Israeli ambassador launches campaign to remind Thais about the hostages still being held in Gaza

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, JCauto said:

 

So when you inform the public that an area is about to be bombed and tell them to evacuate because you're attacking a military target embedded in an area of civilian infrastructure and homes, you consider this to be indiscriminate. Is that correct? When you bomb an area that appears to be a civilian hospital or school then your ground operations expose that it was, in fact, a military installation hidden within the civilian infrastructure, is this then still indiscriminate bombing? Or was it actually targeted all along? Even if they targeted it and find it wasn't a military installation, then it's actually not indiscriminate, it's an intelligence failure. Of course, we could call all war an intelligence failure on the part of humans, but that's besides the point.

 

Do you think they're deliberately trying to miss their targets when they start the bombing that they informed the populace about? Or do you think they're deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure to inflict damage and pain? That's also not indiscriminate bombing.

Indiscriminate bombing is something like carpet bombing, not targeted at all. Something like firing rockets towards a country without knowing or caring where they land. Something like the air campaign over Germany that had targets but no precision about how to hit them nor care about what happened to the population so they just bombed the crap out of it.

So no, I don't see this as indiscriminate bombing. It's targeted and deliberate and aimed at specific military installations, infrastructure, personnel and command and control centers. Does this mean it doesn't cause damage around and elsewhere? No, of course it does, there is no "precision bombing" and there is lots of "collateral damage" but these are all nice language tricks to distract people from the horror of war. Unfortunately, this is about as "clean" as it gets. Hamas deliberately puts their military infrastructure in these places and this is why we say they're using the population as human shields.

Contrast what's happening in Gaza with what's happening in Ukraine. Do you think there is more or less indiscriminate bombing in Ukraine? Do you think they're targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine? I think there's more indiscriminate bombing and more targeting. But it's just less dense in terms of population in most of the places where the bombing is happening - until it isn't and then a Ukrainian city is completely leveled and destroyed and the casualties among the population rise. Look forward to your "thoughts" on these points.

 

It's a war crime. The presence of civilians makes it a war crime regardless of whether the civilians remained there voluntarily or were held as human shields.

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's a war crime. The presence of civilians makes it a war crime regardless of whether the civilians remained there voluntarily or were held as human shields.

Prove it, prove the presence of civilians makes it a war crime with a credible link. Take into account the IHL (International Humanitarian Law)

 

The Lawful Killing of Civilians Under International Humanitarian Law

 

Remember your claim so we are clear:

 

It's a war crime. The presence of civilians makes it a war crime regardless of whether the civilians remained there voluntarily or were held as human shields.

Edited January 17 by Bkk Brian

[JCauto]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It's a war crime. The presence of civilians makes it a war crime regardless of whether the civilians remained there voluntarily or were held as human shields.

 

So in your opinion, every single event in history where a bomb was dropped and there were civilians present was a war crime? I am seriously doubting this.

It makes "war crime" a triviality in my opinion if this is the case, because it essentially outlaws aerial bombardment or artillery, or for that matter anyone tossing a grenade somewhere without first securing the area and checking that there's no civilians stuck there. Not that I'm a big fan of aerial bombardment, artillery or close combat, but essentially if you make a rule where every single country engaging in war is then guilty of being a "war criminal", then there's no constraint on any behaviour and you might as well not have any rules.

Name a single country engaged in war that has done so without by your definition engaging in a "war crime". It's not Hamas, since by your definition they're war criminals too since they fire rockets at civilian populations.

 

What is the benefit to making everything a war crime and everyone engaged in the military a war criminal? Until humanity achieves a higher consciousness this is just trite.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Which rule book are you getting that out of? They are of course being used as 'cover' by Hamas, but still act as hospitals too. I do not grasp why they would do that, risking their own people, but isn't the rule of war not to attack such buildings? They are invaders. 

 

Schools, hospitals, places of worship and other such have a protected status. If used by an armed force in a way which abuses this status, the other side may attack them despite the protected status. It's been referenced multiple times by now on relevant topics (and obviously, on past ones).

 

Hamas leadership is on record saying that the civilian casualties are necessary sacrifices for 'the cause'. Other vile comments about blood of children etc. These were mostly made by leadership figures well away from the fighting, in the safety of Qatar and elsewhere.

 

For Hamas, civilian casualties represent PR points, a recruitment opportunity, and a monetary value.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Hamas claim the Israelis themselves have killed their hostages. I don't believe much of what either side is telling us.... I do not know who owned that rocket. Israelis have certainly attacked hospitals, Kamal Adwan Hospital was raided. 

 

I am sure that some hostages were killed by Israel's aerial bombings. There's no getting around that. Then there were these three hostages who managed to escaped and were shot by IDF forces that encountered them. Other than that, I'm not sure what your comment is about. The responsibility for the hostages lives is Hamas's.

 

As for 'do not know who owned that rocket' - I suggest reading. There is practically no one accepting the Hamas version, and most pointing out to it being a misfired Palestinian one.

 

Raiding hospitals by ground forces did happen - after warnings, delays and with Hamas using the premises. It is not the same as blowing them up, though.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

So Israel is the willing tool of Hamas?

 

Willing how?

There are no great solutions to this.

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, ThaiFelix said:

There is no intelligence at all in personal attacks, it just shows a lack of any arguement.

 

I thought it was an apt response for a post suggesting the 'solution' of locking leaders in a room to fight it out.

Poster I responded to keeps posting up fact-light, biased accounts and views regardless of comments made, sources linked.

Since he also got quite a few people on 'ignore', this allows him to spew his nonsense 'uncontested' (this is a 'thing' with wannabe ' pro-Palestinian' posters on these topic).

[ozimoron]

21 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

So in your opinion, every single event in history where a bomb was dropped and there were civilians present was a war crime? I am seriously doubting this.

It makes "war crime" a triviality in my opinion if this is the case, because it essentially outlaws aerial bombardment or artillery, or for that matter anyone tossing a grenade somewhere without first securing the area and checking that there's no civilians stuck there. Not that I'm a big fan of aerial bombardment, artillery or close combat, but essentially if you make a rule where every single country engaging in war is then guilty of being a "war criminal", then there's no constraint on any behaviour and you might as well not have any rules.

Name a single country engaged in war that has done so without by your definition engaging in a "war crime". It's not Hamas, since by your definition they're war criminals too since they fire rockets at civilian populations.

 

What is the benefit to making everything a war crime and everyone engaged in the military a war criminal? Until humanity achieves a higher consciousness this is just trite.

 

Where the bomb was dropped knowing civilians would be killed. Yes, absolutely.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Where the bomb was dropped knowing civilians would be killed. Yes, absolutely.

Wrong, that is just not true, its based on proportionality, stop with the misinformation.

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, newbee2022 said:

You still can have your for me unimportant view, I got mine.

Keep in mind: there is not only white or black, or right or wrong in the world. So calm down and use appropriate language....if you're able to.🙏

 

The above is just a deflationary retreat.

Can't defend strong comments made, running of mouth not well accepted, so now it's time to obfuscate with some fluff.

 

There are facts. Reality is a thing. You can't handle them.

 

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Wrong, that is just not true, its based on proportionality, stop with the misinformation.

 

 

Only an apologist for war crimes would describe the bombing of Gaza as "proportionate".

 

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:[1] An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

 

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

 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Only an apologist for war crimes would describe the bombing of Gaza as "proportionate".

 

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:[1] An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

 

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

 

 

 

@ozimoron

 

And somehow you think that you know the details regarding said bombings, on a level allowing you to decide they are all war crimes.

It was already covered here, that IDF (and specifically IAF) mission planning is done with legal advisors involved and oking attacks.

 

[ozimoron]

As a consequence of the principle of distinction, indiscriminate attacks
are prohibited. These are:
• attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be
directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat the effects of
which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict.
Examples of indiscriminate attacks are firing artillery or launching a missile
in the general direction of the target (e.g. the use of the V2 missiles during
the Second World War) or area bombardment in populated areas rather
than the selection of individual, clearly separated military objectives
located there.

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law3_final.pdf

[ozimoron]

When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects
must be spared incidental or collateral damage to the maximum
extent possible. Incidental damage must not be excessive in relation
to the direct and concrete military advantage you anticipate from your
operation. Such use of excessive force quite clearly violates the law of
armed conflict and is a war crime

[Morch]

Just now, ozimoron said:

As a consequence of the principle of distinction, indiscriminate attacks
are prohibited. These are:
• attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be
directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat the effects of
which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict.
Examples of indiscriminate attacks are firing artillery or launching a missile
in the general direction of the target (e.g. the use of the V2 missiles during
the Second World War) or area bombardment in populated areas rather
than the selection of individual, clearly separated military objectives
located there.

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law3_final.pdf

 

 

@ozimoron

 

Each and every Hamas rocket launched at Israel is an instance of war crime.

Each Israeli citizen killed, kidnapped, raped and so on by Hamas is a war crime.

You only whine about alleged Israeli war crimes.

[Rimmer]

An unattributed post / picture has been removed

[Bkk Brian]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Only an apologist for war crimes would describe the bombing of Gaza as "proportionate".

 

To be legal, aerial operations must comply with the principles of humanitarian law: military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:[1] An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

 

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

 

 

You claimed:

 

13 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Where the bomb was dropped knowing civilians would be killed. Yes, absolutely.

That is plain misinformation and as usual you cant back up your claims:

 

Targeting civilians is a war crime. But what if there are civilians in or near a legitimate military target? This is where something in the laws of war called "proportionality" comes into play. As in, the military advantage must be proportionate to the loss of civilian life.

In such a case, the U.S. military uses what's called a "collateral damage estimate," or CDE, which determines how many civilians would be killed or wounded when a military target is hit, says Michel Paradis, a human rights lawyer who teaches at Columbia Law School.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/11/1212326333/proportionality-israel-gaza-war-war-crimes

[ozimoron]

Photos show scale of the destruction of Israel air attacks on Gaza

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2023/10/12/photos-show-scale-of-the-destruction-of-israeli-air-attacks-on-gaza

 

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

You claimed:

 

That is plain misinformation and as usual you cant back up your claims:

 

Targeting civilians is a war crime. But what if there are civilians in or near a legitimate military target? This is where something in the laws of war called "proportionality" comes into play. As in, the military advantage must be proportionate to the loss of civilian life.

In such a case, the U.S. military uses what's called a "collateral damage estimate," or CDE, which determines how many civilians would be killed or wounded when a military target is hit, says Michel Paradis, a human rights lawyer who teaches at Columbia Law School.

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/11/1212326333/proportionality-israel-gaza-war-war-crimes

 

Killing 3 civilians for every Hamas fighter is not proportionate.

 

Displacing 2 million residents and destroying 85% of civilian infrastructure is not proportionate.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

Killing 3 civilians for every Hamas fighter is not proportionate.

 

Displacing 2 million residents and destroying 85% of civilian infrastructure is not proportionate.

 

@ozimoron

 

But Hamas leadership said these are necessary sacrifices for 'the cause'.

Noticeably, no demand out of you that Hamas do anything to minimize risk for it's own civilians.

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Killing 3 civilians for every Hamas fighter is not proportionate.

 

Displacing 2 million residents and destroying 85% of civilian infrastructure is not proportionate.

What's that got to do with your claim, I am still waiting for you to provide a link to it.

 

20 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Where the bomb was dropped knowing civilians would be killed. Yes, absolutely.

 

[JCauto]

45 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Where the bomb was dropped knowing civilians would be killed. Yes, absolutely.

 

Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about international law and that your points are so trivial as to be meaningless. I'll disengage as I don't waste my time on people without the ability to process thoughts in a logical manner but who simply emote after picking sides.

[ozimoron]

Just now, JCauto said:

 

Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about international law and that your points are so trivial as to be meaningless. I'll disengage as I don't waste my time on people without the ability to process thoughts in a logical manner but who simply emote after picking sides.

 

I provided links to support my contention., You didn't.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

I provided links to support my contention., You didn't.

 

@ozimoron

 

Links to all the comments made were provided numerous times on these topics.

You treat each time they are re-mentioned as a new beginning.

Maybe you're trolling, maybe you got issues.

[JCauto]

39 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

As a consequence of the principle of distinction, indiscriminate attacks
are prohibited. These are:
• attacks which are not directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat which cannot be
directed at a specific military objective;
• attacks that employ a method or means of combat the effects of
which cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict.
Examples of indiscriminate attacks are firing artillery or launching a missile
in the general direction of the target (e.g. the use of the V2 missiles during
the Second World War) or area bombardment in populated areas rather
than the selection of individual, clearly separated military objectives
located there.

 

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/law3_final.pdf

 

Thanks for directly proving my point and every single fact I put out in my response post. This is why we call you out and demand proof and sources for your outrageous claims. So as per your reference, the ICRC, these are NOT indiscriminate attacks:

 

1. There is a military objective, to destroy Hamas infrastructure and get at the terrorists who committed war crimes against a civilian population from a declared enemy who broke a ceasefire and calls for the complete destruction of Israel and its people - this has been proven by the Hamas bases, tunnels, weapons and places they kept the hostages in the hospitals and other locations;
2. The means of combat are directed at a specific military objective, the tunnels under the buildings and terrorists hiding there, and these are militarily-appropriate methods;

3. The effects cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict - it is widely accepted that bombing is a viable weapon used in warfare and despite the inevitability of "collateral damage" this has never been to my knowledge used as a basis for a trial or conviction under international law. Did the Allies get any approbation or penalties for the fire-bombing of Dresden, for example?

4. Examples you used are ALSO the examples that I used. Glad to see we have come to a concurrence. You are now aware and on record as acknowledging the war crime and prohibition of the Hamas' rockets for example.

 

So there is an ongoing trial to determine whether the IDF have committed any indiscriminate attacks among other issues including the spurious claims of genocide. Let's see what the result of that is before we conclude anything shall we, given that there is no consistency and by your absurd standards every single nation that has ever engaged in war is now a war criminal nation and all those involved in their military and politics are war criminals.

I ask you one more time. Name a nation that has engaged in war for any reason that has not violated your ridiculous standards. Just one. You can't and you won't.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

[ozimoron]

Just now, JCauto said:

 

Thanks for directly proving my point and every single fact I put out in my response post. This is why we call you out and demand proof and sources for your outrageous claims. So as per your reference, the ICRC, these are NOT indiscriminate attacks:

 

1. There is a military objective, to destroy Hamas infrastructure and get at the terrorists who committed war crimes against a civilian population from a declared enemy who broke a ceasefire and calls for the complete destruction of Israel and its people - this has been proven by the Hamas bases, tunnels, weapons and places they kept the hostages in the hospitals and other locations;
2. The means of combat are directed at a specific military objective, the tunnels under the buildings and terrorists hiding there, and these are militarily-appropriate methods;

3. The effects cannot be limited as required by the law of armed conflict - it is widely accepted that bombing is a viable weapon used in warfare and despite the inevitability of "collateral damage" this has never been to my knowledge used as a basis for a trial or conviction under international law. Did the Allies get any approbation or penalties for the fire-bombing of Dresden, for example?

4. Examples you used are ALSO the examples that I used. Glad to see we have come to a concurrence. You are now aware and on record as acknowledging the war crime and prohibition of the Hamas' rockets for example.

 

So there is an ongoing trial to determine whether the IDF have committed any indiscriminate attacks among other issues including the spurious claims of genocide. Let's see what the result of that is before we conclude anything shall we, given that there is no consistency and by your absurd standards every single nation that has ever engaged in war is now a war criminal nation and all those involved in their military and politics are war criminals.

I ask you one more time. Name a nation that has engaged in war for any reason that has not violated your ridiculous standards. Just one. You can't and you won't.

Quod Erat Demonstratum.

 

Try reading it again.

[JCauto]

50 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

When military objectives are attacked, civilians and civilian objects
must be spared incidental or collateral damage to the maximum
extent possible. Incidental damage must not be excessive in relation
to the direct and concrete military advantage you anticipate from your
operation. Such use of excessive force quite clearly violates the law of
armed conflict and is a war crime

 

Your last sentence is entirely opinion, there is not demonstrated proof you have provided to make such a claim. There is no "quite clearly" here, and we've provided you dozens of examples of why what you believe is not factual or is otherwise biased against Israel whom you insist on applying an entirely different standard to.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

Your last sentence is entirely opinion, there is not demonstrated proof you have provided to make such a claim. There is no "quite clearly" here, and we've provided you dozens of examples of why what you believe is not factual or is otherwise biased against Israel whom you insist on applying an entirely different standard to.

 

I didn't make the claim. Your beef is with the ICRC, not me.

Edited January 17 by ozimoron

[JCauto]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Try reading it again.

 

Wow, what a great debater you are. I give you an itemized and detailed rebuttal to your post and you refuse to engage or respond because you know you are left exposed and bereft of any credibility.

I have responded in detail. If you refuse to then you have nothing. Just accept your lack of understanding and leave the keyboard in favour of educating yourself. Although based on your logical abilities and reasoning, you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you.

[ozimoron]

Just now, JCauto said:

 

Wow, what a great debater you are. I give you an itemized and detailed rebuttal to your post and you refuse to engage or respond because you know you are left exposed and bereft of any credibility.

I have responded in detail. If you refuse to then you have nothing. Just accept your lack of understanding and leave the keyboard in favour of educating yourself. Although based on your logical abilities and reasoning, you've got quite a lot of work ahead of you.

 

I quoted stats which demonstrate there is no proportionality.