Hostages were carrying white cloth when shot, IDF says

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

When 3 hostages get shot or a subordinate charged with a war crime, absolutely.

 

Care to give any examples?

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Care to give any examples?

 

no

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

no

 

So you made that up.

How surprising.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So you made that up.

How surprising.

 

No, I just don't care to get dragged off topic

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

No, I just don't care to get dragged off topic

 

Going off topic is practically your trademark.

Same old - you make bogus claims you can't support.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Going off topic is practically your trademark.

Same old - you make bogus claims you can't support.

 

ok, you got me.

 

A military commander with command responsibility,
can be liable for the war crimes or other crimes of
his subordinates, over whom he has effective
command and control, even though he has not
directly participated in the crime or encouraged it in
any shape or form

 

https://www.clothfairchambers.com/img/upload/news-28.pdf

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

ok, you got me.

 

A military commander with command responsibility,
can be liable for the war crimes or other crimes of
his subordinates, over whom he has effective
command and control, even though he has not
directly participated in the crime or encouraged it in
any shape or form

 

https://www.clothfairchambers.com/img/upload/news-28.pdf

 

The leader of a country is not usually a 'military commander', nor does he carry 'command responsibility', he does not have 'effective command and control' over troops on this level either. And even if that wasn't the case - 'can be liable' - a far cry from your decisive, yet obviously wrong, opinion.

[ozimoron]

Just now, Morch said:

 

The leader of a country is not usually a 'military commander', nor does he carry 'command responsibility', he does not have 'effective command and control' over troops on this level either. And even if that wasn't the case - 'can be liable' - a far cry from your decisive, yet obviously wrong, opinion.

 

I wasn't referring to the leader of the country although he should resign for war crimes of his own. I'm talking about who has command responsibility for this soldiers and his (lack of) training.

[Bkk Brian]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

ok, you got me.

 

A military commander with command responsibility,
can be liable for the war crimes or other crimes of
his subordinates, over whom he has effective
command and control, even though he has not
directly participated in the crime or encouraged it in
any shape or form

 

https://www.clothfairchambers.com/img/upload/news-28.pdf

Your version seems to be missing a vital element:

 

This article examines the law of command responsibility and its relationship to unit cohesion and other extralegal values. In general, the law of command responsibility makes a commander criminally responsible for crimes committed by forces under his or her effective authority and control if the commander knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, had reason to know that the forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes, yet failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of the acts.

https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/reason-to-know-in-the-international-law-of-command-responsibility-919

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I wasn't referring to the leader of the country although he should resign for war crimes of his own. I'm talking about who has command responsibility for this soldiers and his (lack of) training.

 

Sure....

 

My question:

 

Quote

Are you serious?

You think that the norm is that every time a soldier does something wrong a country's leader steps down? 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1314517-hostages-were-carrying-white-cloth-when-shot-idf-says/page/2/#comment-18563578

 

 

Your response:

 

Quote

When 3 hostages get shot or a subordinate charged with a war crime, absolutely.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1314517-hostages-were-carrying-white-cloth-when-shot-idf-says/page/2/#comment-18563582

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Sure....

 

My question:

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1314517-hostages-were-carrying-white-cloth-when-shot-idf-says/page/2/#comment-18563578

 

 

Your response:

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1314517-hostages-were-carrying-white-cloth-when-shot-idf-says/page/2/#comment-18563582

 

There's no requirement for prior knowledge and it's obviously impossible to know when before soldier pulls the trigger.

 

Commanders are responsible for everything their command does or fails to do. … Commanders who assign responsibility and authority to their subordinates still retain the overall responsibility for the actions of their commands.

US Army Regulation 600-20

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

There's no requirement for prior knowledge and it's obviously impossible to know when before soldier pulls the trigger.

 

Commanders are responsible for everything their command does or fails to do. … Commanders who assign responsibility and authority to their subordinates still retain the overall responsibility for the actions of their commands.

US Army Regulation 600-20

 

That's the best deflection you can come up with?

 

You claimed you weren't referring to a country's leader.

Your posts show otherwise.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

That's the best deflection you can come up with?

 

You claimed you weren't referring to a country's leader.

Your posts show otherwise.

 

Thus, two new standards for a commander's criminal responsibility were established: first, the commander must not passively tolerate war crimes of which he or she is aware, and second, the commander must supervise and discipline troops under his or her command with regard to detecting and preventing war crimes.

 

https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/reason-to-know-in-the-international-law-of-command-responsibility-919

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Thus, two new standards for a commander's criminal responsibility were established: first, the commander must not passively tolerate war crimes of which he or she is aware, and second, the commander must supervise and discipline troops under his or her command with regard to detecting and preventing war crimes.

 

https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/reason-to-know-in-the-international-law-of-command-responsibility-919

 

You keep deflecting.

 

This has nothing to do with your original claim.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You keep deflecting.

 

This has nothing to do with your original claim.

 

They hung Yama<deleted>s even though he claimed he didn't know his troops were committing atrocities and didn't have disciplinary responsibility anyway. Command responsibility even absent direct knowledge is a principle designed to prevent cover ups.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

They hung Yama<deleted>s even though he claimed he didn't know his troops were committing atrocities and didn't have disciplinary responsibility anyway. Command responsibility even absent direct knowledge is a principle designed to prevent cover ups.

 

And another deflection.

 

 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And another deflection.

 

 

 

I did warn you that the subject of command responsibility was off topic. Now you complain that it's off topic. Yama<deleted>a's trial established the principles of command responsibility.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I did warn you that the subject of command responsibility was off topic. Now you complain that it's off topic. Yama<deleted>a's trial established the principles of command responsibility.

 

I said nothing about 'off topic', I pointed out you're deflecting.

Spin it as you like, you cannot back up your claim.

As usual, you just dig deeper.

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I said nothing about 'off topic', I pointed out you're deflecting.

Spin it as you like, you cannot back up your claim.

As usual, you just dig deeper.

 

In the context of this board, deflection means off topic. Was it you who thinks "war" and "conflict" aren't the same thing?

[Morch]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

In the context of this board, deflection means off topic. Was it you who thinks "war" and "conflict" aren't the same thing?

 

I think you made a nonsense claim you cannot back up.

Rather than admit that, you go on a deflection campaign aimed at derailing the topic and covering your failure.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

Your version seems to be missing a vital element:

 

This article examines the law of command responsibility and its relationship to unit cohesion and other extralegal values. In general, the law of command responsibility makes a commander criminally responsible for crimes committed by forces under his or her effective authority and control if the commander knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, had reason to know that the forces were committing or were about to commit such crimes, yet failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress the commission of the acts.

https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/reason-to-know-in-the-international-law-of-command-responsibility-919

And yours is missing the vital element of reality. Those 3 m3n were NOT killed by Hamas but by their own IDF who were supposed to be searching for them and helping them. NOT murdering them. They were unarmed, shirtless and waving a white flag.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

When I did my 25 years in the military I was always taught that if anyone waves a white flag, it is because they wish to surrender. 

 

It was driven home year after year.

 

Why are you always trying to defend the IDF and the Israeli government, no matter what happened?

 

With you it is always Hamas did this, Hamas did that, without ever questioning the reasons behind it. Yet you defend the IDF with its indiscriminate bombing, shelling and trying to kill every Palestinian  man, woman and child, innocent or guilty.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And yours is missing the vital element of reality. Those 3 m3n were NOT killed by Hamas but by their own IDF who were supposed to be searching for them and helping them. NOT murdering them. They were unarmed, shirtless and waving a white flag.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

When I did my 25 years in the military I was always taught that if anyone waves a white flag, it is because they wish to surrender. 

 

It was driven home year after year.

 

Why are you always trying to defend the IDF and the Israeli government, no matter what happened?

 

With you it is always Hamas did this, Hamas did that, without ever questioning the reasons behind it. Yet you defend the IDF with its indiscriminate bombing, shelling and trying to kill every Palestinian  man, woman and child, innocent or guilty.

 

@billd766

 

The same can be asked of you - it's not like your posts on these topics are anywhere near balanced either.

 

As for comment - you are right in that it should not have happened. But it did. Sometimes bad things happen.

Soldiers panic, soldiers make mistakes, soldiers act against orders. This is not unique to the IDF.

 

Over the years, there were incidents of Palestinians using whichever normative cover - children, elderly, medical crews, press jackets, and so on as deception leading to attacks. There were reports (before this incident) about Hamas men trying to lure IDF soldiers to ambush calling them in Hebrew.

 

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@billd766

 

The same can be asked of you - it's not like your posts on these topics are anywhere near balanced either.

 

As for comment - you are right in that it should not have happened. But it did. Sometimes bad things happen.

Soldiers panic, soldiers make mistakes, soldiers act against orders. This is not unique to the IDF.

 

Over the years, there were incidents of Palestinians using whichever normative cover - children, elderly, medical crews, press jackets, and so on as deception leading to attacks. There were reports (before this incident) about Hamas men trying to lure IDF soldiers to ambush calling them in Hebrew.

 

 

What you are not addressing here is the question raised about whether this incident was an anomaly or, in fact, reflected, at best, an indifference to war crimes committed against Palestinians by the troops. Previously, the IDF has not exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to investigating the conduct of its troops. For example, the assassination of an American reporter by an Israeli soldier in the West Bank. Despite the fact that there were multiple independent observers who claimed that the shots came from Israeli, the IDF persisted in attempting to cast doubt on the claim. Finally the evidence proved to be so overwhelming that the IDF conceded that in fact one of their soldiers had killed the reporter.  But even then claimed it was unintentional despite the fact that the reporter was wearing a distinctive media vest and there was no ongoing violence when they were shot.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63871856

[Captain Monday]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@billd766

 

The same can be asked of you - it's not like your posts on these topics are anywhere near balanced either.

 

As for comment - you are right in that it should not have happened. But it did. Sometimes bad things happen.

Soldiers panic, soldiers make mistakes, soldiers act against orders. This is not unique to the IDF.

 

Over the years, there were incidents of Palestinians using whichever normative cover - children, elderly, medical crews, press jackets, and so on as deception leading to attacks. There were reports (before this incident) about Hamas men trying to lure IDF soldiers to ambush calling them in Hebrew.

 

 

Refreshing to hear honesty for once.

Of course militants who have suffered and worked with Israelis under occupation for generations can falsely shout Help in Hebrew. Same for the extreme measures the  IDF takes to avid targeting hospitals, ambulances, women in hijabs and  so-called "children".

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Biden says they bomb indiscriminately. 

Archbishop of Westminster says they kill in cold blood. 

Yet some here deny any war crimes. 

Some here deny that israel is committing  crimes against Humanity when it's obvious that they do. 7,000 dead children is obviously a war crime, yet some try to excuse it- sad that some are so blinded by hate of Palestinians that any amount of dead children is OK as long as no israeli children among them.

[thaibeachlovers]

48 minutes ago, Captain Monday said:

Same for the extreme measures the  IDF takes to avid targeting hospitals, ambulances, women in hijabs and  so-called "children".

I don't know if that is serious or sarcasm.

[Captain Monday]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I don't know if that is serious or sarcasm.

The IDF either take extreme measures to avoid harming non-combatants, or, the legendary military what simultaneously defeated 3 Arab armies in 1967 has become the most incompetent force of arms in the world. What do you think?

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, Captain Monday said:

The IDF either take extreme measures to avoid harming non-combatants, or, the legendary military what simultaneously defeated 3 Arab armies in 1967 has become the most incompetent force of arms in the world. What do you think?

 

 

I certainly do not think they take any measures to avoid harming non combatants, or 7,000 children wouldn't be dead.

 

It is a long time since they had an actual enemy army to fight, and I know how a military without a real war slowly deteriorates to incompetence, having experienced that myself after Vietnam finished.

[Bkk Brian]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

And yours is missing the vital element of reality. Those 3 m3n were NOT killed by Hamas but by their own IDF who were supposed to be searching for them and helping them. NOT murdering them. They were unarmed, shirtless and waving a white flag.

 

Blah blah blah.

 

When I did my 25 years in the military I was always taught that if anyone waves a white flag, it is because they wish to surrender. 

 

It was driven home year after year.

 

Why are you always trying to defend the IDF and the Israeli government, no matter what happened?

 

With you it is always Hamas did this, Hamas did that, without ever questioning the reasons behind it. Yet you defend the IDF with its indiscriminate bombing, shelling and trying to kill every Palestinian  man, woman and child, innocent or guilty.

Now read my post again @billd766 what part of it did you read that was something more than adding extra information & link on the "international law of command responsibility"? 

 

What part of my post was trying to defend the IDF in this serious incident that left 3 of its own hostages dead?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, placeholder said:

What you are not addressing here is the question raised about whether this incident was an anomaly or, in fact, reflected, at best, an indifference to war crimes committed against Palestinians by the troops. Previously, the IDF has not exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to investigating the conduct of its troops. For example, the assassination of an American reporter by an Israeli soldier in the West Bank. Despite the fact that there were multiple independent observers who claimed that the shots came from Israeli, the IDF persisted in attempting to cast doubt on the claim. Finally the evidence proved to be so overwhelming that the IDF conceded that in fact one of their soldiers had killed the reporter.  But even then claimed it was unintentional despite the fact that the reporter was wearing a distinctive media vest and there was no ongoing violence when they were shot.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63871856

 

The IDF already confirmed soldiers shot the escaped hostages.....