Israel at war

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
95,695
24,417
113
When has that happened? Are you talking about when Hamas admits what they did but you try and tell us Hamas is lying about their racist death cult?

You even outdid Hamas with their claims about the PIJ strike on the hospital. Hamas was saying 500 dead but you "corrected" them to say 800 even though later numbers are much lower.

The only times you "correct" what Palestinians say is when it gets in the way of your crusade.
I hope you managed to keep the bile off your keyboard this time.

Israel is outdoing Hamas.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Klatuu

DinkleMouse

Well-known member
Jan 15, 2022
1,409
1,703
113
Yes, I agree.

But that's not to say this won't change or it shouldn't be a war crime. Given the injuries we're seeing in Gaza there may be a movement to make it a war crime.
You need to stop. You're out of your depth and being foolish. You're clearly just trying to make any changes you can to get Israel charged with as many war crimes as possible. It's unreasonable and would have repercussions that echo far beyond this conflict.

It shouldn't be a war crime. That's insanity. There are too many legitimate, useful uses of WP to make it's use a war crime. If Israel used it deliberately on civilians or used it where proportional proportionality didn't apply, or used it where a proportional proportionality case couldn't be made, then they've already committed a war crime (and not because they used WP, it still would've been a war crime if they'd used something else). Wanting to get the use of WP designated as a war crime are the actions of people who do not understand the rules of war or the tactical uses of WP. There's a reason it was excluded.

Having Article III amended wouldn't reduce the use of WP or incindiaries. It would just have 95% of the countries that are currently signatories to the CCW withdraw from it. Do you think that's better? Have no one follow or bound by any part of the CCW just because you wanted to be able to accuse Israel of committing a war crime while committing a different war crime? If they've committed a war crime you don't need WP made a war crime too. It's just getting silly now.

AOC called for a policy, not for it to be made a war crime. And I doubt it will pass because the US government themselves signed the CCW with the stipulation that they reserve the use of incindiary munitions (which WP isn't even) in civilian areas when appropriate and when proportionality applies.

As for the Amnesty international tweet... If they dropped conventional bombs indiscriminately on civilians it would be a war crime too. Calling out the use of white phos is a red herring and irrelevant, especially since they have such a horrendously flawed understanding of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,397
5,441
113

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
53,951
11,808
113
Toronto
Rarely, they rarely prosecute.
Moving the goalposts, are we?

Your little buddy made an unqualified statement that "claiming Israel would prosecute one of their own soldiers was a lie (nose getting longer").

You now say Israel rarely prosecutes. FYI, it's still more than Hamas' NEVER EVER prosecute their own. And news alert, it's not because Hamas are angels and never uses human shields. It's because Hamas applauds and encourages this type of activity. They dance in the streets. It's a main tactic in their war strategy.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
95,695
24,417
113
You need to stop. You're out of your depth and being foolish. You're clearly just trying to make any changes you can to get Israel charged with as many war crimes as possible. It's unreasonable and would have repercussions that echo far beyond this conflict.

It shouldn't be a war crime. That's insanity. There are too many legitimate, useful uses of WP to make it's use a war crime. If Israel used it deliberately on civilians or used it where proportional proportionality didn't apply, or used it where a proportional proportionality case couldn't be made, then they've already committed a war crime (and not because they used WP, it still would've been a war crime if they'd used something else). Wanting to get the use of WP designated as a war crime are the actions of people who do not understand the rules of war or the tactical uses of WP. There's a reason it was excluded.

Having Article III amended wouldn't reduce the use of WP or incindiaries. It would just have 95% of the countries that are currently signatories to the CCW withdraw from it. Do you think that's better? Have no one follow or bound by any part of the CCW just because you wanted to be able to accuse Israel of committing a war crime while committing a different war crime? If they've committed a war crime you don't need WP made a war crime too. It's just getting silly now.

AOC called for a policy, not for it to be made a war crime. And I doubt it will pass because the US government themselves signed the CCW with the stipulation that they reserve the use of incindiary munitions (which WP isn't even) in civilian areas when appropriate and when proportionality applies.

As for the Amnesty international tweet... If they dropped conventional bombs indiscriminately on civilians it would be a war crime too. Calling out the use of white phos is a red herring and irrelevant, especially since they have such a horrendously flawed understanding of it.
I'm a peacenik. I'd be happy if landmines were really banned, if cluster bombs were banned, that nukes were dismantled and yes, if weapons that are being used as incendiary like WP (going by injury reports in Gaza they are being used as incendiary weapons) were all banned. Even after Ukraine, weapons that kill civilians after wars and during wars should be banned. And yes, I know that WP is not listed as incendiary or chemical and you say its a bad incendiary weapon. But if its being used that way it should be stopped.

People argue there are legitimate uses for AR15's in the states as well, but they should be banned for civilians. Fewer people are killed by guns in places with fewer guns.

I know you've disagreed with Amnesty and HRW reports here, but they are still the international standard.

For the most part I'm agreeing with your posts and listening to what you say. But things need to change.

This is being reported as WP deaths in Gaza, but don't look if you're squeamish.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,891
5,852
113
Find and shut off the ventilation systems for the tunnels. They won't last long after
Or just hook up hoses to tank exhausts and flood the tunnels with carbon monoxide
 
Last edited:

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
31,397
5,441
113
Or just hook up hoses to tank exhausts and flood the tunnels with carbon monoxide
1. Good chance hostages are in the tunnel.
2. Um, gas atrack? Ya, thats never a good idea.

I figure there is a chance they trade hostages for surrender. Some may go for it.
 

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,891
5,852
113
1. Good chance hostages are in the tunnel.
2. Um, gas atrack? Ya, thats never a good idea.

I figure there is a chance they trade hostages for surrender. Some may go for it
Whats the difference from what you're proposing, shutting off ventilation systems for the tunnels??
Either way you're suffocating them, arent you??

But I agree that many hostages are probably in the tunnels.
So maybe thats not a good idea
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
15,625
7,479
113
Yes, and the answer is obvious.
The occupation hasn't ended.
Apartheid hasn't ended.
It never ends because as soon as ceasefire is in place...Hamas just schemes another plan to inflict damage again...then more damage goes to palestinians but they welcome those because it makes them "martyrs"...the ultimate sacrifice....as long as Hamas kills some jews....lather rinse repeat...
 
Toronto Escorts