That's like frankys wet dream right there...Oh god forbid a non-Jewish state, where the chosen people are outnumbered.
What the hell does that even mean?I'm sure you think terrorists go to university as well.
None of the examples listed or ever tried in military court include a force using their own people as human shields.I will go with the definition used in international law as understood by the Red Cross.
Yeah, democracy and equal rights.That's like frankys wet dream right there...
This is an excellent example.What the hell does that even mean?
You claimed that Hamas does not use human shields.
I asked why do CNN and NY Times report that they do?
And you reply by talking about university? D'uh?
That doesn't change the definition.None of the examples listed or ever tried in military court include a force using their own people as human shields.
No I don't.In order to make the argument that Hamas is doing so, you'd need to say what it is that justifies blowing up residential buildings.
That's the closest to an argument you have here.What are those military targets? What proof? In one of the most densely populated places on the planet, do they have any other locations or options, if they are doing so?
That has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas is using human shields.But even more important then that debate is to point out that Israel does not have the right to self defence against people they are occupying.
You're right. Hamas would never do that.I disagree that merely existing amongst civilians - for example, getting treated at a hospital next to civilians, is using them as human shields
And frank wonders why people are afraid to protest in public for Israel. Listen to what they are chanting.
If you have anything worthwhile to say, then I guess there is no need to respond to you futher here.I've mostly stayed out of this because there is not a lot to be gained from talking about the subject of the war on this board.
What I have commented on was you going all in on war crimes as a solution.
Not a regrettable tragedy.
Not a mistake.
No. You said it is impossible to commit war crimes in this situation and also that Israel should absolutely do them.
This is the thing I'm commenting on, because I was both genuinely surprised you made that argument and because it is a much worse thing in my eyes than the people denying war crimes are happening.
The latter at least still implies that one thinks war crimes are bad and should be avoided - they are just saying these specific things aren't really war crimes.
Rooting for war crimes as the solution is worse, in my opinion.
They are blocking Toronto roads every weekend.
Speaking of intelligence please post something intelligent.Please post these intelligence reports.
The real argument is would it be possible for Hamas to be able to use hospitals as bases.That's the closest to an argument you have here.
Is it possible for Hamas to not use hospitals or schools as bases?
No, it has bigger questions about the legality of Israel's attack on Gaza in the first place.That has nothing to do with whether or not Hamas is using human shields.
Hey coward.Speaking of intelligence please post something intelligent.
Because the facts don't change.You can keep repeating the same thing over and over. It's still a war crime.
I do.So you have nothing to back up your claims.
But if you know there are civilians there then Israel is also committing a war crime by killing them.Because the facts don't change.
Using humans as shields is a war crime. They are put in the position of being a shield (a war crime) before any Israeli action.