Must watch: Hamas supporters burn Canadian flags on October 7

[NotADcotor]

What you have quoted here is pretty much what I said. Civilian casualties need to be kept to a minimum, should not be targeted and when incurred should be lower than the military advantage gained.

Which seems to be the case. Well at least for Israel. Exceptions rules proving.

 

[NotADcotor]

That is the same accusation on both sides.

Except one side is correct and the other side is blindingly wrong.

Also you asked me who is giving them a free pass, I answered the question.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Which seems to be the case. Well at least for Israel. Exceptions rules proving.

I dont think it is that clear one way or another. This is for the ICC and ICJ to determine.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Except one side is correct and the other side is blindingly wrong.

Also you asked me who is giving them a free pass, I answered the question.

You did provide your opinion. Thanks.

 

[Uwauwa]

Like I said, I've never seen a Hamas flag at any of the multiple protests I've been at. That's why I asked about whether there's a Hamas flag. Nobody flies it here. Nor have I seen anything like this video, which may or may not be real.
We've also seen faked videos of protests, out of context photos and all kinds of bullshit, shlong.

I don't think this is a change in your views at all. This is where you've been all along.

You really want to stand with a group of racial supremacists who have declared international law and human rights don't matter and that they will try to take their 'holy land' by military force. How are you different from Hamas, schlong? Do you respect human rights? Or do you back killing your way over a people you call 'vermin' to take land?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727447338958962692

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1844132201090384351

The first post on X you referenced comes down to a statement from a Jewish student organization at UBC that said they terminated their contractor who distributed offensive “I love Hamas” stickers.
The tweet you embedded concludes that the organization “was behind” distribution of the stickers.
We don’t know if the provocation was intentionally organized by the school’s Jewish organization or just by their contractor. In any case they quickly dealt with the issue.

But what is the point you are trying to make here exactly?

Is that some sort of analogy? Are you suggesting that those who burned our flag and yelled “death to Canada” and the organizers of this activity are actually Jews trying hard to provoke anti-Muslim sentiment?

 

[Frankfooter]

The first post on X you referenced comes down to a statement from a Jewish student organization at UBC that said they terminated their contractor who distributed offensive “I love Hamas” stickers.
The tweet you embedded concludes that the organization “was behind” distribution of the stickers.
We don’t know if the provocation was intentionally organized by the school’s Jewish organization or just by their contractor. In any case they quickly dealt with the issue.

But what is the point you are trying to make here exactly?

Is that some sort of analogy? Are you suggesting that those who burned our flag and yelled “death to Canada” and the organizers of this activity are actually Jews trying hard to provoke anti-Muslim sentiment?

There is a history of disinformation and we need to be careful, that's all.
There is also a history of 'death to Canada' chants

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1410713428486807553

 

[shack]

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.

If a launching site is not taken out because it's in a hospital let's say 200 lives are saved. How long does that site continue to launch missiles? How many hundreds of missiles get launched. How many civilians get killed? How much damage to property occurs? How many people are displaced? If the launching site is allowed to remain in place for long enough, it is easy to see that the immediate tactical advantage of that launching site could easily be comparable to the damage from taking out that site. There would be no disproportionality.

Translating proportionality assessment into military practice requires guidance on how to solve the equation that compares values that are not directly commensurable.

Which basically means that any comparison is highly subjective. There are no defined units of measure.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Which basically means that any comparison is highly subjective. There are no defined units of measure.

Yes there is no objective universal measure applicable to all scenarios and it is the people executing the operation that make the decision. Whether these decisions amounted to war crimes is for the ICC and ICJ to determine.

 

[shack]

You're now waving the flag of apartheid and genocide.
Israel is really winning people over.

There was a very interesting and respectable debate going on with people understanding others' points of view, even if contradictory, and responding with balanced, civilized statements.

And now Geno comes along with his ridiculous accusations and racist pronouncements. You are using TERB as a platform to spew your hate speech. It is illegal.

You don't belong here. You provide nothing of positive value to this site. All you do is foment discord. Leave.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

If a launching site is not taken out because it's in a hospital let's say 200 lives are saved. How long does that site continue to launch missiles? How many hundreds of missiles get launched. How many civilians get killed? How much damage to property occurs? How many people are displaced? If the launching site is allowed to remain in place for long enough, it is easy to see that the immediate tactical advantage of that launching site could easily be comparable to the damage from taking out that site. There would be no disproportionality.

A hypothetical where you have constructed a scenario favourable for the point you are making. In reality and not all scenarios are that crystal clear in war.

 

[shack]

I dont think it is that clear one way or another. This is for the ICC and ICJ to determine.

But we are discussing OUR opinions on the issues. By saying what you did sounds like you are trying to blunt this debate. "Let's not discuss this now. Let's just wait for others to decide."

Why would you seemingly try to take such an approach?

 

[shack]

Yes there is no objective universal measure applicable to all scenarios and it is the people executing the operation that make the decision. Whether these decisions amounted to war crimes is for the ICC and ICJ to determine....

...which would also be very subjective such that the verdict could be a highly biased one based the actual judges' own political leanings. There is no guarantee of impartiality when so much subjectivity is inherent in the interpretation of the events. There are no strictly defined or measurable parameters. It could very well be a true kangaroo court.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

But we are discussing OUR opinions on the issues. By saying what you did sounds like you are trying to blunt this debate. "Let's not discuss this now. Let's just wait for others to decide."

Why would you seemingly try to take such an approach?

Because our opinions on Isrseli actions are uninformed with no access to data they actually used. We can hypothesize scenarios that would make it seem like these attacks were okay or were not okay but we'd be going in circles. Which is why I maintain the position that the truth is likely in the middle where there have been legitimate attacks and war crimes. Which is a decision for the courts.

 

[shack]

A hypothetical where you have constructed a scenario favourable for the point you are making. In reality and not all scenarios are that crystal clear in war.

Somewhat hypothetical. But it is actually a very realistic scenario. We've already had examples of Hamas hiding in hospitals. So actually, it's not hypothetical at all. It's happened.

So my point is very valid and should be addressed as such instead of simply attempting to claim it is irrelevant and pushing it to the side. It is a case where there is no disproportionately between taking out a military facility in and amongst civilians vs. letting that facility remain in place and that facility causing civilian damage to the other side for an extended period of time.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

...which would also be very subjective such that the verdict could be a highly biased one based the actual judges' own political leanings. There is no guarantee of impartiality when so much subjectivity is inherent in the interpretation of the events. There are no strictly defined or measurable parameters. It could very well be a true kangaroo court.

It is for Israel to lay out how the military advantage gained exceeded the civilian lives lost. After all they are the defence in that case. And I believe it is a panel of judges to take out any possible bias.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Somewhat hypothetical. But it is actually a very realistic scenario. We've already had examples of Hamas hiding in hospitals. So actually, it's not hypothetical at all. It's happened.

How do you know this for certain? For the cases where Israel said Hamas was hiding in hospitals there were others that said that they weren't and accused Israel of manufacturing evidence.

 

[shack]

Because our opinions on Isrseli actions are uninformed with no access to data they actually used. We can hypothesize scenarios that would make it seem like these attacks were okay or were not okay but we'd be going in circles. Which is why I maintain the position that the truth is likely in the middle where there have been legitimate attacks and war crimes. Which is a decision for the courts.

Then why are debating anything at all? We are truly uninformed of all things in this war. We are fed info by Hamas, the media, the Israeli government etc., etc.. We are not privy to what is discussed behind closed doors, or what Israeli intelligence says or what Iran's plans are? We are almost completely in the dark as to all aspects of this conflict, yet here we are with dozens of threads and thousands of pages of uninformed opinions. Why stop now? "It is illogical."

Regardless of what you say, there is no reason for you to try to stifle a free exchange of ideas and opinions as uninformed as they may be.

You may deny that you are doing this, but that is the truth by you continuing to say "let's wait for the courts".

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Then why are debating anything at all? We are truly uninformed of all things in this war. We are fed info by Hamas, the media, the Israeli government etc., etc.. We are not privy to what is discussed behind closed doors, or what Israeli intelligence says or what Iran's plans are? We are almost completely in the dark as to all aspects of this conflict, yet here we are with dozens of threads and thousands of pages of uninformed opinions. Why stop now? "It is illogical."

Regardless of what you say, there is no reason for you to try to stifle a free exchange of ideas and opinions as uninformed as they may be.

You may deny that you are doing this, but that is the truth by you continuing to say "let's wait for the courts".

Which is why I am not debating. Debating implies that I am picking a side. I am not. I don't have enough data to confidently pick a side. I state my opinion that the truth is likely in the middle and I leave it there in limbo.

 

[shack]

How do you know this for certain? For the cases where Israel said Hamas was hiding in hospitals there were others that said that they weren't and accused Israel of manufacturing evidence.

Your arguments are beginning to sound like certain others on this board. "Prove it", when they have no actual rebuttal or don't want to accept what is very, very likely a reality. Are you asking for 100% certainty? That would require seeing it with your own eyes. Are you saying that Hamas has never put rocket launchers in and among civilians. The civilians report launchers in rooms beside where their babies sleep. I think this is nothing more than an avoidance tactic to not admit my point is very valid in terms of disproportionality, or lack thereof.

Do you think that my example is not at all plausible

 

[richaceg]

That's absolutely true.

Hamas and Hezbollah pose an immediate threat to Israeli citizens so Israel has little choice but to try and prevent them from attacking. In the past Israel has been far more cautious than any other country in selecting targets including making symbolic strikes on empty Hamas encampments in response to Hamas rockets. After the death toll of 10/7, Israel realized that their previous tactics of 'mowing the grass' wasn't preventing Hamas from slaughtering civilians so they decided to hit hard and to care less if civilians were harmed in strikes on Hamas. Hamas has the choice about where to place their infrastructure and consciously chooses to hide among civilians.

The pager strike on Hezbollah was a targeted strike with tiny explosives but still the propagandists try to portray that as bad too.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and Israel are all doing what they feel they need to do to survive but when talking about international law, Israeli strikes may be argued as going after legitimate targets (none of have the actual targeting data to judge this - it is possible that many of the strikes were just retribution). Hamas' actions on the 7th, their suicide and shooting attacks have explicitly targeted civilians and many of Hezbollah's rockets are unjustifiable since their limited accuracy makes them no different than carpet bombing.

So yes, Hamas and Hezbollah hiding behind civilians means they have some significant culpability in their deaths.

Pager bombs and IDF strikes on Hezbollah is a telling proof that Israel isn't bombing an area willy nilly...they target specific locations and specific targets....Imagine if Israel just launch 200 rockets on Lebanon the way Iran did...Lebanon would be flattened...