Some bickering and baiting posts going round in circles have been removed also replies. Please also see our Community Standards

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

Quote from source:

 

"Hamas and Israel have clashed intermittently over the past two decades, but the attack launched last October 7 by Hamas was unprecedented. International humanitarian law does not prevent Israeli from responding, but it must act proportionally. For this reason, the experts point to the airstrikes on the Al-Shifa hospital and Jabaliya refugee camp, in addition to the forced displacement of Gazans towards the south amid bombings, as possible war crimes."

 

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-11-08/war-crimes-in-gaza-what-do-experts-say-about-israel-and-hamas.html

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

There's no military target as per article 53 of the IV Geneva Convention.

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-53#:~:text=Any destruction by the Occupying,absolutely necessary by military operations.

 

Quote from source :

 

"Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations."

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

All UN, ambassadors, NGO's warned Israel for war crimes and crimes against humanity but they continue this disproportionated bombing campaign on Gaza civilians and pogroms in West Bank. 

 

UN schools, press, medical personnel, etc have been killed. Decimation is not allowed as collective punishment either.

 

Mk 84's JDAM (2.000 Lbs) has a GPS accuracy of +/- 3meters for 90 to 95% of them. ICC investigator can ask any time to receive Israeli military digital data/logs from each effective bombing to target Hamas militants. With this data they need to prove that civilian casualties have been avoided.

 

It's mostly classified as disturbing or deflection if it can backfire as per international laws.

 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

Ok I'll go with every last word. Here goes,

 

1. "Huge lie.

 

opinion

 

2. Dropping bombs on a refugee camp.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/9/we-will-never-be-safe-a-day-of-bombing-in-gazas-jabalia-refugee-camp

 

3. is knowingly, wilingly and deliberately. 

 

Did the Israelis claim it was an accident? They admitted they dropped the bombs. See link above.

 

4. killing civilians.

 

Civilians were killed. see link above.

 

5. The fact that hundreds of civilians were killed

 

Not disputed by anybody. Here is the death toll from Jabalaya alone. Another refugee camp was bombed the following day.

 

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/31/Israeli-airstrikes-on-Jabalia-refugee-camp-in-Gaza-kill-more-than-50-Palestinians

 

6. and that the outcome was entirely predictable makes it deliberate."

 

Not a claim of fact.

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

Ok I'll go with every last word. Here goes,

 

1. "Huge lie.

 

opinion

 

2. Dropping bombs on a refugee camp.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/9/we-will-never-be-safe-a-day-of-bombing-in-gazas-jabalia-refugee-camp

 

3. is knowingly, wilingly and deliberately. 

 

Did the Israelis claim it was an accident? They admitted they dropped the bombs. See link above.

 

4. killing civilians.

 

Civilians were killed. see link above.

 

5. The fact that hundreds of civilians were killed

 

Not disputed by anybody. Here is the death toll from Jabalaya alone. Another refugee camp was bombed the following day.

 

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2023/10/31/Israeli-airstrikes-on-Jabalia-refugee-camp-in-Gaza-kill-more-than-50-Palestinians

 

6. and that the outcome was entirely predictable makes it deliberate."

 

Not a claim of fact.

 

 

Your still claiming without evidence it was a targeted deliberate act to kill all those civilians and the outcome was entirely predictable. There is nothing in your links to back up those claims

 

"Huge lie. Dropping bombs on a refugee camp is knowingly, willingly and deliberately killing civilians. The fact that hundreds of civilians were killed and that the outcome was entirely predictable makes it deliberate."

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your still claiming without evidence it was a targeted deliberate act to kill all those civilians and the outcome was entirely predictable. There is nothing in your links to back up those claims

 

"Huge lie. Dropping bombs on a refugee camp is knowingly, willingly and deliberately killing civilians. The fact that hundreds of civilians were killed and that the outcome was entirely predictable makes it deliberate."

 

It is impossible for me, and I contend any rational and unbiased person, to fathom that the strikes were not deliberate or were not aware that many civilians would necessarily be killed.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

Topic has been going on for a long time and with a whole lot of opportunities to suss out other posters.

There are very good reasons for that yawn.

Read the topic to get a better understanding of the discussion's dynamics.

That may pop away your bubble of feeling righteous and special - everything you've posted so far was already flogged at least twice by now.

 

56 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

I said it was an opinion. Inconceivable that a modern air force with laser guided bombs didn't deliberately target civilians Israel admitted that they did.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

 

Of course they new some civilians may get killed, but also as with the rules of war, its the proportionality as to how many, we don't know how many terrorists were also killed.

57 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Topic has been going on for a long time and with a whole lot of opportunities to suss out other posters.

There are very good reasons for that yawn.

Read the topic to get a better understanding of the discussion's dynamics.

Everything you've posted so far was already flogged at least twice by now.

 

 

I'm challenging the notion that they have posted credible links to evidence at any time.

 

55 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

 

Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

 

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/

56 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

 

Collateral damage is an accepted consequence of warfare. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) permits soldiers to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed, provided the attack is consistent with the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

 

https://lieber.westpoint.edu/collateral-damage-innocent-bystanders-war/

 

 

Look up the definition of collateral damage. Without checking I think you'll find that it requires a high degree of unintentionality.

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Look up the definition of collateral damage. Without checking I think you'll find that it requires a high degree of unintentionality.

No need. "to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed"

54 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

No need. "to carry out attacks against military objectives with the knowledge that civilians will be killed"

 

 

Collateral damage does not include civilian casualties caused by military operations that are intended to terrorize or kill enemy civilians

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

 

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 

I look at it on a human level. Killing kids is tragic. If anyone thinks that pointing to some clause in some law has the answers; I say nonsense.

 

Killing unarmed civilians is wrong. And to do it deliberately is double wrong.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

I can't count the number of times you have accused posters of cherry picking from links

 

Collateral damage does not include civilian casualties caused by military operations that are intended to terrorize or kill enemy civilians

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damage

I don't need to go to wiki, read the law from the link I posted:

 

The rules of LOAC provide some protections for civilians, but civilians can lawfully be killed in war. The LOAC principle of distinction prohibits attacks directed against civilians, meaning it is unlawful to intentionally target civilians. Civilians, however, may be incidentally harmed or killed in attacks directed at military objectives. The LOAC principle of proportionality only prohibits attacks against military objectives if the attack is expected to cause incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Thus, the principle of proportionality implicitly authorizes the knowing or foreseeable (but not intentional) killing of civilians in certain circumstances. Indeed, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths has increased over the past century, particularly with the advent of aerial warfare, the development of more destructive weapons, and the urbanization of societies.

52 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

 I look at it on a human level. Killing kids is tragic. If anyone thinks that pointing to some clause in some law has the answers; I say nonsense.

 

Killing unarmed civilians is wrong. And to do it deliberately is double wrong.

 

In this case I'd prefer that conciseness was the better path forward.

53 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I don't need to go to wiki, read the law from the link I posted:

 

The rules of LOAC provide some protections for civilians, but civilians can lawfully be killed in war. The LOAC principle of distinction prohibits attacks directed against civilians, meaning it is unlawful to intentionally target civilians. Civilians, however, may be incidentally harmed or killed in attacks directed at military objectives. The LOAC principle of proportionality only prohibits attacks against military objectives if the attack is expected to cause incidental harm to civilians or civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Thus, the principle of proportionality implicitly authorizes the knowing or foreseeable (but not intentional) killing of civilians in certain circumstances. Indeed, the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths has increased over the past century, particularly with the advent of aerial warfare, the development of more destructive weapons, and the urbanization of societies.

 

The quote supports my contention that this is NOT a case fo collateral damage. Did Jabalaya not fit the definition of excessive?

59 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

The context is that I posted an AP link that disputed that evidence had ever been provided. I rather believe them

 

I was making a general comment on the way you roll. You expect issues to be rehashed that have been discussed for days and weeks now.

Expecting people will provide you with answers, go back looking for supporting pieces of information and so on is just you trolling.

 

Not a Pierce Morgan fan, but the guy he interviewed is a right tool:

 

 

56 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I was making a general comment on the way you roll. You expect issues to be rehashed that have been discussed for days and weeks now.

Expecting people will provide you with answers, go back looking for supporting pieces of information and so on is just you trolling.

 

 

I dispute that there was any conclusion that disavows that Israel has committed gross war crimes and can fairly be described as ... war criminals. Even the US is powerless to stop them. Such is the intransigence of religious zealotry and racism.

56 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I dispute that there was any conclusion that disavows that Israel has committed gross war crimes and can fairly be described as ... war criminals. Even the US is powerless to stop them. Such is the intransigence of religious zealotry and racism.

 

I dispute that there was any conclusion that disavows that Israel has committed gross war crimes and can fairly be described as ... war criminals. 

 

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

 Tell me what fact you want substantiated and I'll do it.

 

1. Dropping bombs on a refugee camp is knowingly, wilingly and deliberately killing civilians.

2. The fact that hundreds of civilians were killed

3. and that the outcome was entirely predictable\

4. makes it deliberate."

 

Start with substantiating your four above claims. 

 

57 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I dispute that there was any conclusion that disavows that Israel has committed gross war crimes and can fairly be described as ... war criminals. 

 

 

Accusing Israel of war crimes is not rhetoric. It's an accusation which needs to be tried in the ICC

Macron calls Herzog, says he didn’t mean to accuse Israel of intentionally bombing civilians

 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/macron-calls-herzog-says-he-didnt-mean-to-accuse-israel-of-intentionally-bombing-civilians/

 

Guess that means we're back to the Spanish junior minister, and the Belgian DPM.

In many Jewish families, generational fractures over Israel and Gaza

 

Rabbi Lonnie Kleinman of Mount Airy was arrested at the U.S. Capitol three weeks ago, calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Soon after her arrest was broadcast on Fox News, she received a text message from her father. He said he was deeply disappointed, and that her grandparents, who survived the Holocaust, would have been devastated if they were still alive, Kleinman said.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/in-many-jewish-families-generational-fractures-over-israel-and-gaza/

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

Macron calls Herzog, says he didn’t mean to accuse Israel of intentionally bombing civilians

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/macron-calls-herzog-says-he-didnt-mean-to-accuse-israel-of-intentionally-bombing-civilians/

 

Guess that means we're back to the Spanish junior minister, and the Belgian DPM.

 

The French are in retreat mode again. Must be a submarine contract in the offing. I'll take him on his original statement.

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

In this case I'd prefer that conciseness was the better path forward.

 

Give peace a chance; I say.

53 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

Give peace a chance; I say.

 

Give peace and love a chance I say. Without love, peace is nothing.