|
My Imaginary GF posted:If the United Nations wishes to operate in an active warzone, it cannot allow terrorists to operate proximate to UN sites I agree, UN presence in the area should be preceded by prolonged, concentrated airstrikes on IDF military installations.
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:That's a rather horrific report, thanks for posting it, but it doesn't really demonstrate your point about rolling barrages and the such, seems like the cannons managed to hit the mortar site pretty consistently which suggests that the buildings in the center of the compound were target intentionally given the concentration of impacts? Moreover, the report doesn't indicate the position of the commando unit. Artillery is a matter of statistics. You can't just hit the enemy mortar site, that gives you drat horrible odds at destroying the enemy combat capability. What you do is, you target the likely area in which the opposing force will occupy when your shells begin to impact, and you fire enough to account for over-shoots, under-shoots, failed detonations, and continued OpFor movement and tactics. The loss of life could have been avoided at several instances: 1. Had UNIFIL ensured the integrity of the compound by engaging Hezbollah as they set up mortar and rocket positions 2. If UNIFIL is unable or unwilling to do so, UNIFIL had a responsibility to withdraw from its position in order to avoid unnecessary peacekeeper casualties 3. If UNIFIL refuses to withdraw, Hezbollah has a responsibility to not fire on Israeli positions from the security of an international compound The use of human shields is a common terrorist tactic. Artillery doctrine cannot incorporate potential civilian casualties into its calculations of firing solutions and achieve OpFor elimination. A warcrime by Hezbollah forced Israeli response in full accord with international SOP for artillery doctrine. Mortars a mobile weapon, and it is expected that an OpFor will shoot-and-scoot. In order to eliminate OpFor capacity to engage in future crimes against humanity, it is necessary to respond swiftly to OpFor attacks. Artillery is a game of statistical butchery and the results are not pretty. Do not engage in artillery duels if you value the lives of individuals around your firing location. The Israeli counter-fire was completely by-the-books for the situation and is what any competent, Western military organization would do in similar circumstances. If anything, the Israeli counter-fire was restrained considering the terrain and potential routes of egress for the Hezbollah mortar team. Cat Mattress posted:I agree, UN presence in the area should be preceded by prolonged, concentrated airstrikes on IDF military installations. Get the Security Council to authorize them. It's unproductive and only incites violence to even imagine that as a possibility. To do so is to ignore civilian casualities, as hundreds of thousands of deaths in an extremely rapid timeperiod would be required in order for such action to even have a wiff of possibility at authorization. E: For more information on the artillery system used by Israel in the Qana incident, please read: https://www.scribd.com/doc/251772531/TM-9-2350-311-10?secret_password=cAyoYDxhgl52jv6H3cmx My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Governance of state-on-state conflict. Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah are state combatants: they are terrorist organizations and unlawful combatants. I see no moral difference between a state killing civilians and Hamas/Hezbollah doing so. If anything, it is worse when a state does so. If you're claiming something as extreme as "The Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to combat against __________", there should be a massive burden on you to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is, in fact, necessary for this to be the case. As it is, it appears that you're just taking the military and right wing's word for it that it's necessary that they ignore the goddamn Geneva Conventions. My Imaginary GF posted:The use of human shields is a common terrorist tactic. Artillery doctrine cannot incorporate potential civilian casualties into its calculations of firing solutions and achieve OpFor elimination. A warcrime by Hezbollah forced Israeli response in full accord with international SOP for artillery doctrine. Mortars a mobile weapon, and it is expected that an OpFor will shoot-and-scoot. In order to eliminate OpFor capacity to engage in future crimes against humanity, it is necessary to respond swiftly to OpFor attacks. This is hilarious. It is glaringly obvious that you're basically jacking off over how hardcore and "real" you are about the costs of war here, completely ignoring the fact that literally no conventions to minimize casualties/war crimes would exist if everyone throughout history had this attitude. On a basic moral level, it is immoral to respond to human shields by killing the human shields. At the very least, you lose the ability to claim any moral superiority over those who used human shields in the first place. edit: You need to realize that your logic here (and consistently throughout all of your posting in this thread) is literally, no exaggeration, "if the military did it, then it must have been something they needed to do." Really, tell me I'm wrong. You have consistently, without fail, given the benefit of the doubt to the IDF. Fighting a bad organization does not suddenly make everything you do moral; it is not logical to think that it does. It is extremely naive, if not outright stupid, to believe a military when it says "we had no choice but to do ______." This is for the incredibly obvious reason that militaries throughout history pretty much always say this, with rare exceptions (like a rogue soldier murdering random folks, though even that often gets swept under the rug). You stand to lose very little, if anything, by being critical and doubtful when a military insists that it had no choice other than to kill many civilians. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The use of human shields is a common terrorist tactic. indeed.  also, you don't know dick about artillery. google "fire for effect" for starters. and opfor is a training term. when you get to grow a beard and pretend to be a terrorist to train other units, you are opfor. actual terrorists are just "the enemy." Volkerball fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I see no moral difference between a state killing civilians and Hamas/Hezbollah doing so. If anything, it is worse when a state does so. If you're claiming something as extreme as "The Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to combat against __________", there should be a massive burden on you to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is, in fact, necessary for this to be the case. As it is, it appears that you're just taking the military and right wing's word for it that it's necessary that they ignore the goddamn Geneva Conventions. Let me stop you at your first sentance: War is the lack of morality. Do not apply moral standards to warfare, for doing so only emboldens terrorists. If a state organization engages in an action, it is to be judged under a different legal standard than action engaged in by non-state actors. Systems for conflict between states are held to a separate legal standard than systems for conflicts between non-state organizations and state actors. If a state actor does it to a non-state organization, what is lawful for the state actor may be entirely unlawful for the non-state organization and a warcrime that can only be prosecuted with immediate authorization for use of force. You criticize state actors using the same logical framework through which you criticize non-state actors. This cannot be done, and only emboldens terrorism. While general principals may be applied to state on state conflict, context must be considered for state on non-state action. Hezbollah engaged in warcrimes at Qara and provoked shelling of non-combatants by Israel. Israel has committed no crime by shelling unlawful combatants and inducing collatoral damage, wheread Hezbollah has committed acts which should rightfully be tried before, and enforced by, an impartial ICC tribunal. Human shields exist for actions of non-state organizations. Human shields do not exist for actions of state actors. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Now is not the time to join ICC in order to stir counterproductive anti-semitism on the street in an attempt to refocus back on Israel. The issue is settled: Jews have a right to exist. There is no going back on this issue. "Israel should not be allowed to commit war crimes with impunity" == "Jews don't have a right to exist." I really don't understand what the supposed endgame of this kind of rhetoric is. Why do prominent Israeli politicians and idiots on the internet insist on conflating respect for fundamental human rights with anti-Semitism? All I'm learning is that any objection to anti-Semitism aimed at Israel is probably completely hollow. Setting up a false dichotomy where anti-Semitism is the "correct" answer does a hell of a lot more to stir up anti-Semitism than trying to prevent a volatile nation from commiting war crimes and ethnic cleansing ever could.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Let me stop you at your first sentance: War is the lack of morality. Do not apply moral standards to warfare, for doing so only emboldens terrorists. I propose bombing the Knesset with a JDAM to send a strong message that Israel should do exactly what we want since we're paying them. If they don't like it, nuke Tel Aviv. There are no friends. Morality doesn't come into anything between states, you just play to win the game. Not bombing Israel is basically throwing the game. A guy like Bennett cannot be kept in line unless we show strength. If the Israelis agree to actually act like a client now, we call it an accident because the Knesset looked like an ISIS position. As there are more Jews in the US than there are in Israel, the US is the superior Jewish state and the weaker one should subordinate itself utterly and completely. They should be making offerings to the White House of gold and kissing Obama's feet. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
I'm confused as to why people are serious posting to MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I propose bombing the Knesset with a JDAM to send a strong message that Israel should do exactly what we want since we're paying them. If they don't like it, nuke Tel Aviv. There are no friends. Morality doesn't come into anything between states, you just play to win the game. Its logic like yours which emboldens terrorists to cause unnecessary colateral damage. Give it up already if you wish for a just and verdant I/P peace process. A. Beaverhausen posted:I'm confused as to why people are serious posting to MIGF. You have individuals calling for bombing Israel because ~inexplicable reasons~ but is not because Jews! They swear!, and you have me, advocating for policy that is productive towards an acceptable peace process. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its logic like yours which emboldens terrorists to cause unnecessary colateral damage. Give it up already if you wish for a just and verdant I/P peace process. Fredrick the Great didn't defeat his enemies by surrendering to them. Napoleon Bonaparte didn't beat the Hapsburgs three times by surrendering to them. David Ben-Gurion did not defeat the Arabs by surrendering to them. It takes bold action, toughness, a willingness to show strength to win. My Imaginary GF posted:You have individuals calling for bombing Israel because ~inexplicable reasons~ but is not because Jews! They swear!, and you have me, advocating for policy that is productive towards an acceptable peace process. Sorry i'm advocating a winning strategy. I can't help it. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
A. Beaverhausen posted:I'm confused as to why people are serious posting to MIGF.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Fredrick the Great didn't defeat his enemies by surrendering to them. Napoleon Bonaparte didn't beat the Hapsburgs three times by surrendering to them. David Ben-Gurion did not defeat the Arabs by surrendering to them. Issue: Arabs are not a state actor, and cannot defeat Israel through strength of arms. Any attempt at doing so will result in lawful execution of unlawful combatants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Its logic like yours which emboldens terrorists to cause unnecessary colateral damage.  because he's using your own goddamn logic.My Imaginary GF posted:you have me, advocating for policy that is productive towards an acceptable peace process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Issue: Arabs are not a state actor, and cannot defeat Israel through strength of arms. Any attempt at doing so will result in lawful execution of unlawful combatants. Yeah man, the Israelis really came out on top in the 2006 Lebanon War.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Issue: Arabs are not a state actor, and cannot defeat Israel through strength of arms. Any attempt at doing so will result in lawful execution of unlawful combatants. Franc-tireurs and partisans have a proud tradition of harassing regulars. I want to call for a salute to all the fallen heroes; men with nothing more than courage and a rifle fighting the machines of war. The funny thing about partisans is that the Nazis considered all guerrilla warfare atrocious. This is confirmed by recordings of their talks in PoW camps and their incredible reprisals against civilians. They moralized on and on about how partisan warfare(and shotguns) are inhumane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Franc-tireurs and partisans have a proud tradition of harassing regulars. I want to call for a salute to all the fallen heroes; men with nothing more than courage and a rifle fighting the machines of war. And here we have on display the true underpinning of I/P issues: individuals who sympathize with terrorists and embolden the continuation of terrorism. Give it up, Panzeh. Quit advocating for Palestinian death. Panzeh posted:The funny thing about partisans is that the Nazis considered all guerrilla warfare atrocious. This is confirmed by recordings of their talks in PoW camps and their incredible reprisals against civilians. They moralized on and on about how partisan warfare(and shotguns) are inhumane. Where do you live, Panzeh? You claim to be American. Have you returned all your property to its true owners and engaged in a campaign to incite hostility against American communities?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Bring back the pro-Israeli dude who was saying everyone is just jealous they can't buttfuck Jewish girls. At least that was sort of amusing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
New Division posted:Bring back the pro-Israeli dude who was saying everyone is just jealous they can't buttfuck Jewish girls. At least that was sort of amusing. Arab misogny and sexual frustration does contribute heavily to ongoing acts of terrorism, how right you are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Jesus its like an immensely racist warmonging markov chain took over the discussion. MIGF you literally have nothing to add to this discussion that we cant get from a glance at Israeli news. Your callous disregard for human life is nothing less than monstrous. E: pushing all blame outwards crying out how the world is complicit in acts of violence so why should you be held to any standard except your own twisted morality. You make me sick. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
The Zionists are the villains in this story. You can say what you want to justify their inhumanity to man but at the end of the day they are bullies trapped in a cycle of abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:The Zionists are the villains in this story. You cannot view the conflict through a hero/villian narrative framework. It is unproductive towards peace. When someone is a bully, it is the responsibility of the bullied to learn how and when to avoid the bully. Israel has engaged in this process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:You cannot view the conflict through a hero/villian narrative framework. It is unproductive towards peace. You're going to be the first person to have an intra-cranial hernia. You know that, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:And here we have on display the true underpinning of I/P issues: individuals who sympathize with terrorists and embolden the continuation of terrorism. I, like Napoleon, advocate glory for those with bravery, they will find their place in the annals of history as a brave people who fought superior odds, like Frederick the Great and of course Napoleon. You claim to be knowledgable of politics and strategy yet claim that there is a 2000-year strategy that will result in a Palestinian state. You claim to be an American yet express opinions completely disloyal to American interests. Your opinions match up with one of an Israeli intelligence agent. If you are just an American advocating Israeli interests, then why haven't you sold all your American possessions and moved to Israel to a country that better matches your advocacy? Frederick would not have allowed someone in his court to advocate immediate surrender and vassalage to France or Austria, but sadly US leadership is too weak to be rid of such defeatist sentiment. Panzeh fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jan 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:You're going to be the first person to have an intra-cranial hernia. You know that, right? I believe intra-cranial hernias are reserved for unlawful combatants undergoing enhanced detention. Of all things, I am not an unlawful combatant in the I/P thread, nor do I provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, unlike some posters in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I believe intra-cranial hernias are reserved for unlawful combatants undergoing enhanced detention. Of all things, I am not an unlawful combatant in the I/P thread, nor do I provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, unlike some posters in this thread. The lawful combatants are the ones laying in the fields in godforsaken places, who died fighting for their honor and that of their nations'. The laws of honor and nations give them strength. If you could see me right now, i've got this painting of Napoleon in Russia right now. Heroes, all of them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:I believe intra-cranial hernias are reserved for unlawful combatants undergoing enhanced detention. Of all things, I am not an unlawful combatant in the I/P thread, nor do I provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, unlike some posters in this thread. According to whose designations?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Your opinions match up with one of an Israeli intelligence agent. Whoa, slow down there. Look, MIGF is either a very good troll, or just some guy off his meds. My Imaginary GF posted:I believe intra-cranial hernias are reserved for unlawful combatants undergoing enhanced detention. Of all things, I am not an unlawful combatant in the I/P thread, nor do I provide material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations, unlike some posters in this thread. See? Rigged Death Trap posted:Jesus its like an immensely racist warmonging markov chain took over the discussion. It'd be great to have one of these for the libertarian thread to keep it moving on off weeks. e: I mean the Markov chain-generated poster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
syscall girl posted:You're going to be the first person to have an intra-cranial hernia. You know that, right? I had no idea low-effort trolling was so dangerous to one's health! Like, I'll happily humor a troll as long as they're at least pretending, but at this point MIGF is just trying to see how obvious he has to make it before people stop biting
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Whoa, slow down there. Look, MIGF is either a very good troll, or just some guy off his meds. All of the great generals in history were capable of masking their true intentions, making their enemies make more mistakes than themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:All of the great generals in history were capable of masking their true intentions, making their enemies make more mistakes than themselves. Yes but some men are great generals, and some men are five dollar foot long making idiots who see a cool word on a blog somewhere and start using it like they know what it means to try and sound smart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Whoa, slow down there. Look, MIGF is either a very good troll, or just some guy off his meds. It's actually just a rather advanced text analysis and search algorithm that analyzes posts and determines whether they promote talking points which go against official AIPAC agenda, where posts that answer this criteria are found the algorithm searches across the web for AIPAC approved responses made to similar posts and pastes them to this thread. It's a pretty cool trick and works rather flawlessly most of the time, sometimes you can kinda tell something is off or that a response comes off as sort of a non-sequitur but judging by its general effect on a conversation you could say it's a smashing success.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Yes but some men are great generals, and some men are five dollar foot long making idiots who see a cool word on a blog somewhere and start using it like they know what it means to try and sound smart. Well, I know i'm going to go to the subway tomorrow and ask them about counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
I always thought that MIGF's shtick was not that far off how a lot of Beltway defense/foreign policy "experts" view the world. It even has something close to the right mixture of poorly thrown together buzzwords and soundbites.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:It's actually just a rather advanced text analysis and search algorithm that analyzes posts and determines whether they promote talking points which go against official AIPAC agenda, where posts that answer this criteria are found the algorithm searches across the web for AIPAC approved responses made to similar posts and pastes them to this thread. It's a pretty cool trick and works rather flawlessly most of the time, sometimes you can kinda tell something is off or that a response comes off as sort of a non-sequitur but judging by its general effect on a conversation you could say it's a smashing success. No, see, you're thinking of Kombotron, may he rest in peace. AIPAC is, if anything, substantially more subtle than MIGF, who is either batshit or trolling or (most likely) a little of both. This is a guy who IIRC claimed traced US campaign contributions back to money launderers in Israel with ties to shadowy interests and the powers-that-be, then said that he dared not substantiate the claim or look into it any further lest he endanger his own safety. Yeaaaaaah...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
New Division posted:I always thought that MIGF's shtick was not that far off how a lot of Beltway defense/foreign policy "experts" view the world. It even has something close to the right mixture of poorly thrown together buzzwords and soundbites. If his finger is on the pulse of the US defense/foreign policy establishment, it would be hard to find someone who is worse at analysis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:If his finger is on the pulse of the US defense/foreign policy establishment, it would be hard to find someone who is worse at analysis. Well, I wouldn't really say that US defense/foreign policy establishment has proven to be too much better over the last 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Artillery is a matter of statistics. You can't just hit the enemy mortar site, that gives you drat horrible odds at destroying the enemy combat capability. What you do is, you target the likely area in which the opposing force will occupy when your shells begin to impact, and you fire enough to account for over-shoots, under-shoots, failed detonations, and continued OpFor movement and tactics. You're talking about the effective methodology for making sure enemies are killed regardless of civilian casualties. That has nothing to do with whether such actions are legal and moral, because of course they aren't. Perhaps the most basic precepts of international military law are those of distinction between civilian and military targets and that making sure any incidental damage to civilians is proportional to the military objective. Although it might be effective to annihilate a crowded street with artillerty or detonate a suicide vest in a bustling market place for various reasons, both actions are abhorrent and illegal. I have no idea why you would try and justify such horrific war crimes, but it just lumps you in with people who actually support terrorist attacks. Hell, I'd put them a step above you, at least Hamas stopped suicide bombing years ago which is movement in the right direction. the IDF is just as happy to bomb civilians as ever and sadly the IDF managing to come behind literal terrorists in terms of morality is hardly a surprise In the UN's Goldstone report years ago they specifically stated that Israel was deliberately attacking civilians: “[F]ound numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51 (2) and 75 of Additional Protocol I, article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” - Paragraph 1921 of the Goldstone report, emphasis mine. They've carried this on to the present. Just to pick a few random examples here's a 1 hour time lapse video of Israelis destroying a civilian neighbourhood, here's a view of some of the destruction of street level (along with a Israeli sniper shooting a civilian who is searching for missing family members alongside humanitarian workers) and here's the words of a former IDF-soldier in the artillery corps and current Ph.D Student and peace activist Idan Barir who said: "As someone who served as a combat soldier in the IDF I feel obligated to explain what is behind the numbers we hear about regarding the military operation in Gaza. A standard high-explosive shell weighs about 40 kg and is nothing but a large fragmentation grenade, which, at the time of explosion, is meant to kill everyone within a 50-meter radius and injure people located in an additional radius of 100 meters. It is impossible to aim the shells in an accurate manner and they are not meant to hit specific targets. Different factors such as the humidity of the air, the amount of heat in the barrel and the direction of the wind may determine whether the shell falls 30 or even 100 meters from the spot at which it was aimed. For that reason, a multi-barrel artillery battery fires a barrage of shells in a certain direction knowing that statistics will work their course, and that due to the scatter and the amount of damage caused by many shells, the target will indeed be hit." "There's no way of knowing who is hit." "As a result of the inaccuracy of this weapon, the safety ranges used during war require us to aim at least 250 meters away from our troops while they are behind cover. In 2006 when the IDF first fired artillery shells into Gaza, I was surprised by the choice to use such an inaccurate weapon in such a densely populated region." ... "Only three years later, in Operation Cast Lead, artillery fire was used once again, even more extensively than before. Nowadays, since the launch of Operation Protective Edge, the IDF has already shot thousands of artillery shells at different parts of the Gaza Strip. The shells have caused unbearable damage to human life and tremendous destruction to infrastructure, the full scale of which will only be revealed when the fighting is over." I have absolutely no doubt that the upcoming UN report will confirm more of the same atrocities and crimes and the point is that Israel is committing war crimes and you're trying to white wash them, just as you tried to whitewash nazi war crimes earlier in the thread quote:The use of human shields is a common terrorist tactic. Artillery doctrine cannot incorporate potential civilian casualties into its calculations of firing solutions and achieve OpFor elimination. A warcrime by Hezbollah forced Israeli response in full accord with international SOP for artillery doctrine. Mortars a mobile weapon, and it is expected that an OpFor will shoot-and-scoot. In order to eliminate OpFor capacity to engage in future crimes against humanity, it is necessary to respond swiftly to OpFor attacks. The only side in the conflict that has been shown to use human shields is Israel, once again making them the moral midgets in comparison to freakin' islamic terrorists. Here's the relevant paragraphs from the UN's Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict 2009 (Goldstone Report) In relation to Israel it says: "1097. This practice constitutes the use of involuntary human shields and is a violation of article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." Article 51, paragraph 7, of Additional Protocol I (set out in full in chapter VIII above) adds that "the presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations." The prohibition of the use of human shields also has customary law status (rule 97 of the ICRC rules of customary humanitarian law536), both in international and in non-international armed conflict. The Mission, therefore, finds that the Israeli armed forces have violated article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the prohibition under customary international law that the civilian population as such will not be the object of attacks, as reflected in article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I." While in relation to the Palestinians it says: "493. The Mission finds it useful to clarify what is meant, from a legal perspective, by using civilians or a civilian population as a human shield. Parties to a conflict are not permitted to use a civilian population or individual civilians in order to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. It is not in dispute that both Palestinian armed groups and Israeli forces were fighting within an area populated by civilians. Fighting within civilian areas is not, by itself, sufficient for a finding that a party is using the civilian population living in the area of the fighting as a human shield. As the words of article 57 (1) show ("shall not be used to render", "in order to attempt to shield"), an intention to use the civilian population in order to shield an area from military attack is required." "494. From the information available to it, the Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks." I mean the IDF has literally argued in court that they should be allowed to use human shields, trying to make the arguement that THE TURRURISTS USE HOOMAN SHIELDS is really shooting yourself in the foot because Israel doing this is a well documented fact while no-one ever seems to have discovered Hamas doing this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
MIGF posted:Artillery is a matter of statistics. You can't just hit the enemy mortar site, that gives you drat horrible odds at destroying the enemy combat capability. What you do is, you target the likely area in which the opposing force will occupy when your shells begin to impact, and you fire enough to account for over-shoots, under-shoots, failed detonations, and continued OpFor movement and tactics. We used statistics to aim our artillery! And our artillery was statistically likely to kill many many civilians. But since we weren't "trying" to kill them, its completely ok. Gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
If it advances American interests and plays at home, its legal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
"poo poo, over a hundred new posts in the I/P thread, something must have happened!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2015 03:35
|
|
