WAR! What is it good for?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Citizen Kane. said:
Like it or hate it, international law itself is totally fine with the ratio of civilian casualties. I've explained that very clearly above. If you are angered by that, I suggest you take it up at the Hague.

A governing force has a far greater duty to protect its civilian population than an occupying force. Hamas neglected to do this for 18 years and then signed a death warrant for its own people on Oct 7th.

An occupying force's first duty by international law (once Causa Belli is deemed justified) is to win. Its second duty is to protect as many of its assets as possible while winning. Its third duty is that, the course of winning, it must demonstrate that it did so without willfully exceeding international limitations on civilian casualties.

Only Spurs have a knack of turning victory into defeat. I have no interest in watching Israel do the same because it prioritises the protection of civilians over the defeat of its enemies.

In a sentence, you're a top bloke but your opinions are not based on knowledge or application of international law, and when said law is presented to you very plainly you ignore it if it doesn't fit within your viewpoint, which is understandably based on emotion and instinct. And I don't mean that in a spiteful way. It usually shows that a person is sensitive, caring and compassionate, which you probably are.

Sadly none of those qualities are of any use in war.
Click to expand...

You can drop the patronising nonsense mate.

It is an ILLEGAL occupation
 
Citizen Kane. said:
Like it or hate it, international law itself is totally fine with the ratio of civilian casualties. I've explained that very clearly above. If you are angered by that, I suggest you take it up at the Hague.

A governing force has a far greater duty to protect its civilian population than an occupying force. Hamas neglected to do this for 18 years and then signed a death warrant for its own people on Oct 7th.

An occupying force's first duty by international law (once Causa Belli is deemed justified) is to win. Its second duty is to protect as many of its assets as possible while winning. Its third duty is that, the course of winning, it must demonstrate that it did so without willfully exceeding international limitations on civilian casualties.

Only Spurs have a knack of turning victory into defeat. I have no interest in watching Israel do the same because it prioritises the protection of civilians over the defeat of its enemies.

In a sentence, you're a top bloke but your opinions are not based on knowledge or application of international law, and when said law is presented to you very plainly you ignore it if it doesn't fit within your viewpoint, which is understandably based on emotion and instinct. And I don't mean that in a spiteful way. It usually shows that a person is sensitive, caring and compassionate, which you probably are.

Sadly none of those qualities are of any use in war.
Click to expand...

**** International Law, surely others don’t define your lines in life?

are you fine with it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diego
Spurlock said:
could have but they are too smart to be that rash, it’s a bad look for the watching world…it’s the long game that is being played here.

You see me bro, I don’t do politics, I don’t take sides. I understand or try to understand human behaviour. I know the faiths in question and their century old thought patterns. For me, Hamas do not represent my faith, the innocent people do though and innocent people are on both sides…it’s the only approach I can have or am willing to have to this issue.

I truly believe within the hearts and minds of the Isreali leaders, they wish to get rid of everyone of the current and tomorrows generation and Hamas just want the victory because ultimately you and I know that both parties are holding onto some warped version of their religious scriptures. The political dancing is just a show for the modern world to digest….. that has to be maintained without making it obvious that the Isrealis are indeed ****s just as much as Hamas.

ive seen footage of IDF smashing kids elbows with bricks to break them…that’s not war that’s personal inbred hatred…just like Hamas kidnapping and possibly raping. This is no honourable war so i don’t get caught up with numbers, percentages and such like as seen through the eyes of the suited and booted…I can only find common ground with the everyday people who as usual are the ones that suffer the most.

As you will know from my comments on our team whenever we discuss them being mega **** , i always approach evaluating a situation through psychology of the mind, the mindset and the bullshit in it because ultimately every good and bad deed starts in the head.
Click to expand...

Was the breaking bones video a recent one?

I've read the said breaking bones policy under the first Intifada from 1987... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intifada
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
Spurlock said:
quite old…I saw it on Dispatches on channel 4 quite a while back tbh
Click to expand...

Yeah it might be referring to this, if you want to go staright to it, go to the paragraph that starts: On February 26, 1988, 17-year-old Wael Joudeh and his cousin Osamah were returning home from grazing their sheep...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/10/stories-from-the-first-intifada-they-broke-my-bones

I did see another article which had imbedded videos which are all deleted now as the user deleted their account, not that I wanted to see them, just wondered if they were still active. I didn't know about the Channel 4 documentary.


* the above link is dated 2017 so not to cause confusion and is referring to past events.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
Spurlock said:
**** International Law, surely others don’t define your lines in life?

are you fine with it?
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about it tbh.

Having read the entire legalese on Proportionality in Combat under IHL many times, all I can say is I'm glad it's not me making decisions that carry the heavy burden of life and death, and then applying them to impossibly complex and fast-moving circumstances.

There needs to be lines drawn somewhere and by someone, unless you'd prefer we go back to the WW2 and earlier era of dropping nukes on cities with zero military significance, all in the name of the 'war effort'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock
brb said:
Yeah it might be referring to this, if you want to go staright to it, go to the paragraph that starts: On February 26, 1988, 17-year-old Wael Joudeh and his cousin Osamah were returning home from grazing their sheep...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/10/stories-from-the-first-intifada-they-broke-my-bones

I did see another article which had imbedded videos which are all deleted now as the user deleted their account, not that I wanted to see them, just wondered if they were still active. I didn't know about the Channel 4 documentary.
Click to expand...

That’s the one bro

or very very similar

was an account by a couple of kids

break their elbows so they can’t ever hold a weapon

simplistic thinking

affective though but not rocket science

That is what they call planning for the future

scumbags
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
PISKIE said:
You can drop the patronising nonsense mate.

It is an ILLEGAL occupation
Click to expand...

Correct. Under international law, the occupation is illegal.

But also under international law, the ratio of civilian casualties in the current conflict is well within bounds.

You cannot pick and choose when to cite international law and when not to, it is infuriating and totally counter-productive to a fair debate.
 
Citizen Kane. said:
Please find them and re-post.

That is a very, very serious allegation and if proven, there are people in Israel I will raise it directly with.

Utterly unacceptable if true.
Click to expand...

IDF soldier brags about killing a 12 year old girl
https://www.instagram.com/yenisafakenglish/reel/C1ZDaD7L8Z3/

Children targeted by IDF snipers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war

12 year old boy shot dead for playing with a firework. Israeli minister praises the soldier as a 'Hero'
You must log in or register to see media

IDF soldiers admitting that it is permissible to 'shoot everybody'
https://www.commondreams.org/news/israeli-soldiers-gaza

Israeli forces routinely targeted Palestinian children with live ammunition and aerial attacks, prevented ambulances and paramedics from reaching wounded children, and confiscated children’s bodies in violation of international law.
https://www.dci-palestine.org/targe...Palestinian,in violation of international law.

12 year old boy shot dead by IDF and Israel's national security minister Ben Gvir praises the killing
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/ben-gvir-salutes-israeli-soldier-who-shot-dead-palestinian-child

There are dozens more examples if you want to search for them
 
Citizen Kane. said:
Correct. Under international law, the occupation is illegal.

But also under international law, the ratio of civilian casualties in the current conflict is well within bounds.

You cannot pick and choose when to cite international law and when not to, it is infuriating and totally counter-productive to a fair debate.
Click to expand...

Under international law, Israel shouldn't even be in Palestine, so the whole ratio equation is moot.
 
Citizen Kane. said:
This theory doesn't stand up against the facts.

Yes, there has been widespread destruction.

Yes, unacceptable numbers of innocent civilians have died, including many women and children.

But the civilian:combatant ratio is still hovering around 2:1, which is far too low to achieve the "goal" you've described.

Ordering civilians to evacuate future combat zones is also counter-productive to the "goal" you've described.

Israel could have annihilated the entire above-ground population of Gaza within a week of Oct 7th if it wanted to. The fact that it didn't, suggests that it had a different goal in mind to "wiping out the next generation as much as possible".

A year on, 98.6% of that next generation is still alive.
Click to expand...

Mate, with all due respect, one child killed is one child too many ... I don't give a flying about ratios ... that' bollocks ...

I for one will never buy that 'in order to defend itself' from what, after all, is nothing more than an armed militia, Israel had to raze Gaza to the ground and render it uninhabitable to human existence ... that's ethic cleansing, ... not misguided trigonometry!! <doh>
 
FosseFilberto said:
Mate, with all due respect, one child killed is one child too many ... I don't give a flying about ratios ... that' bollocks ...

I for one will never buy that 'in order to defend itself' from what, after all, is nothing more than an armed militia, Israel had to raze Gaza to the ground and render it uninhabitable to human existence ... that's ethic cleansing, ... not misguided trigonometry!! <doh>
Click to expand...

98.6% of the population is still alive after more than a year.

Pretty shoddy "ethnic cleansing".

Maybe Israel should hire Assad to teach them how to do it properly and in a way that the rest of the world doesn't give a ****.
 
PISKIE said:
Anyway, it's my birthday today. I'm done with trying to explain how soldiers targeting children is ****ing wrong on every level and being given some cold ratio statistics in return.

It's ****ed up

Good day to you all.
Click to expand...

That's ok bro.

Fosse's just got himself up and dressed, he'll take it from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back