|
According to some Palestinian friends, the IDF is headed into Gaza right now.
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
SyHopeful posted:According to some Palestinian friends, the IDF is headed into Gaza right now. There was some media buzz about Gaza the past 24 hours, only reporting Hamas launches of course but yeah, (another*) IDF incursion would make sense. *reminder that the IDF invaded Gaza a couple of weeks ago when a tunnel was uncovered, it didn't get reported massively in the media.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
It's Holocaust Remembrance Day, so let's all have a moment of silence to remember http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/CANDIDLY-SPEAKING-The-erosion-of-Holocaust-memory-453134 quote:We should be under no illusions. The so-called Holocaust commemoration in Europe and other Western countries is a sham. In most cases it trivializes the Holocaust by linking it to other mass murders. In fact, commemoration has become so broad and universal that the words “Jew” and “anti-Semitism” are not even mentioned in the European Union’s lengthy call to its constituents to engage in Holocaust remembrance. http://www.jpost.com/Blogs/A-Daughter-of-Zion/There-has-been-only-one-Shoah-Holocaust-in-the-history-of-mankind-453004 quote:As Jews in Yisrael prepare to commemorate the Shoah, AKA the “Holocaust,” I keep pondering about avery sad trend that we are witnessing. It is the growing disparagement of this most horrific chapter in human history, the one perpetrated against the Jews.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
I can't find this supposed "lengthy call" by the EU mentioned in the article, which makes sense because the EU has International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January and not May. Back in January when they had International Holocaust Remembrance Day Junker, the EU president, sent a message "to the Jewish community on the occasion of Holocaust Remembrance Day 2016" where he specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"and besides Mr. Chief of Staff, we didn't defeat the Nazis." I love when people destroy their own argument on multiple levels with a simple statement like this. It's loving poetry. Is there a name for this kind of thing?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:I can't find this supposed "lengthy call" by the EU mentioned in the article, which makes sense because the EU has International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January and not May. Back in January when they had International Holocaust Remembrance Day Junker, the EU president, sent a message "to the Jewish community on the occasion of Holocaust Remembrance Day 2016" where he specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism. The writer probably means to refer to Justin Trudeau's statement on the internationally-recognized Holocaust Memorial Day (i.e., in January). It's not exactly lengthy, ranking in at just three paragraphs, and Canada's a bit outside the EU, but it did cause quite a fuss because it didn't specifically mention "Jews" or "anti-Semitism" so that's probably what the writer's thinking of.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:No, that's precisely what you're arguing. Simply saying "nuh-uh" doesn't change the fact that your argument, that there is no line between criticism of a nation state/its policies/its ideology and bigotry towards a people but only a question of degrees, implies precisely that. I have never argued this in any capacity. That's purely in your imagination. You're making these ridiculous claims with zero citations because they are 100% fiction. team overhead smash posted:Actually there has been majority support for the peace process for a good long while amongst Palestinians. It's only in the last year or two that it's dipped below 50%, with the thousands killed in protective Edge following years of oppression with no progress seeing it decline to the high 40's due to the lack of belief that Israel is actually willing to engage in peace. They support the peace process in theory, but would they have supported surrendering their refugee claims? Because that's the only way Labor ever signs a deal. team overhead smash posted:Okay, I have their book, The Israel lobby and US Foreign policy, right here in front of me. If you're "not remotely" just throwing out blind accusations of anti-semitism to hide behind, what are the passages that you're critical of? The fundamental thesis of the book is self-serving bullshit meant to apologize for solely American failures. I think Chomsky is 100% correct that Israel can be seen as an American client state blindly following American interests. It's just a more politically correct version of the stormfront trope of undue Jewish influence. Main Paineframe posted:even the director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism is being accused of "dismissing" anti-Semitism and having ties with "leftist" groups that are "critical of British Jewish institutions", I think it's fair to say the whole thing's escalated into nothing less than a witch-hunt. He's inherently not a neutral observer in being a member of IJV, although their website looks more like a J Street analogue than a JVP one. Corbyn should pick a genuine independent auditor rather than a fellow traveler. Fundamentally this dispute boils down to whether anti-Semitism is solely limited to outright hatred and violence, or whether prejudice and functional outcomes count. The answer in the latter case is of course, it depends on the situation, but groups like JVP are seemingly determined to defend cases like Bouattia's reflexively, who has not advocated outright hatred against Jews, but rails against "Zionists" controlling the media and other institutions of power, and supports unlimited violence in the name of "resistance."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Some good news, A European town called "Jew-Killers' Fortress" has voted to change its name. But alas, now that they have replaced the name, people are vandalizing the town with anti-semitic graffiti. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/05/world/europe/castrillo-mota-de-judos-anti-semitic-vandalism.html
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Some good news, Hateful graffiti? Now that's shocking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_policy
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 10:30
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:The fundamental thesis of the book is self-serving bullshit meant to apologize for solely American failures. I think Chomsky is 100% correct that Israel can be seen as an American client state blindly following American interests. It's just a more politically correct version of the stormfront trope of undue Jewish influence. I see, Walt and Mearsheimer were merely trying to apologize for American failures. In that same spirit of criticism, perhaps it's fair to say that you might be similarly prejudiced in trying to discredit claims about Zionist lobbying efforts and corruption of U.S foreign policy perhaps because of your ethnic and religious ties to Israel (sorry to say but only Israelis and Jewish supporters of Israel take your tone, but forgive my presumption if you are someone without emotional and ethnic connections to Israel who just happens to be sharing impartial views on foreign affairs that just happen to be favorable towards Israel.) objects in mirror fucked around with this message at 10:44 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:They support the peace process in theory, but would they have supported surrendering their refugee claims? Because that's the only way Labor ever signs a deal. This is a nice way of shifting the blame. What you actually mean here is that no Israeli government and a majority of the Jewish people do not support the peace process based on the internationally agreed consensus on the final status. I'm sorry that many Israelis don't respect Palestinian human rights and don't want peace. That's not really something that the Palestinians should be expected to compromise on though, the issue is the Israelis and getting them to respect Palestinian human rights. quote:The fundamental thesis of the book is self-serving bullshit meant to apologize for solely American failures. I think Chomsky is 100% correct that Israel can be seen as an American client state blindly following American interests. It's just a more politically correct version of the stormfront trope of undue Jewish influence. And I've got the book right here in front of me, so where does it say anything to back up your claims? Have you even read it? The book I've got points out that the Israel lobby is a powerful influence, but not the exclusive one. It explains that even though the Israel was active in the various events it covers, other people with no connection to the lobby were pushing for the same thing. Moreover at no point does it say "and because the lobby has this influence, the USA politicians therefore have no culpability in their own decisions". It honestly seems like you've never actually read the book and are basing your entire argument off of reviews or on-line criticisms you've googled, which is loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 10:51
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:I don't think the majority of Israelis want to govern Palestinian majority areas. They want to: They don't want to govern them, but they want to control everything else about them. Most of the Israeli proposals involve annexing a lot of very valuable land in the West Bank in exchange for worthless Negev Desert land. Combined with the fact that every Israeli proposal has Israel in charge of the borders and airspace of any potential 'independent' state it's hard to see the Palestinian side as intransigent. Palestine must be demilitarized but would be required to put down any and every protest even remotely directed at Israel. For what it's worth, I think most of the Israeli terms seem tailor-made to stall out negotiations which has been their strategy for the past 20 years or so.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:worthless Negev Desert land.  the negev desert contains the greatest treasure of all
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:They support the peace process in theory, but would they have supported surrendering their refugee claims? Because that's the only way Labor ever signs a deal. Refusing to accept a particular set of conditions for peace is not the same as refusing to accept peace. This is also why it's incorrect to say that Netanyahu is against the two-state solution - he's always been clear that he supports it, but only under conditions he knows the Palestinians would never accept. The Holocaust Remembrance Day festivities aren't over yet! First up, the IDF's Deputy Chief of Staff suggested that he sees disturbing similarities between Israel today and Germany in the 1930s, specifically citing callousness, hatred, violence, hypocrisy, and hatred of those who are different as things that people ought to reflect on. Naturally, he was slammed by right-wing ministers and MKs, particularly Ayelet Shaked, who accused him of "cheapening" the Holocaust and holding "contempt" for its legacy. In response to the criticism, he clarified his comments, saying that he didn't mean to compare either the government or the military to that of Nazi Germany. The media and popular discourse seem to have generally taken that as an apology, which demonstrates just how badly they failed to grasp what he was really criticizing. The recent arrest of a Haredi draft-dodger set off a wave of Haredi protests. Pretty standard stuff for a Haredi protest; the police arrived to disperse the crowd, the Haredi protesters called them "Nazis" a bunch, violent protesters were arrested, and the rest of the demonstrators were allowed to proceed. Haredi groups often compare the police and military to Nazi Germany, as they did the last time the IDF tried to adjust its beard policy. But it takes some real chutzpah to throw around "Nazi" accusations on Holocaust Remembrance Day. Okay, the funny stuff's over. Time for the thing that makes me tear up every time I read it. Did you know that merely acknowledging the fact that others besides Jews were killed in the Holocaust is equivalent to Holocaust denial? quote:Analysis: Sec. Kerry’s Holocaust Memorial Day Message Minimizes Jewish Loss Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 17:04 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:
Post more cats.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
I imagine this analyst yelling "TUMBLLLLLRRRRRR!" I also enjoy the logic that the Nazi crimes are made less horrible by the fact that they also killed non-Jews.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:While intent does matter to a degree in criminal culpability, outcome is significantly more relevant when discussing broader outcomes. The goal of justice is not simple retribution, it is restitution, and protection of people from unfair outcomes. I wouldn't want to a doctor to maintain a licence if they kept killing their patients for whatever reason, no matter what their intentions were, because I would rather not see dead patients as an outcome. The question of criminality or legality is actually incredibly irrelevant to this. On a teleological ethical level (the very kind that excuses hospital bombings for a greater good), if the ends are poo poo, then you should really do something to change the ends instead of going on about how noble the means are. It's also weird to talk about separating criminality from broader concepts of justice when talking about LOAC, because the two are pretty much inseparable. Jus In Bello exclusively deals with what constitutes just conduct in waging war; there isn't a war crime traffic code where the U.N. monitor comes around and puts a ticket on your tank because it's double parked. Tiler Kiwi posted:Military operations will kill innocent people, and that can be okay if the ends being pursued are reasonably achievable and due diligence is taken. But the problem here is that I don't actually believe that due diligence is being pursued by many institutions whom have the ability to kill civilians, whether through callousness, groupthink, or just sheer incompetence. As a person opposed to hospital bombings, I do not believe that measures will be taken to prevent these sorts of things from occurring in the future as opposed to those involved just taking the easy way out and going "well poo poo happens", nor am I convinced that hypothetical measures taken to prevent these incidents would jeopardize the goals of the military operation, and I do not think it is reasonable to expect an institution is going to act against its own interests, so taking their internal investigations and statements at face value is a poor way to gauge intent or good will. Thus, I think moral high ground that they stand upon while they rack up a death toll that sometimes dwarfs those they oppose is worth regarding with a great deal of skepticism. Tiler Kiwi posted:Also a genuinely curious question since you seem to know a lot about this sort of thing; when has this sort of military self-investigation deal actually gone and said "Oh poo poo that sort of broke international law, someone call the ICC"? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 09:14 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Oh the poor dears, they're been suspended from duty (read: they get to go on vacation instead of being in a warzone) and they've been disciplined (some dude with more bling on his uniform than them has wagged his finger at them for a few minutes). That's not a just punishment for a war crime. And besides, they're just the grunts. What about mission control? These guys don't just decide to climb into a plane then wander around looking for things to shoot on their own initiative, they've been told to go there and shoot stuff at such and such coordinates; those who gave them these coordinates and those who okayed the attack are equally culpable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
That's ridiculous. The coordinates weren't correct, they were the coordinates of a hospital. MSF gave them the coordinates of their hospital, and regularly reminded them there was a hospital at these coordinates, so they knew it was a hospital. They decided to attack what they knew was a hospital, and that's a war crime. The gunship loitered for over a hour on the place. The MSF logo was prominently displayed on the building and its entrance. Does the air force hire near-sighted pilots who couldn't tell that it was a hospital? The only reason they're in the clear is that the USA are strong enough to be above the law. You talk about accountability, but they have none of that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The crew didn't commit a war crime, since their conduct was neither intentional nor reckless, and I'm honestly not sure it's possible to commit the vast majority of what laypeople generally call war crimes (violations of the principles of proportionality, humanity, chivalry, or discrimination) under a theory of negligence. Maybe if you forgot to feed a POW and he starved to death or something, but that's a rare case. Given that their conduct wasn't criminal, a reprimand that will severely impact their ability to continue to work in their field seems appropriate. The operational control didn't send them out the door with orders to hit a hospital, so they're in the clear. The JTAC who gave them the coordinates for the strike gave them correct coordinates, so he's in the clear. It sucks that a bunch of doctors got blown up despite no one doing anything intentional or reckless, but unless you have some alternate theory of how this conduct is criminal, you have to accept this sort of thing is why war is so terrible. There were injured Taliban fighters in the hospital whom the military wanted dead, so they killed them. That's a war crime because they're hors de combat in a hospital, and also the doctors aren't even combatants at all!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 12:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It sucks that a bunch of doctors got blown up despite no one doing anything intentional or reckless, but unless you have some alternate theory of how this conduct is criminal, you have to accept this sort of thing is why war is so terrible. - The crew misidentified the clinic as a nearby Taliban-controlled government building. - The crew did not consult their no-strike list, which included the co-ordinates of the hospital. This, according to you, does not fall under "recklessness" - The aircraft had faulty electronics which prevented them from receiving communications. - The aircraft also had faulty navigation and targeting systems, which allowed the gunship to target the wrong building. So unless your argument is that the entire USA Army, from the people who issue the orders to the foot soldiers, and including whoever checks their equipment and gives the technical thumbs up to a mission are loving lazy and stupid, and that it's OK to give loving lazy and stupid people enough firepower to level a city, there was a healthy dose of intention and/or recklessness involved. Dead Reckoning posted:a reprimand that will severely impact their ability to continue to work in their field seems appropriate. Well, I guess that's all right, then. poo poo happens and now 42 people are dead due to, and I quote General John F. Campbell "preventable human error", but impacting their ability to continue to work in their field makes it all fine. Water under the bridge and all that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:This is a nice way of shifting the blame. What you actually mean here is that no Israeli government and a majority of the Jewish people do not support the peace process based on the internationally agreed consensus on the final status. That's not true in the sense that the international consensus is that refugees aren't coming back. That's what the quartet was telling Abbas. quote:And I've got the book right here in front of me, so where does it say anything to back up your claims? Have you even read it? I read it 8 years ago. It dresses up its idiotic claims but they're still bullshit. objects in mirror posted:I see, Walt and Mearsheimer were merely trying to apologize for American failures. In that same spirit of criticism, perhaps it's fair to say that you might be similarly prejudiced in trying to discredit claims about Zionist lobbying efforts and corruption of U.S foreign policy perhaps because of your ethnic and religious ties to Israel (sorry to say but only Israelis and Jewish supporters of Israel take your tone, but forgive my presumption if you are someone without emotional and ethnic connections to Israel who just happens to be sharing impartial views on foreign affairs that just happen to be favorable towards Israel.) This is loving Stormfront-level trash. There are posters in this thread who scream about how they're Jewish and anti-Zionist. That's also the very premise of JVP, a group that loves touting its ethnic background. Ethnicity and nationality have no bearing on this at all either way, and anyone citing them is a lovely debater and disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:yet by your logic oh loving blow me
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The US has been conducting air operations in Afghanistan for going on 15 years now, and given that an accidental strike on a protected target is so rare and novel as to be headline news, you either have to assume that the US has rules and procedures in place to prevent such things that have generally been working, or we have the luckiest Air Force in the world. The trick is in how you define "protected target". The Gaza beach shelling, happened in part because the only building on the beach was a fisherman's shack that was deemed to be owned by Hamas, and thus the entire beach was declared a free-fire zone where anyone inside could be assumed to be a Hamas agent with no further verification necessary. And that's why some artilleryman faced zero consequences for intentionally blowing up four kids - he followed a process and RoE that told him it was perfectly okay to blow up those kids, and therefore was cleared of any responsibility for his decisions. Kim Jong Il posted:This is loving Stormfront-level trash. There are posters in this thread who scream about how they're Jewish and anti-Zionist. That's also the very premise of JVP, a group that loves touting its ethnic background. Ethnicity and nationality have no bearing on this at all either way, and anyone citing them is a lovely debater and disingenuous. Many would disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:That's not true in the sense that the international consensus is that refugees aren't coming back. That's what the quartet was telling Abbas. The standing solution is a "just solution" to the refugee crisis which is commonly interpreted as at least some right of return to Israel, with all peace talks to date that had any progression containing at least some provision for a right of return - something that has been backed up even by the USA when it comes to talks. Also four countries isn't an international consensus. quote:I read it 8 years ago. It dresses up its idiotic claims but they're still bullshit. So in essence your argument is "someone critical of Israel is Anti-semetic for no reason that I can explain, just because I say so" but you also don't want us to say that people mindlessly throw out claims of anti-semitism with no rationale so as to deflect valid criticism of Israel? quote:This is loving Stormfront-level trash. There are posters in this thread who scream about how they're Jewish and anti-Zionist. That's also the very premise of JVP, a group that loves touting its ethnic background. Ethnicity and nationality have no bearing on this at all either way, and anyone citing them is a lovely debater and disingenuous. lol, he was extending your argument.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
i'm jewish
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i'm jewish Hello.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Avshalom posted:i'm jewish You're also the best poster in D&D. Makes u think.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
New salvo overnight. Someone fired 107mm rockets into southern Israel, and Israel responded by hitting Hamas positions in Khan Yunis.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There were injured Taliban fighters in the hospital whom the military wanted dead, so they killed them. That's a war crime because they're hors de combat in a hospital, and also the doctors aren't even combatants at all! Fat Samurai posted:According to the General in command of the Afghanistan forces, the airstrike (caused by "preventable human error") happened because: Fat Samurai posted:Well, I guess that's all right, then. poo poo happens and now 42 people are dead due to, and I quote General John F. Campbell "preventable human error", but impacting their ability to continue to work in their field makes it all fine. Water under the bridge and all that. Ultramega posted:oh loving blow me Main Paineframe posted:The trick is in how you define "protected target". The Gaza beach shelling, happened in part because the only building on the beach was a fisherman's shack that was deemed to be owned by Hamas, and thus the entire beach was declared a free-fire zone where anyone inside could be assumed to be a Hamas agent with no further verification necessary. And that's why some artilleryman faced zero consequences for intentionally blowing up four kids - he followed a process and RoE that told him it was perfectly okay to blow up those kids, and therefore was cleared of any responsibility for his decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 09:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you have literally any evidence to support this accusation? Uh, they bombarded a hospital with Taliban fighters in it for over an hour. It wasn't a single errant bomb. That a government claims to have investigated and found nothing deliberately wrong with this is hardly credibly whether it's Americans claiming to be shocked, shocked that they blew up a hospital, or Russians amazed at how many well-armed tourists suddenly went on vacation in Ukraine without their knowledge.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It doesn't mean that simple mistakes rise to the level of war crimes. 42 dead people is kind of worth more note than a "simple mistake", war crime fits pretty well when it comes to blowing up doctors in a hospital.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
Let me just repeat the wholly implausible story they're using to cover themselves again:
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 11:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That doesn't really have anything to do with what we're discussing. What are you discussing, then? You were arguing that it's not a crime to bomb a hospital as long as it's just an oopsie, and he responded by bringing up a situation where someone repeatedly and deliberately shelling defenseless children was also not a crime because someone higher up the chain had said they were a legitimate target. Why is no one accountable in that scenario? Is it also moral to bomb volunteer doctors if a US marshal tells you to, and an internal investigation decides that he was in the right?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You're also the best poster in D&D. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's Holocaust Remembrance Day, so let's all have a moment of silence to remember (I think I might be stealing an Ephraim Kishon bit here, but I can't turn it up online. Pretty sure I got it from some early 2000's Yediot Aharonot think piece which really struck a chord)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Uh, they bombarded a hospital with Taliban fighters in it for over an hour. It wasn't a single errant bomb. That a government claims to have investigated and found nothing deliberately wrong with this is hardly credibly whether it's Americans claiming to be shocked, shocked that they blew up a hospital, or Russians amazed at how many well-armed tourists suddenly went on vacation in Ukraine without their knowledge. Do you understand that "oh no, we confused a building for another, similarly shaped building 400m away and weren't able to cross-check because our poo poo was broken" is a lot more plausible than someone deciding "LET'S GO FOR IT, LET'S DO THE WHOLE loving <HOSPITAL>" in TYOOL 2015, running it up the chain to the theater component command level, and everyone from the guy taking messages to the General in charge to the air crew pulling the trigger being totally cool with having their fingerprints on publicly blowing up a hospital? And then three uninvolved Generals deciding to go along with it and making up a 3,000+ page report out of whole cloth detailing an extremely plausible set of human and equipment errors that none the less manages to jibe with the testimony of all witnesses? In this scenario you've made up, what motivation do the aircrew losing their careers over a strike they were ordered to execute by their superiors have for keeping quiet? Yardbomb posted:42 dead people is kind of worth more note than a "simple mistake", war crime fits pretty well when it comes to blowing up doctors in a hospital. Kajeesus posted:What are you discussing, then? You were arguing that it's not a crime to bomb a hospital as long as it's just an oopsie, and he responded by bringing up a situation where someone repeatedly and deliberately shelling defenseless children was also not a crime because someone higher up the chain had said they were a legitimate target. Why is no one accountable in that scenario? Is it also moral to bomb volunteer doctors if a US marshal tells you to, and an internal investigation decides that he was in the right? I have been attempting to explain why these distinctions that Ytlaya and Tiller were were confused by are integrated into statutory and customary Law of Armed Conflict, as well as most Western legal systems, and why they matter. I cited the USAF accidentally shelling a hospital in contrast to the Syrian regime's deliberate targeting of a hospital to illustrate a case where law and morality properly make distinctions based on intent and mental state rather than outcome. This in part grew out of a discussion of whether U.S. forces could be considered accountable/responsible to superior officers because some posters felt that insufficient punishment for what they personally considered a moral wrong negated the concept of responsibility as a whole. I haven't really got to the point of drilling into specific examples from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict yet, because some posters still haven't been willing to accept that "War Crime" has a formal definition beyond "a bad thing happened" and "Lawful Combatant" is a non-arbitrary distinction, which are basic principles that have to be articulated before you can have a serious discussion about war crimes. Irony Be My Shield and eSports Chaebol have been arguing that distinguishing between the Kunduz airstrike and the Syrian bombing of a hospital in Aleppo is wrong because the U.S. airstrike in Kunduz was in fact a deliberate act that has been covered up, rather than an accident, despite there being literally zero evidence to support this assertion. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Why would people lie about a bad thing they did? It just makes no sense e: The idea that it happened entirely accidentally and with no negligence on the part of anyone is an extraordinary claim and requires an actual independent investigation to support it, rather than an internal PR job. It also as a point of fact does not prevent it from being a war crime. Irony Be My Shield fucked around with this message at 19:03 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:30 minutes, not an hour. 2:08 AM - 2:38 AM. MSF counted 2:08 - 3:15.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:e: The idea that it happened entirely accidentally and with no negligence on the part of anyone is an extraordinary claim and requires an actual independent investigation to support it, rather than an internal PR job. It also as a point of fact does not prevent it from being a war crime. I just explained that the report does in fact conclude that the hospital was struck due to negligence (rather than recklessness) on the part of the aircrew. You'd know that if you actually read the report. And yes, it does preclude it from being a war crime. It's not (usually) possible to commit a war crime through negligence for the same reason it isn't possible to commit murder or manslaughter through negligence; purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct are (again, usually) required elements of the offense. Cat Mattress posted:MSF counted 2:08 - 3:15. Based on what? The investigators had access to a time-stamped tape of the entire fire mission, so I'm inclined to believe their numbers more.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 19:27
|
|