Provisional Decision Today: ICJ Weighs Emergency Measures Amid Allegations of Genocide in Gaza

[WDSmart]

11 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Numerous times actually, here's one

 

Thanks, I didn't remember that. So, yes, I guess they could be called "Freedom Fighters" because of the above explanation.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, when I say "the state now called Israel," I am referring to the land that used to be called Palestine, and before Isreal was made a state, the Jewish population was only about 10%.

There are not lies. They are things I post and will continue to post. They are not unhinged ramblings, not from someone who is ignorant, and not from someone who is a hater. These are from someone who can see both sides of this horrible situation, instead of only one. 

 

Someone who takes pains to to call Israel by it's proper name, is a hater.

 

There was no country called Palestine. You're just trolling with your nonsense stuff again. Your 10% figure is also false, not sure why you'd post that since it take less than a minute to check.

 

There are lies. There is no 'eradication' of the Arab/Palestinian population. You're making it up. You cannot back it up with anything. You're trolling.

Edited January 30 by Morch

[WDSmart]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What you believe is immaterial. War crimes are things decided by a legal process, not by posters announcing actions as such.

This is where you and I differ the most. What I believe (and assume and deduce) is very material to me. It might not be to you, I understand that, but it is to me. 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Both can be true at the same time. They can be both terrorists and freedom fighters. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Palestinians would call them freedom fighters and Israelis would call them terrorists. Why do I get a sense of deja vue?

 

As has been pointed out, they are unquestionably fighting for their freedom and keep saying so.

Why do I get a sense of deja vue?

 

don't know why?

 

You got that link on the "irrefutable evidence of a war crime" in the incident yet? 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

He doesn't have to "demonstrate" anything. You don't "demonstrate" anything. All you do is (sometimes) cite other people's descriptions you've read on the Internet. He is drawing conclusions, and I see nothing wrong with that, even if I disagree with them, which in this case, I don't. 

 

No, that would be you misunderstanding what's posted.

 

War crimes are decided by a legal process. They are not something which posters declare, they are not something governments decide on, or even human rights organizations. It doesn't work this way.

 

It id not about 'descriptions', it is not about 'drawing conclusions'. It's about facts. War crimes are not something-I-think-is-a-war-crime. They are not similar to your 'opinions'.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

 

Here, let me help in this complex situation... 
Perfidy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

 

Doesn't have anything to do with anything.

[Bkk Brian]

5 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks, I didn't remember that. So, yes, I guess they could be called "Freedom Fighters" because of the above explanation.

Of course, Hamas love to call themselves freedom fighters but that does not make it so. They have been delegated terrorists by numerous countries for very good reasons.

[WDSmart]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

There was no country called Palestine. You're just trolling with your nonsense stuff again. Your 10% figure is also false, not sure why you'd post that since it take less than a minute to check.

 

There are lies. There is no 'eradication' of the Arab/Palestinian population. You're making it up. You cannot back it up with anything. You're trolling.

I just don't understand why you go on and on like this. I disagree with everything you say above. The only one, the first one, depends on what you take the word "country" to mean. Since you've objected to it so much, I've changed my wording and now refer to it as a "territory" or just a "land." Anyway, all that's before the UN made it an official state.  

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

What you believe is immaterial. War crimes are things decided by a legal process, not by posters announcing actions as such.

 

A murder is still a murder even if the murderer hasn't been found, much less convicted of a murder. Your definition is flawed.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

I really don't know how to make this any simpler. The OP describes an incident which the IDF presumably admit to since we know they were commandos. They described dressing up as civilians and doctors and nurses. There is a photo in the OP of them wearing the disguises. Any rational person will conclude that the act was perfidy. Perfidy is a war crime.

 

@ozimoron

 

By your simplistic definition, almost every country employing special forces, an espionage service and so on is guilty of war crimes. Any other weirdo views you'd like to share?

[WDSmart]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course, Hamas love to call themselves freedom fighters but that does not make it so. They have been delegated terrorists by numerous countries for very good reasons.

Yes, and those reasons are mostly that they back Israel. 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

 

I only have to show that it's ma perfidy, not that it's also a war crime because perfidy already is a war crime. You are trying to deflect from admitting this was a perfidsy.

 

@ozimoron

 

In your mind, perhaps. In the real world, legally, your comment is nonsense. There is no legal process which allows for what you claim.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, WDSmart said:

Yes, and those reasons are mostly that they back Israel. 

They back designating a terror group terrorists because of the terror attacks they commit. 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

I'm not deflecting. I'm helping everyone understand what "perfidy" means. If they would, they would then know why it could be classified as a war crime.

 

You are not 'helping'.

You are obfuscating. Deflecting. Trolling.

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Of course, Hamas love to call themselves freedom fighters but that does not make it so. They have been delegated terrorists by numerous countries for very good reasons.

 

Your intention here is to portray Hamas has having no interest in any wider motive beyond terrorizing Israelis because they hate Israelis. Actually being drawn into why that might be so is kryptonite for war crimes deniers.

[Wobblybob]

9 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks, I didn't remember that. So, yes, I guess they could be called "Freedom Fighters" because of the above explanation.

If these barbaric thugs were to burn your house down with all your family in it, would you still be disingenuous and calling them "freedom fighters". 

[Purdey]

While the ICJ doesn't have a military force, the UN does have international peacekeepers that it has used in the past to separate antagonists. Having said that, I doubt Hamas or Israel would want the fighting stopped.

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

Your intention here is to portray Hamas has having no interest in any wider motive beyond terrorizing Israelis because they hate Israelis. Actually being drawn into why that might be so is kryptonite for war crimes deniers.

I love the way you tell me what my intentions are......

 

Back in the real world I stick to the facts.

 

Who are these war crime deniers? 

[ozimoron]

6 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

If these barbaric thugs were to burn your house down with all your family in it, would you still be disingenuous and calling them "freedom fighters". 

 

If we are discussing the act of doing so then, yes, it's appropriate to call them terrorists. There is however a wider discussion to be had about why they are doing it. Part of that would be to ask them. Some people already have and they said they were fighting for freedom from Israeli occupation. The term freedom fighters becomes unavoidable IN THAT CONTEXT.

 

This directly parallels the question of calllng uniformed soldiers war criminals. Depending on the context they can be both. The world is not all black and white.

Edited January 30 by ozimoron

[Morch]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

Both of which, IMO, are war crimes. 

 

War crimes are not matters of opinion.

[Wobblybob]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

If we are discussing the act of doing so then, yes, it's appropriate to call them terrorists. There is however a wider discussion to be had about why they are doing it. Part of that would be to ask them. Some people already have and they said they were fighting for freedom from Israeli occupation. The term freedom fighters becomes unavoidable IN THAT CONTEXT.

They are fighting to kill Israelis..period. 

[Morch]

58 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

What do you think the rules are? That someone cannot disagree with you? You stated the percentages first. I disagreed since you only referred to it as "before the state of Israel" or something like that. The percentages of the population changed over time. If you want to specify a specific date, I could probably find the percentages at that date. And, you could too. 

My point was there were more non-Jews living in Palestine than Jews when the UN created the state of Israel. 

 

No, you brought up the percentages issue, wrongly citing 10%.

Also the territory designated as the Jewish state had a Jewish majority.

[Morch]

56 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

And, I do not support Hamas. I do support the Palestinians' struggle against the Zionist forces of the Israelis. 

 

There are no 'Zionist forces of the Israelis'. It's a nonsense label.

Edited January 30 by Morch

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

They are fighting to kill Israelis..period. 

 

May I ask you why? There's a court case in The Hague which might answer that question in time.

Edited January 30 by ozimoron

[Bkk Brian]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

If we are discussing the act of doing so then, yes, it's appropriate to call them terrorists. There is however a wider discussion to be had about why they are doing it. Part of that would be to ask them. Some people already have and they said they were fighting for freedom from Israeli occupation. The term freedom fighters becomes unavoidable IN THAT CONTEXT.

 

This directly parallels the question of calllng uniformed soldiers war criminals. Depending on the context they can be both. The world is not all black and white.

 

Nah there is no context to label them freedom fighters and those that try to make that case are pretty sick

 

 

[Morch]

39 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

The 10% (actually 9%) figure was before 1948, and what I said was correct. The 32% figure was probably just before or the same date that the UN created the state of Israel. 

 

So, more contrived, misleading nonsense earlier?

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

Both can be true at the same time. They can be both terrorists and freedom fighters. The terms are not mutually exclusive. Palestinians would call them freedom fighters and Israelis would call them terrorists. Why do I get a sense of deja vue?

 

As has been pointed out, they are unquestionably fighting for their freedom and keep saying so.

 

@ozimoron

 

Freedom Fighters who rape, mutilate bodies, and kidnap babies. Yeah.....

 

[Wobblybob]

Just now, ozimoron said:

 

May I ask you why?

You may seeing you asked so nicely. They (Hamas & and their devoted followers) are so brainwashed that is as they believe were put on this Earth for to kill the Israelis and drive them from their land. 

[Morch]

26 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Thanks, I didn't remember that. So, yes, I guess they could be called "Freedom Fighters" because of the above explanation.

 

Freedom Fighters who rape, mutilate bodies, and kidnap babies. Yeah.....

[Morch]

24 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

This is where you and I differ the most. What I believe (and assume and deduce) is very material to me. It might not be to you, I understand that, but it is to me. 

 

This discussion is about facts, real things, reality. War crimes are not something which can be individually decided on.

Your ongoing nonsense about there not being facts, only opinions is out of touch with how discussions of events go, and even with forum rules.