Changes are coming to the signature campaign. Will work on getting payments sent within next 12 hours and then make an announcement once I've decided what I'd like to adjust. Will update main post in twelve hours.
Roger that Will be interested in what the new system will become as well. Standing by for updates I'm excited! Apparently there was talk on being activity based, which I wouldn't like, but those legendaries would make a killing off of it. Oh no, Im not excited about this also, was gambling my bitcoins I earned here, oh well. Ill will re-enroll after the update has been given, then will decide to stay. |
|
|
|
|
I think also the campaign should be left alone as well, just get rid of the spammers and close shop for people wanting to join.
|
|
|
|
|
Israel's capabilities implies that hitting the school if it was hit by Israel was either a case of gross negligence, or was done with the full knowledge of the IDF. Israel isn't using Qassam rockets here (their inaccuracy is one of the reason why the use of Qassam rockets is a war crime), Israel is perfectly capable of aiming.
|
|
|
|
According to UN figures, around 900 of the fatalities are men.
I'll leave you to decide if they were "mostly civilians" as is claimed.
Consider three things:
1) Hamas put out an instructional video telling palestinians that every death should be described as a "civilian casualty"
2) Hamas controls everything in Gaza including the Health Ministry
3) Hamas 'clears' their dead from scenes.
After Cast Lead in 2009, they claimed 46 dead.
It was only about 6 months later that they owned up to 600-700 dead. They had lied to the media and the UN.
It is more subjective, but in your scenario hitting the hospital is an accident. Israel has the coordinates of all such facilities (and UN schools, etc) specifically to avoid them being hit by their weapons. Israel is also perfectly capable of using precision targeting, which is why it gets a lot of flack for utilizing weapons that don't discriminate in urban settings (like cluster munitions and flechettes, or for indiscriminate shelling in said areas, like what happened in Shujayea). |
|
|
|
|
In this case, the evidence would have to be reviewed, but even the presence of a weapons cache wouldn't make a UN school full of refugees a legitimate military target. The military value of the target relative to the risk to civilian life isn't justifiable from a legal standpoint. It is a little more subjective than other violations such as settlement expansion, but it can only really be pushed so far before it becomes a rather blatant violation.
|
|
|
|
In short: deliberately killing innocent civilians, even if they are being used as human shields, may very well still be a war crime if the military threat does not outweigh the threat to said human shields. which seems like an enormous grey area. this doesn't really seem all that well defined, especially in the cases relevant to this conflict. thats what courts are there for, i suppose. This is actually where the term proportional force comes into play. Do doubt that you have probably heard it thrown around (or disproportional use of force). These issues would fall under that category. If a gunman runs into a hospital full of innocent people and starts shooting a pistol at you is it appropriate to call in an airstrike and destroy the hospital? If the JEM start attacking government convoys in Darfur, is it appropriate to drop barrel bombs on Fur towns? Etc. |
|
|
|
It's all horrific and total bullshit at the same time. The crisis will only end when the Jews are dead or forcibly removed from Israel. Creation of a Palestine state won't end persecution of the Jews nor stop attacks on Israel. Bowing to Hamas and stopping the blockade will do nothing but allow Hamas to build up their arsenal for bigger attacks.
Rinse, repeat.
Hamas' use of war crimes does not justify Israel's use of war crimes. You don't have anything to support such claims. In order to compete in the last elections Hamas had to drop its call for the destruction of Israel and campaign on a two state solution. Plus, as we see in the West Bank, The Palestinian Authority can control violence and has. There is a reason why you don't see widescale rocket attacks coming out of the West Bank. Never made the claim. For the rest I really don't care any more. This will go on until Hamas has been thinned out and need to regroup and a truce will go on for a while until they decide to start back up again after they have had some more rockets snuck in. Attacks will continue regardless. Israel will continue to do their thing as well. Or Israel could actually be a partner for peace and live up to their peace plan promises and thus marginalize Hamas politically to the point of making them irrelevant. But that will never happen since Netanyahu isn't interested in a two state solution at all and never has been. |
|
|
|
It's all horrific and total bullshit at the same time. The crisis will only end when the Jews are dead or forcibly removed from Israel. Creation of a Palestine state won't end persecution of the Jews nor stop attacks on Israel. Bowing to Hamas and stopping the blockade will do nothing but allow Hamas to build up their arsenal for bigger attacks.
Rinse, repeat.
Hamas' use of war crimes does not justify Israel's use of war crimes. You don't have anything to support such claims. In order to compete in the last elections Hamas had to drop its call for the destruction of Israel and campaign on a two state solution. Plus, as we see in the West Bank, The Palestinian Authority can control violence and has. There is a reason why you don't see widescale rocket attacks coming out of the West Bank. |
|
|
|
It only took a US invasion to do it, but hey, clear failure, right? As someone who is supposed to be all about the outcome, I would assume that death would be nothing but a failure. Your example failed to maintain his position, thus he failed. It's under control. Yes. There are terror threats which emerge from it to impact Russia, but beyond that, it's pretty much been crushed. Weekly violence is hardly "under control". |
|
|
|
Yes. Libya was stopped by France and Sudan by the USA. Not the best of examples since Sudan is also conventionally weak compared to the Israelis. 1.) Libya wasn't stopped by France, France held them off for a while but they were fine to let him have northern Chad and to have western Darfur. France was fairly cozy with Gaddafi, they wanted his oil. 2.) The US didn't stop anything in Sudan. In fact, Sudan remains one of the largest active conflict zones in the world, and Bashir's policies haven't helped him come out on top. 3.) It's interesting how you seem to think that when foreign intervention is involved then the examples shouldn't count. Unfortunately for you and your theories, that's not the way that the world works. |
|
|
|
Russia in Chechnya was able to use thermobaric bombs on civilian targets, shoot civilians into mass graves, and use home demolitions without any serious international repercussions. And the Caucasus remain unstable to this day, and likewise the russian government is nowhere near able to exert as much influence in the region as the Untied States government is able to exert on every part of its country. Saddam gassed the Kurds without any serious reactions either, so you don't necessarily need a nuclear arsenal to stop international repercussions. You're forgetting that we used the gassing of the Kurds as justification to damage his regime from afar and then used it in part to drum up support to kill him (which we did). Once again, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where there are no internal or external reactions to mass abuses. |
|
|
|
So is Hamas too incompetent to stop the rockets, or does it just not care? Is Russia too incompetent to prevent a thousand Chechens from streaming into Syria to wage Jihad or does it just not care? Should we blame Russia for the activities of Chechens in Ukraine too? The Rwandans also have nowhere near enough power to really control the Congo in the same way the Israelis could deal with Gaza. To the same extent as Israel in Gaza? No, but they had a large professional and well experienced army. The Assad administration is winning, and was essentially forced to use those tactics anyway since he had no realistic alternative except surrender. Interesting how you had to ignore the Sudan and Iraq examples. |
|
|
|
We did? The only collective punishment I can recall in the Congo was Mobutu's alliance with the Hutu groups, along with stoking inter-ethnic conflict against the Banyamulenge Tutsis as a play to preserve his power. That backfired horribly when the Banyamulenge aligned with Rwanda and formed the basis of the force that tossed Mobutu out. In any case, it's a really bad example since a lot of the "collective punishment" in the Eastern Congo is just random violence by militias. Then you don't remember the DR Congo conflict very well. All sides engaged in such tactics, including the professional armies of Mobutu himself, and the armies of Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi, along with their direct proxies, and I can assure you that a lot of the violence from them wasn't simply "random violence" but was very targeted along ethnic lines. |
|
|
|
2) I'm aware of that. However, the only question of importance is how to engineer the outcome you want. If the Qassam brigades shoot rockets, or other non-state actors commit acts of terrorism, it's best to throw proportionality out the window and escalate violence to a level they can't match. State actors will have that advantage against non-state ones, and really ought to take advantage of it. I highly doubt that the outcome a state wants is reflected in global isolation or in a failed state status. 3) The idea is more to deter civilians and punish them for not taking action against the terrorists operating amongst them. I'm completely aware of the fact that it's not consistent with international law, but think that's secondary to defeating this kind of radicalism. So then you believe that you should be targeted then? Afterall if you are in Moscow then you live in a country where you allow terrorist groups to exist and carry out attacks. So you must be supporting them right? |
|
|
|
It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population. Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them. There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory. You're contradicting yourself here, Salafists tend to hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Claiming that the Gazan population loves both the Salafists and Hamas doesn't make any sense. It's also dumb to assume that just because a group operates within a territory that 1.) the government likes them and 2.) that the population likes them. I'm pretty sure that the people who suffer from Mayi Mayi attacks in the DRC don't do so with smiles. Nor does it make sense to bomb government forces that are aligned against them if your goal is to see them destroyed. It's pretty dumb to bomb Kinshasa and kill their soldiers while asking them why they aren't able to kill off the M23 rebels. Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them. Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene. In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them. If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians. Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them. Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine. 1.) You're still contradicting yourself when it comes to then notion of dual Palestinian support for both Hamas and Salafi organizations. The two are diametrically opposed to and hate one another. Suggesting that everyone in Gaza supports both is silly because that's not the kind of relationship that the Brotherhood has with Salafis. They don't even have the same goals; Salafis are against the idea of a Palestinian state and don't support working through government mechanisms in Gaza, so claiming that they support Hamas: a political governmental organization aiming to establish a Palestinian state, is more than a bit off. 2.) The notion of collective responsibility is the same exact justification that the Al Qassam brigade uses to justify launching rockets at Israeli civilians. Congratulations, you're a supporter of terrorism. 3.) The concept of collective responsibility in Gaza doesn't even make any sense seeing as how it ignores the fact that Hamas doesn't rule there with the direct consent of the people. They weren't elected overlords of Gaza and there was no referendum on rocket attacks. They seized Gaza by force after the civil conflict with Fatah. Even outside of this, the notion of collective responsibility and thus the oking of collective punishment is not recognized as valid or legal under either international law, or Israeli law. 1) So where do these Salafists derive support from? Mars? They use civilians as human shields and derive support, or at least acquiescence, of the civilian poulation. Why not hold the civilians responsible for failing to take action against them?
2) I'm aware of that. However, the only question of importance is how to engineer the outcome you want. If the Qassam brigades shoot rockets, or other non-state actors commit acts of terrorism, it's best to throw proportionality out the window and escalate violence to a level they can't match. State actors will have that advantage against non-state ones, and really ought to take advantage of it. 3) The idea is more to deter civilians and punish them for not taking action against the terrorists operating amongst them. I'm completely aware of the fact that it's not consistent with international law, but think that's secondary to defeating this kind of radicalism. They derive support from small cells and specific families. Trying to tie them directly to the rest of the population and then justify targeting said civilian population because of ethnic ties is dumb. It would be like saying that Syria should bomb all ethnic Russian civilians (or that the Russian government should) simply because there are ethnic Russians that engage in terrorist attacks in Russia and who are fighting jihad in Syria. |
|
|
|
Hamas intent is to ensure there is plenty of "innocent" people killed as a means to "win" by taking away their capabilities due to the international community being up in arms over the pictures coming across. Which is also a war crime, but does not diminish the responsibilities and legal obligations that Israel has under international law. We do, the difference is that there aren't a lot of people trying to suggest that Hamas isn't engaging in war crimes, whereas people like you seem fairly willing and indeed eager to dismiss illegal actions engaged in by Israel. |
|
|
|
Has war officially been claimed here? If not then I don't know how it could be deemed a war crime. Even of war was called it would be difficult.
War crimes don't require official declarations of war, they require conflict. In any case Israel has always had responsibilities with regards to Gaza under the Fourth Geneva Conventions. interesting Is this going to be another case of "guilt due to outcome" against Israel regardless of why? There have been at least 2 other school related incidents over the last few years where Hamas fired mortars from inside or near a school which resulted in return fire and kids/etc hurt. This seems to be quite a common occurrence from a leadership who hides beneath a hospital. War crimes are war crimes regardless (to some extent) of the motivation behind them. Israel has a responsibility to minimize civilian casualties, bombing a school full of civilians doesn't do that. As far as your comment on motar fire from them: 1.) The burden of proof for that is on Israel and if you are defending the action: on you. So prove that each case involved Hamas fire from that location. 2.) Even if you can (which you can't and third party testimonies in several of these cases have indicated limited to no militant activity in the area), it could still very well be a violation of the rules of war (thus a war crime) as the perceived military payoff in military strikes has to outweigh the threat to civilian life (the threat to civilian lives in these cases being extremely high), and there is little reason to believe that such would be the case in these scenarios. Mortar fire (especially the kind we see here) generally doesn't represent just cause for the deliberate killing of civilian human shields. Responding to live-round fire is not what I would call a war crime simply because innocents were injured. Israel has gone WAY out of their way to drop leaflets and everything else as a means to lower civilian injury. Hamas intent is to ensure there is plenty of "innocent" people killed as a means to "win" by taking away their capabilities due to the international community being up in arms over the pictures coming across. Then you'd be wrong legally speaking. It absolutely can be, it depends on what the response is. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the shelling of the schools constitutes a war crime. Or whether or not the use of flechettes or cluster munitions in urban settings does, or whether or not the targeting of civilian infrastructure like the water reservoirs and the power plant does. In short: that is a poor foundation from which to claim innocence. |
|
|
|
|
That's fine, I just can't respect them for it, and it's still a douchebag move.
I don't really doubt it. Working with congress has rather jaded me when it comes to some of their capabilities. I've come to realize that a lot of them honestly have no idea what they're talking about in the area of foreign affairs. McCain didn't even used to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and that was while he was running for president (just as an example).
|
|
|
|
As far as him having a flawed understanding, I doubt that very much. But he's saying what is politically expedient, just like every other politician, because that is the sole path to success in a country that has been steadily getting mre partisan over the last maybe 20 years. Every single day.
Indeed, I mention them here and there, and they were more widely discussed several years ago during the Ron Paul craze, but like I said, I mostly only talk about foreign affairs on here now. On international forums I'm often considered to be a staunch conservative. (which makes sense given the different bases that countries operate with) |
|
|
|
I don't see this as a conservative/liberal issue. It tends to be within international affairs. Neo-colonialism outcry is all the rage, and in many cases I find it to be something resulting from a headless heart style syndrome, rather than based on realities of economic interactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
