|
Yes. I do realize that Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom are different operations at different times, yet quite similar in their heavy-handedness and use of huge caches of bombs, the destruction of infrastructure, etc.
And lack of war crimes.
Do not forget that part.I have a copy of Clark's book The Fire This Time.
Can you get your money back?
Oh:
Let us try and keep track of who violated the ceasefire first this time.
M'kay?
|
That's piffle, and avoiding the issue. The issue isn't about who is right and who is wrong, but finding a solution to the problems and an acceptable, and doubtless painful, compromise for both sides. As long as one side is saying "I am right" or "I am righter than you" that makes it very difficult.This issue is indeed not about who is right.
It is most definitely about who is wrong.
When dealing with terrorism it is not a civil case but a criminal case.In the UK we had a peace process with the IRA, and it sticks in the throat to see former terrorists and murderers strutting about as peaceful politicians and pretending they have no blood on their hands. But then again, the British army did some questionable things in Northern Ireland. Who is more right? The issue is largely irrelevant. The issue was about getting to a peaceful, democratic solution in Northern ireland, and it looks like we have done it.So because the British army did questionable things IRA terrorists must be forgiven?
While "forgiveness" commissions have becone standard these days they inevitably fall short because of that.Israel resolutely refuses to deal with the Palestinian problem - it wants to build a wall to hedge them out,No, it wants to build a wall to restrict the movement of suicide bombers.
And despite frenzied denunciations, those walls have worked.
I suppose it could be argued they have worked too well, as that is why Hamas and other terrorist groups have turned to rocket attacks. That does not make it rational to abandon the walls.belligerant settlers occupy the West Bank in ever growing numbers,And belligerent terrorists occupy Gaza in ever growning numbers.
Since you favor equivalency and all that, shall they be expelled too?and bombing the hell out of Hamas is a short-term expediency....
Sam, you really don't get it at all, do you? What exactly would your attitude achieve? What the hell has it achieved? Yeah, there is tit for tat down the ages, and who titted or tatted first seems to be really important to you. It is irrelevant. Would you consider it more morally pure if the IRA was still waging a war in the UK, just so we can say "You are wrong and I am right"? Personally, peace is preferable. You obviously don't care - which is interesting, since that is the charge you levelled at Floppy at the beginning.
|
|
Sam, you really don't get it at all, do you? What exactly would your attitude achieve? What the hell has it achieved? Yeah, there is tit for tat down the ages, and who titted or tatted first seems to be really important to you. It is irrelevant. Would you consider it more morally pure if the IRA was still waging a war in the UK, just so we can say "You are wrong and I am right"? Personally, peace is preferable. You obviously don't care - which is interesting, since that is the charge you levelled at Floppy at the beginning.
Peace is preferable.
Your resolution promises no peace.What has it achieved?
France is a single country.
Italy is a single country.
Germany is a single country.
England is a single country.
Canada is a single country.
A whole lot of countries are single countries.
Victory actually achieves, you know, victory.
If who transgressed first really does not matter to you, why are you making it an issue?
And of course there is the question of the degree of transgression, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Does it really not matter to you if neighborhood gentrification is met with genocide? Are you really unable to distinguish between those two?
|
... I'm dropping this thread because too many people are more interested in finding ways to interput any comment anyone makes as a personal insult rather than trying to find solutions or understanding.I think I'm right behind you David.
Exits stage Left
Me three. Peace out!
Now where did that hippie chick go, she said she had shrooms...
Now where did that hippie chick go, she said she had shrooms...
Shrooms are great. I love apples. What was I saying....
...whatever (to the whole thread).
I am amazed how much restraint Israel has shown towards Iran considering Iran's ongoing efforts to escalate this. One of these days the whole thing is going to pop.
As for how I define war crimes, that is according to the Geneva Convention.
I am still trying to understand how you are claiming that the United States has not committed war crimes in Iraq and Israel has not committed war crimes with its recent assault on Gaza. It seems to me that the Geneva Conventions would apply to these excesses. I'm sure that you and I differ in our interpretations of these conventions. What you must begin to realize is that you do not have a monopoly on truth; you may certainly interpret the conventions however you will, but they are unfortunately, like any legal document, open to many different interpretations. I will be spending some time reading the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
It would seem that there is much confusion in the correct application of the international laws, Sam, and I am fairly certain that you do not have a monopoly on truth. This article in particular, which treats both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict as likely violators of international law, may be of particular interest to anyone still following this thread.
|
|
I am still trying to understand how you are claiming that the United States has not committed war crimes in Iraq and Israel has not committed war crimes with its recent assault on Gaza. It seems to me that the Geneva Conventions would apply to these excesses. I'm sure that you and I differ in our interpretations of these conventions.
Have you read the applicable sections of the Geneva Conventions?
If you have not, then on what basis can you say, with any credibility of an informed opinion, that violations have occurred?What you must begin to realize is that you do not have a monopoly on truth; you may certainly interpret the conventions however you will, but they are unfortunately, like any legal document, open to many different interpretations.
And what you must begin to realize is that not only does the same apply to you, but that there may, in fact, be full legal opinions (which are different than internet opinions) that absolutely contradict you.
The opinion of Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, regarding war crimes in Iraq as a result of the 2003 war are in this pdf.
"For the above reasons, in accordance with Article 15(6) of the Rome Statute, I wish to inform you of my conclusion that, at this stage, the Statute requirements to seek authorization to initiate an investigation in the situation in Iraq have not been satisfied."
And since I know you will want to ignore that and obsess over this:
"After analyzing all the available information, it was concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed, namely wilful killing and inhuman treatment. The information available at this time supports a reasonable basis for an estimated 4 to 12 victims of wilful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment, totaling in all less than 20 persons."
So maybe, at most, 32 individuals were willfully killed or abused.
Note, that is both "maybe" that many, and "maybe" those were crimes. That specifies only that sufficient information is available that the actions would be within the jurisdiction of the court, not that they are proven or guilt established, two critical issues in jurisprudence.
I will be spending some time reading the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
So then you have not read it yet, but you are still confidentally telling me I am wrong.
It would seem that there is much confusion in the correct application of the international laws, Sam, and I am fairly certain that you do not have a monopoly on truth. This article in particular, which treats both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict as likely violators of international law, may be of particular interest to anyone still following this thread.
Actually, that article suggest Israeli violations in only one area that you have so far yet to cite, questioning the specific law applicable in another area, either of which agrees with my assertions that Israel has committed no crime, and otherwise agreeing with everything I have said. Perhaps you did not notice that.
The one area where there could exist a theoretically legitimate issue is in the definition of who is a legitimate target. This rests on the question what constitutes taking an "active part" in the hostilities as per Article 3. What is overlooked here is the exception to that specified in Article 5. (That Article 5 also means there is nothing illegal about the detentions at Guantanomo Bay I will leave for another time.) It also requires identification of who exactly is a combatant. This is only really defined in Article 43 of Additional Protocol I, but theoretical definitions also exist in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention in determining who is entitled to POW status. It should be noted that under Article, members of "organized resistance movements" are included, which would mean everyone in Hamas, who claims status under that provision.
Of course all of that hinges on significant questions as to whether or not this is an international or a non-international conflict. That article notes this, but it glosses over some critical issues of distinctions. The most important is that if we assume that Gaza cannot be a state party as per the conventions, then the conventions cannot apply as they are only in effect between high contracting parties, and neither the Palestinian Authority nor Hamas can accede to the treaties as non-states or non-recognized governments. (The PA has in fact announced its accession, though the ICRC spokesman responsible for overseeing such has announced his incompetence (as in lack of authority, not lack of personal skill) in determining the legality of the declaration.) If we assume that Gaza is a non-international conflict, then in law the territory cannot be occupied as per the Geneva Conventions.
Taken together, and with the rather obvious evidence of the various UN Security Council resolutions, it would be extremely disingenous, not to mention exceptionally dangerous from the precedent it would set, to assert that this is not, in law, a legitimate international conflict between two high contracting powers, regardless of whether Hamas is currently recognized as a legitimate government, or Palestine recognized as an independent state.
Twisted? You bet. However, it does admit to one point of yours; it proves just how bad law written by and for Great Powers can screw small ones.
For the issue of applicable law regarding civilian casualties that happen as a consequence of military action, I refer you to Article 28, which I have noted in the past, as well as Article 29.
So go ahead, read the Geneva Conventions. You actually get to skip the First and Second as they are not applicable to this, and only the one section I noted of the Third really comes into play. The Fourth and the two additional protocols are thick enough. I will note for you to pay particular attention to the statements about high contracting parties, the list of states that have acceded, and the question of how to determine what I noted above about trying to classify just what the status of the whole thing is, and the dangers of not viewing it in what winds up being the most beneficial for Palestine in the long term.
I will also note that yes, I have read them in the past, and yes, I have considered the implications of varying interpretations. When I am confronted by charges I do not understand or have not seen referenced before I make an effort to investigate them directly, rather than just trust whatever assertion a secondary source proclaims.
Actually, that article suggest Israeli violations in only one area that you have so far yet to cite, questioning the specific law applicable in another area, either of which agrees with my assertions that Israel has committed no crime, and otherwise agreeing with everything I have said. Perhaps you did not notice that.
Would you please stop being such a pompous ass?
The very reason I included that article was that it raises issues for both sides of this discussion. As I noted in the bit you quoted from me. Stop being such a dick, dick.
So then you have not read it yet, but you are still confidentally telling me I am wrong.
No, I am not telling you you are "wrong." What I am asking you to do is acknowledge that you do not have a monopoly on truth, and that other people see things differently than you do.
|
|
Sam, you really don't get it at all, do you? What exactly would your attitude achieve? What the hell has it achieved? Yeah, there is tit for tat down the ages, and who titted or tatted first seems to be really important to you. It is irrelevant. Would you consider it more morally pure if the IRA was still waging a war in the UK, just so we can say "You are wrong and I am right"? Personally, peace is preferable. You obviously don't care - which is interesting, since that is the charge you levelled at Floppy at the beginning.Peace is preferable.
Your resolution promises no peace.
What has it achieved?
France is a single country.
Italy is a single country.
Germany is a single country.
England is a single country.
Canada is a single country.
A whole lot of countries are single countries.
Victory actually achieves, you know, victory.If who transgressed first really does not matter to you, why are you making it an issue?
And of course there is the question of the degree of transgression, which you seem unwilling to acknowledge. Does it really not matter to you if neighborhood gentrification is met with genocide? Are you really unable to distinguish between those two?
I haven't even really noticed you offer a resolution, just engage in a lot of finger-pointing. And I'm making an issue of who transgressed firat because it matters to you, and I'm trying to point out that you are probably missing the point. The degree of transgression matters to some extent, but Israel (despite your protestations) is not lily-white in regards to its conduct either (and I suppose I am generalising, by saying "Israel" when I probably mean certain Israeli politicians, but so be it) - is placing explosives in mobile phone actually legal, for example?
Your comments regarding "neighborhood gentrification" v genocide are vaguely offensive - you castigated another poster for wallowing in victimhood yet it seems (to you) that my terrorist war is clearly not as important as yours - obviously the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the only one that matters. I guess the British didn't throw the Catholics out of their houses in Northern Ireland and make them live in refugee camps, of course, which probably helped.
You know, I'm pretty much pro-Israeli, though you are doing a very good job of changing that view. I personally think that Israel is entitled to smack Hamas every now and then, and to disabuse it of its rocket-throwing habit and tactics of involving civilians. Military force should be overwhelming, and utterly ruthless in achieving its aims, otherwise you run the risk of not achieving your objectives, prolnging conflict and causing more casualties. Israel is also the only real democracy in the region, surrounded by dictatorships, absolute rule by royal families, and sham democracies. The arab media happily engage in twisting what goes on, to encourage a feeling a victimhood against the US and Israel to deflect the "Arab Street" from focussing on its situation at home, and inadequacies of their own rulers. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has uttely failed the people who voted for it and that wants to eliminate a democratic state on religious grounds.
None of the above blinds me to the fact that the Palestinians have a genuine grievance. I don't suggest a Return (totally impractical after 60 years) though compensation might be an idea. Also, none of that changes the fact that once the conflict stops (which it seems to have done) the situation on the ground will not have changed much. If the conflict is a wake-up call to Hamas to get serious and sensible, and to try and govern Gaza (which involves getting on with its neighbours - i.e. Israel) instead of acting like a guerilla army, then it will have been worth it. But that probably will require political will on the part of the Israeli government to respond.
And it is funny how the Kadima/Labour coaltition suddenly decided to go to war a couple of months before an election against a resurgent Likud party, led by a very hawkish leader with a strong security agenda. Did someone mention politics?
Love is a many-splendored thing!
Love is a many-splendored thing!
Let's do it, baby.
Love is a many-splendored thing!Let's do it, baby.
Oh you dirty man! What kind of girl do you take me for?
|
|
I haven't even really noticed you offer a resolution, just engage in a lot of finger-pointing.
You mean I have responded in kind to the posts challenging the legitimacy of Israel?
Yes I have.And I'm making an issue of who transgressed firat because it matters to you,
You mean I have responded in kind to posts presenting false and misleading history?
Yes I have.and I'm trying to point out that you are probably missing the point.
No, I got the point of those posts quite well.
An honest inquiry is irrelevant, ideological supremacy derived from delegitimization is paramount.The degree of transgression matters to some extent, but Israel (despite your protestations) is not lily-white in regards to its conduct either (and I suppose I am generalising, by saying "Israel" when I probably mean certain Israeli politicians, but so be it) - is placing explosives in mobile phone actually legal, for example?
In fact, it is.
And if it is, then the charge that Israel is not lily-white, despite your protestation, is false.I know you will continue to miss this point, but the fact is that unless you present a legitimate charge the characterization of being culpable of "something" "also" is not legitimate.
Your comments regarding "neighborhood gentrification" v genocide are vaguely offensive - you castigated another poster for wallowing in victimhood yet it seems (to you) that my terrorist war is clearly not as important as yours - obviously the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the only one that matters. I guess the British didn't throw the Catholics out of their houses in Northern Ireland and make them live in refugee camps, of course, which probably helped.
Yet again, I am responding in kind.
As for what is offensive, that would be the charge that the simple act of zionist settlement in the region during the time it was under Ottoman rule constitutes a de facto and default crime against humanity through "forcible" population transfer.Once you accept that charge without dissent you can deal with my counter-parsing that it is creating a moral equivalency of gentrification with the genocide advocated by Hamas.
Further, since it escaped your notice, Israel has not made the Palestinians live in refugee camps. That has been the Arab states, who refused to allow them to integrate, the UN, who seems incompetent to build actual housing, and even the Palestinian Authority, that has mystically been unable to manage a simple building program this past decade. So once again you are relying on a lie to support a position.
None of the above blinds me to the fact that the Palestinians have a genuine grievance. I don't suggest a Return (totally impractical after 60 years) though compensation might be an idea.
Then you might want to take a moment to stop and realize that, as I noted, the Arab League proposal touted by others as "fair" has that as a core element. If you wish to indict me for not condemning Israel for accepting it without hesitation then you must indict yourself as well.
Or you could hold those who suggested it responsible for engaging in yet another deceit, your choice.And it is funny how the Kadima/Labour coaltition suddenly decided to go to war a couple of months before an election against a resurgent Likud party, led by a very hawkish leader with a strong security agenda. Did someone mention politics?
You did not know?
Everyone in Israel does.Only a hawk can make peace.
Rabin was the notorious bone-breaker who crushed the First Intifada.
Sharon was the "criminal" responsible for incidents in Lebanon.
Olmert is Sharon's protege.
The whole existence of the Kadima Party is based on the combination of eagerness to negotiate with a fallback to aggressive defense if sincere negotiation is rejected.
Amazingly it has worked.
Not so amazingly the UN hates it.
This thread is done. I'm tired of cleaning up flags from it. This is EXACTLY why many boards ban political and religious discussions--because it's rare that people can stay civil when discussing them. We EXPECT people to stay civil on our boards.