack, by your language.
What an extremely stupid leap. You're looking more ridiculous all the time.

In zero countries of the world do non-citizens have the same rights as citizens.

With your logic, it means that every country in the world is apartheid.
 

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
51,424
9,979
113
Toronto
Shack will never stop asking the same questions over and over.
Only when someone refuses to answer a simple and fair question over and over and over again.

Watch:

When you saw the attack of Oct. 7, which you've now admitted was an act of terror against Israeli civilians, yet have continued to justify, did you expect Israel to retaliate violently that would result in Gazan deaths or did you think they'd do nothing.
 

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,435
1,760
113
Not sure if you knew this but there was a third bomb being prepped by the US military to be dropped on August 19th, with as many as 7 more bombs to be dropped by the end of October.

"The pilot of the plane that dropped Little Boy, Colonel Paul Tibbets, told varied accounts. According to his earliest recollection, it would take five atomic bombs to force surrender. He had fifteen bombers and trained crews ready to go in case they needed to drop more atomic bombs during the war. "

The only reason the third was not dropped was because President Truman stepped in.

"While the military continued to prepare for a third atomic strike on Japan, President Truman asserted control. When he learned that a third bomb would be ready in about a week, he ordered that there be no more atomic bombs dropped without his direct approval. When Truman was later asked why he wanted to halt nuclear strikes against Japan, he said that the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people and killing “all those kids” was too horrible."

Since then, only a President can authorize the use of US nuclear weapons.

https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/third-shot
It's also listed on the Wikipedia page.

Screenshot_20231031_102620_Brave.jpg

I think it's been mentioned in very book I read as well.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
What an extremely stupid leap. You're looking more ridiculous all the time.

In zero countries of the world do non-citizens have the same rights as citizens.

With your logic, it means that every country in the world is apartheid.
You keep admitting that Israel is apartheid by forcing Palestinians to live as stateless refugees with zero human rights.
There is no country of Palestine, so Palestinians are living under apartheid rule with as you admit, different rights from Israeli Jews.

They live under a different legal system, with different roads, different social services and walls around them.
Its apartheid.

You keep admitting it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,516
22,161
113
Only when someone refuses to answer a simple and fair question over and over and over again.

Watch:

When you saw the attack of Oct. 7, which you've now admitted was an act of terror against Israeli civilians, yet have continued to justify, did you expect Israel to retaliate violently that would result in Gazan deaths or did you think they'd do nothing.
When Netanyahu allowed 233 settler attacks to occur in 2023, followed by settlers storming the Al Aqsa, did you and he not expect Hamas to respond, as they did in 2021?

Everyone expected Hamas to respond and everyone expected Israel to respond with disproportionate violence on civilians.
The same as happened in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2021 and 2022.

The idiotic thing is that thinking killing more Palestinians this time will stop this endless cycle of violence.

Every time.

 

Attachments

  • Like
Reactions: Klatuu
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts