Must watch: Hamas supporters burn Canadian flags on October 7

[NotADcotor]

Only if the military value obtained here exceeds the loss of civilian life. So yes both can be true as I mentioned in my post.
This is why the truth is likely in the middle in this war.

Quite a bit of value in crushing a group that launched a major attack killing raping and hostage taking and whose stated goal is your extermination.

But consider this when Hamas attacked on Oct 7, there was utterly no military value and yet they did it at the cost of many lives of their enemy and even their own people.
Any nation must respond to such an attack, Hamas must be hunted down to pay for it. If they choose to hide behind civilians, that's on them... civilians BTW who seem to mostly support Hamas, their methods and their cause.

Sometimes there is a middle truth, like in WWI, but sometimes one side is just being a total jerk and needs to be ended, WWII Japan, German, the Viet invasion of Pol Pot's Cambodia for example.

Hamas wants dead civilians, Israel is going above and beyond to do the mission, a mission that must be done trying to avoid the loss of civilian life as much as possible.
It is the use of human shields that leads to an excess loss of civilian life. However what other option is there. It's like those Neville Chamberlains who call on Ukraine to lay down and take it like a bitch because war bad mmmkay.

 

[Frankfooter]

Not condemning Hamas and saying they are not the problem after slaughtering 1200 Israeli's is supporting them franky...keep lying...Israel need to remove Hamas, remove the threat tot heir existence...that's what I support...I don't support Israel killing civilians...I support them removing Hamas...Palestinians and Lebanon have a tough choice to make...help Israel remove terrorists...Lebanon seems to help...Gazans are too afraid of Hamas.

Why are you against ending the illegal occupation of Palestine if it means the only, globally sanctioned, way towards peace?

 

[NotADcotor]

send those pinheads back to whatever shithole they come from

I'd be happy if they were banned from terb, there are rules against hate speech here, and being a private group not governmental, morally speaking the concept of free speech doesn't apply, the freedom of association does.

 

[musky guy]

I don't normally post in the politics forum, but those who burn the Canadian flag, hooligans, traffic blockers should go fuck themselves in a different country.

i cant fuckin beleive this country anymore. youve got this shit going on ive seen these fuckers on video threatening to kill this old jewish storeowner with a cop standing right there, and then they threaten to kill the cop and nothing happens to them. but you got a bunch of white guys waving fuck truedau flags and justine calls in the army throws them in jail and freezes their bank accounts. declares a state of emergency. what the fuck happened to my country.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Quite a bit of value in crushing a group that launched a major attack killing raping and hostage taking and whose stated goal is your extermination.

But consider this when Hamas attacked on Oct 7, there was utterly no military value

You are right. No military value in October 7, which makes it a war crime and a terror attack.
But every action of Israel has not been to crush the group. Example: The bombing of tents in Rafah, which was a war crime.
In these wars, not all actions are legitimate attacks. Similarly not all actions are war crimes. Its impossible to be one or the other. The truth is likely in the middle.
The question at the end of the day will be, on balance, was Israel more in the right or more in the wrong? That is still TBD.

 

[Klatuu]

Just because someone lives in Canada doesn't mean that is where their real allegiance is. Like those Boston IRA supporters who like America but care much more over their homeland.

Every accusation by a Ziontologist is a confession

 

[Leimonis]

I'd be happy if they were banned from terb,

in fairness we only hear them in terb because we are responding to them and amplifying their voices.

if they were properly ignored, boycotted and left to talk to each other in their threads they would not be a problem

 

[shack]

Only if the military value obtained here exceeds the loss of civilian life.

I'd say that eliminating launch sites to protect Israeli citizens would qualify. Keep in mind that Hamas is deliberately placing their installations in these places.

Serious question: How would one reliably know when this imbalance has been exceeded?

Is there an accepted formula to calculate the relative worth of military value vs. loss of civilian life. How does one compare the two? How does one measure military value? Is there a "unit of military value" and how many of such units equals a civilian life? How does one place a value on a human life? How would Israel know an equivalency has been reached or exceeded?

I know it sounds silly, but I believe that that is what your comment is suggesting needs to be done. Regardless, I imagine that it would be impossible for them to know because there is no such reliable mathematical formula available.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

I'd say that eliminating launch sites to protect Israeli citizens would qualify. Keep in mind that Hamas is deliberately placing their installations in these places.

Serious question: How would one reliably know when this imbalance has been exceeded?

Is there an accepted formula to calculate the relative worth of military value vs. loss of civilian life. How does one compare the two? How does one measure military value? Is there a "unit of military value" and how many of such units equals a civilian life? How does one place a value on a human life? How would Israel know an equivalency has been reached or exceeded?

I know it sounds silly, but I believe that that is what your comment is suggesting needs to be done. Regardless, I imagine that it would be impossible for them to know because there is no such reliable mathematical formula available.

There are some standards used by NATO and the US. This link has some good information for the questions you are asking. I will copy paste 1 paragraph.
To summarize my take away from the paper was that the military advantage of an attack cannot be balanced against the overall objectives of the war. Rather they have to be balanced against the immediately tactical advantage gained. So if attacking a hospital with rockets, were to be justified by the overall objective of the war of "exterminating Hamas", that would not be proportional. The immediate tactical advantage needs to be determined.

Translating proportionality assessment into military practice requires guidance on how to solve the equation that compares values that are not directly commensurable. In mathematical terms, it can be written as follows: x expected civilian harm < expected concrete and direct military advantage . The value of civilian deaths has been elaborated through specific mechanisms put in place by the United States of America (US), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and coalition partners in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NATO Civilian Casualty Assessment (CASS) functioned as post-facto investigation mechanism of civilian deaths in relation to NATO military operations. Collateral Damage Estimation (CDE) is the name given to the process used by the US and other NATO militaries. The concept of Non-combatant Casualty Cut-off Value (NCV) was also developed as a tool to objectively quantify proportionality. This NCV would depend on the high or low value of the military target under attack -ranging from 0 civilian deaths to 30 for someone like Osama Bin Laden. Reference to NCV as a direct translation of the proportionality requirement has been included in numerous Rules of Engagement (ROE). ROE and NCV are classified military documents. Access to such documents is restricted in most countries of the world. However, the existence of the US and NATO practices has been made public through various investigative processes. For example, the NCV was officially abandoned in the US in 2018 and replaced by the Pentagon’s Civilian Harm Mitigation Response Action Plan in 2023. The aim was to restore the obligation to avoid or minimise civilian harm, rather than to set an ‘acceptable’ threshold of civilian casualties that could be perceived as a licence to kill.

Doctors without borders | The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law

 

[NotADcotor]

You are right. No military value in October 7, which makes it a war crime and a terror attack.
But every action of Israel has not been to crush the group. Example: The bombing of tents in Rafah, which was a war crime.
In these wars, not all actions are legitimate attacks. Similarly not all actions are war crimes. Its impossible to be one or the other. The truth is likely in the middle.
The question at the end of the day will be, on balance, was Israel more in the right or more in the wrong? That is still TBD.

But what is the full story of the bombing of the tents. Did they have intel that Hamas were hiding out there which is their thing, did they give warning [which they wouldn't have to do], and then you get plain old oppsies, As I mentioned in the thread my sig points to. Americans kill a lot of their own people in training accidents and plenty of friendly fire incidents. Civilian deaths is not by itself a sign of a war crime. Even ignore everything, there is a difference between a group that does nothing but terror attacks and a group where once in a while someone does something special needs. Every military has that.
On the whole, what other choice does Israel have. They know it, Hamas was counting on it.

"The aim was to restore the obligation to avoid or minimise civilian harm, rather than to set an ‘acceptable’ threshold of civilian casualties that could be perceived as a licence to kill."
And Israel seems to be trying real hard to do this, even though in the chaos of war shit happens and even with Hamas trying to nerf their efforts.

Myself, I am on team fuck around and find out. Bring the B17s and B29s out of mothballs if they are still there and flatten the place. The concept of civilian has been outdated for over 150 years, They support the fucking around, they supply new people for the fucking around and they pay for the fucking around. But that's just mean, and fortunately for civilians of Gaza and unfortunately for Hamas Israel doesn't agree with me.

And the question must be asked, why SOME people shit all over the group that is doing their best in a difficult situation to avoid MDKing civilians getting all the hate but the people who ONLY MDK civilians and are trying to get their own people killed get the free pass. And those "some" people wonder why they get accused of racism.

 

[NotADcotor]

Only if the military value obtained here exceeds the loss of civilian life. So yes both can be true as I mentioned in my post.
This is why the truth is likely in the middle in this war.

No, that's your thing

Frequently asked questions on the rules of war

Even wars have rules. What does that mean?

www.icrc.org

"That said, a hospital or school may become a legitimate military target if it contributes to specific military operations of the enemy and if its destruction offers a definite military advantage for the attacking side.

If there is any doubt, they cannot be attacked. Hospitals only lose their protection in certain circumstances - for example if a hospital is being used as a base from which to launch an attack, as a weapons depot, or to hide healthy soldiers/fighters. And there are certain conditions too.

Before a party to a conflict can respond to such acts by attacking, it has to give a warning, with a time limit, and the other party has to have ignored that warning."

Nothing there bout military value exceeding the loss of civilian life. Definite military advantage is the only criteria.

Also this.

Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols

www.law.cornell.edu

"The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions. Source: 1952 Commentary on the Geneva Conventions, edited by Jean Pictet."

 

[Klatuu]

But what is the full story of the bombing of the tents. Did they have intel that Hamas were hiding out there which is their thing, did they give warning [which they wouldn't have to do], and then you get plain old oppsies, As I mentioned in the thread my sig points to. Americans kill a lot of their own people in training accidents and plenty of friendly fire incidents. Civilian deaths is not by itself a sign of a war crime. Even ignore everything, there is a difference between a group that does nothing but terror attacks and a group where once in a while someone does something special needs. Every military has that.
On the whole, what other choice does Israel have. They know it, Hamas was counting on it.

"The aim was to restore the obligation to avoid or minimise civilian harm, rather than to set an ‘acceptable’ threshold of civilian casualties that could be perceived as a licence to kill."
And Israel seems to be trying real hard to do this, even though in the chaos of war shit happens and even with Hamas trying to nerf their efforts.

Myself, I am on team fuck around and find out. Bring the B17s and B29s out of mothballs if they are still there and flatten the place. The concept of civilian has been outdated for over 150 years, They support the fucking around, they supply new people for the fucking around and they pay for the fucking around. But that's just mean, and fortunately for civilians of Gaza and unfortunately for Hamas Israel doesn't agree with me.

And the question must be asked, why SOME people shit all over the group that is doing their best in a difficult situation to avoid MDKing civilians getting all the hate but the people who ONLY MDK civilians and are trying to get their own people killed get the free pass. And those "some" people wonder why they get accused of racism.

Congrats. You just justified Oct 7. Out of the mouth of babes!

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Nothing there bout military value exceeding the loss of civilian life. Definite military advantage is the only criteria.

There is. From your ICRC FAQs:
Principle of proportionality: IHL prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Direct military advantage that I posted about, cannot be defined as the overall strategic objectives of the war but the direct, immediate and tactical advantage gained for that particular operation, balanced against the civilian deaths incurred in such an operation.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

But what is the full story of the bombing of the tents. Did they have intel that Hamas were hiding out there which is their thing,

Israel admitted that as a tragic mistake. So it is a war crime.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

The concept of civilian has been outdated for over 150 years, They support the fucking around, they supply new people for the fucking around and they pay for the fucking around.

Unsure what you mean that the concept of civilian has been outdated?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

And the question must be asked, why SOME people shit all over the group that is doing their best in a difficult situation to avoid MDKing civilian

How do you know this for certain? Israel does not do battle damage assessments. Criticism here is warranted.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

but the people who ONLY MDK civilians and are trying to get their own people killed get the free pass.

Who gave them a free pass? Most agree 10/07 was a terror attack.

 

[Conil]

By you living here in Canada and most likely a citizen, why would you defend these useful idiots in burning the Canadian flag and chanting death to Canada, wtf is wrong with you?

He's a terrorist supporter and not a true Canadian. Never was

 

[basketcase]

I don't care about the Hummus/HisBaller flags. But if anyone burns a Canadian flag, it's time for them to get the fuck out.

The basis of our western system is the freedom to disagree with the government. I find it almost funny though that people use those freedoms to back governments without any freedoms.

 

[basketcase]

What 'Hamas' flag are you talking about?
So far we have one Hezbollah flag,...

Those are the flags of genocide.

I'd take a flawed democracy over a theocratic authoritarian state any day.