Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
i am harry
Oct 14, 2003

FlamingLiberal posted:

People say that Israel is trying to goad Hamas into rocket attacks so that Bibi can start another war...but I wouldn’t call a ‘war’ a conflict in which one side with modern military equipment and airplanes bombs a bunch of people with rocks in a giant prison

Look at that it's the 1980s all over again.
And the 1990s.
And the 2000s.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

XMNN
Apr 26, 2008
I am incredibly stupid
From the GBS thread:

Strep Vote posted:

good morning, please deposit your broken brains in the bin

https://twitter.com/IDFSpokesperson/status/996427205944184832

it's beyond parody

Elias_Maluco
Aug 23, 2007
I need to sleep
Holy poo poo I though it was irony before I scrolled down and saw "@IDFSpokesperson"

"children" "disabled civilians" its loving unbelievable

punishedkissinger
Sep 20, 2017

XMNN posted:

From the GBS thread:


it's beyond parody

He's clearly making a terror kite and not a molotov in that middle picture

i am harry
Oct 14, 2003

Can a country be guilty of war crimes while not being at war?

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

i am harry posted:

Can a country be guilty of war crimes while not being at war?

I think it's just normal crimes against humanity if you do it to an occupied people

Miftan
Mar 31, 2012

Terry knows what he can do with his bloody chocolate orange...

Habibi posted:

Maybe this isn't the thread for it, and I'm happy to take it to PMs (if you got 'em!), but have you heard of 'Breaking the Silence' and what do you think of their efforts?

I don't have PMs. Breaking the silence are generally good from what I've seen. It allows people who understand how horrible the stuff they did was to counter the Israeli state's propaganda. Not domestically unfortunately, but overseas I hear it works OK?

Kavros
May 18, 2011

sleep sleep sleep
fly fly post post
sleep sleep sleep

XMNN posted:

it's all very quiet today, are the protests still going on? hopefully the IDF have actually decided to exercise some restraint

Best the monkey's paw can do is "the IDF have actually decided to execute someone in restraints"

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

i am harry posted:

Can a country be guilty of war crimes while not being at war?
Sure, "at war"/"not at war" isn't really a strict binary. But if Israel isn't at war with any recognizable belligerent, then you're conceding that Hamas has no moral standing as a combatant and are bandits/terrorists. The problem with applying LOAC to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that both sides argue that it's an occupation or a conflict between two responsible belligerents depending on which one is most convenient to their argument at that instant.

E: also, you can't really hold a country guilty of war crimes; you have to charge individual members of its armed forces or government (unless you're Stalin, then Yolo)

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:14 on May 15, 2018

pro starcraft loser
Jan 23, 2006

Stand back, this could get messy.

FlamingLiberal posted:

People say that Israel is trying to goad Hamas into rocket attacks so that Bibi can start another war...but I wouldn’t call a ‘war’ a conflict in which one side with modern military equipment and airplanes bombs a bunch of people with rocks in a giant prison

I think that's exactly what this is.



Didn't someone yell at me for mentioning HAMAS? Now everyone seems in agreement they do have an extremely tight grip on these protests.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

pro starcraft loser posted:

I think that's exactly what this is.



Didn't someone yell at me for mentioning HAMAS? Now everyone seems in agreement they do have an extremely tight grip on these protests.

Hamas runs Gaza, any large scale action is done at least with their knowledge, what with them being a valid government and all.

Hamas probably approved of the protests because this is something worth protesting even at the risk of IDF overreaction.

That in no way means they 'controlled' the protests or have any blame in a situation where an incredibly powerful military force turned protesters into a loving shooting gallery.

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

pro starcraft loser posted:

I think that's exactly what this is.



Didn't someone yell at me for mentioning HAMAS? Now everyone seems in agreement they do have an extremely tight grip on these protests.

I mean, it's not surprising that you're seeing that claim a lot, since the IDF has been actively pushing it for a while. The fact that there's still thousands of people protesting along the fence tends to suggest otherwise, though, especially since major protests also broke out in the West Bank today.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Main Paineframe posted:

I mean, it's not surprising that you're seeing that claim a lot, since the IDF has been actively pushing it for a while. The fact that there's still thousands of people protesting along the fence tends to suggest otherwise, though, especially since major protests also broke out in the West Bank today.

yea also this. The West Bank is having just as much passionate protests today in response, and Hamas or not it's not like they can just summon thousands of people even after they got loving sniped at.

pro starcraft loser
Jan 23, 2006

Stand back, this could get messy.

sexpig by night posted:

yea also this. The West Bank is having just as much passionate protests today in response, and Hamas or not it's not like they can just summon thousands of people even after they got loving sniped at.

Why does the IDF shoot at Gazans so freely compared to West Bank(ians?)?

Is it because the "they voted Hamas into power once, now they are all terrorists in our book" kind of mindset?

Zero_Grade
Mar 18, 2004

Darktider 🖤🌊

~Neck Angels~

This one is much worse than the probable sniper video imo, since the journalists are extremely obviously being targeted by the drone:
https://twitter.com/HodaAH/status/996294589840547840

Elias_Maluco posted:

Holy poo poo I though it was irony before I scrolled down and saw "@IDFSpokesperson"

"children" "disabled civilians" its loving unbelievable
I'm the arson kites

XMNN
Apr 26, 2008
I am incredibly stupid
The second* thing that comes to mind as a response to the current "what would you want your country to do in this situation?" line of dissembling is "I would wonder why tens of thousands of people are prepared to protest against my governments actions despite explicit threats that they will be shot"

also I found out that horrendous oval office Mark Regev got made ambassador to the UK when his dulcet aussie tones came over the radio this morning

*the first obviously being "not have the army shoot thousands of people at a protest, thoroughly investigate how they mishandled the situation if they did and prosecute everyone involved"

Main Paineframe
Oct 27, 2010

pro starcraft loser posted:

Why does the IDF shoot at Gazans so freely compared to West Bank(ians?)?

Is it because the "they voted Hamas into power once, now they are all terrorists in our book" kind of mindset?

Since Gaza is completely contained and Israel hates Hamas, Gazans aren't a threat to Israeli interests no matter how angry they get. Whether they direct that anger at Israel or channel it into internal discontent, it works out fine for Israel.

On the other hand, West Bank settlements and infrastructure are often quite close to Palestinian land, and Israel likes Fatah and wants the PA to stay in power, so too much instability there is bad news. The settlements would be nearly impossible to defend against a serious uprising in the West Bank, so it's in Israel's interests to keep things from boiling over there. Besides, since the PA cooperates with Israel in "security matters" (i.e., anything that threatens Fatah rule), Israel can have the PA security forces beat up or arrest the demonstrators for them.

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

Dead Reckoning posted:

Sure, "at war"/"not at war" isn't really a strict binary. But if Israel isn't at war with any recognizable belligerent, then you're conceding that Hamas has no moral standing as a combatant and are bandits/terrorists. The problem with applying LOAC to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that both sides argue that it's an occupation or a conflict between two responsible belligerents depending on which one is most convenient to their argument at that instant.

Couldn't you say the same thing about stuff like slave rebellions? I mean, I guess you could call that "terrorism," but only if you concede that that type of "terrorism" isn't actually bad.

Your rationale can be used to condemn literally any sort of violent resistance by an oppressed people against their oppressor, provided the former are inside the latter's country and don't have their own state (or are part of an occupied state).

Nebalebadingdong posted:

Right, I wasn't disagreeing

Ah, sorry, misinterpreted your post.

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Main Paineframe posted:

Since Gaza is completely contained and Israel hates Hamas, Gazans aren't a threat to Israeli interests no matter how angry they get. Whether they direct that anger at Israel or channel it into internal discontent, it works out fine for Israel.

On the other hand, West Bank settlements and infrastructure are often quite close to Palestinian land, and Israel likes Fatah and wants the PA to stay in power, so too much instability there is bad news. The settlements would be nearly impossible to defend against a serious uprising in the West Bank, so it's in Israel's interests to keep things from boiling over there. Besides, since the PA cooperates with Israel in "security matters" (i.e., anything that threatens Fatah rule), Israel can have the PA security forces beat up or arrest the demonstrators for them.

Yea pretty much all this. If they piss the West Bank off too much they could actually face a genuine uprising from the Palestinians that at the very least would require a lot more than a few border guards to push down, and the PA are perfectly fine working with Isreal so they're much less a threat to them than Hamas. Gaza is basically an open air prison where they can kill whoever they want and not really face any danger until the other occupied area gets angry.

Ultramega
Jul 9, 2004

Dead Reckoning posted:

Sure, "at war"/"not at war" isn't really a strict binary. But if Israel isn't at war with any recognizable belligerent, then you're conceding that Hamas has no moral standing as a combatant and are bandits/terrorists. The problem with applying LOAC to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is that both sides argue that it's an occupation or a conflict between two responsible belligerents depending on which one is most convenient to their argument at that instant.

E: also, you can't really hold a country guilty of war crimes; you have to charge individual members of its armed forces or government (unless you're Stalin, then Yolo)

What does Stalin have to do with anything?

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Ytlaya posted:

Couldn't you say the same thing about stuff like slave rebellions? I mean, I guess you could call that "terrorism," but only if you concede that that type of "terrorism" isn't actually bad.

Your rationale can be used to condemn literally any sort of violent resistance by an oppressed people against their oppressor, provided the former are inside the latter's country and don't have their own state (or are part of an occupied state).
LOAC as a Jus in Bello concept (which is mainly what people mean when they talk about war crimes) is intentionally agnostic to the moral rightness of a cause, on the assumption that both sides (if they're the sort of people who care about LOAC) probably think they're the good guys: it prescribes certain standards of behavior that all combatants have to follow to be considered lawful. It's perfectly possible to be a lawful belligerent without a state of you follow the rules (responsibility to higher authority, carrying arms openly, etc). If it allowed an exception for "righteous" causes, then every side would claim to be righteous and the rules would be meaningless.

A rebellion which seeks to liberate, or which fights a more powerful foe, isn't excused from the minimum standards for lawful warfare, no matter how just their cause or vile their enemies.

Ultramega posted:

What does Stalin have to do with anything?
First example which came to mind was post-WWII Soviet policy towards Germany in the lead up to Nuremberg. IIRC, they (and a few notable figures in the western allies) pushed pretty hard for collective guilt for the Germans.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 15, 2018

Yardbomb
Jul 11, 2011

What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?

Please do not engage noted bad faith actor and giant piece of poo poo Dead Reckoning.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

By popular demand
Jul 17, 2007

IT *BZZT* WASP ME--
IT WASP ME ALL *BZZT* ALONG!


'Cripples of terror' is surely a title more fitting to a bad metal band and not to unarmed protesters.

Ultramega
Jul 9, 2004

Yardbomb posted:

Please do not engage noted bad faith actor and giant piece of poo poo Dead Reckoning.

I know he's a fucktard I just wanted to know what the Stalin thing was about because it just seemed really strange.

Yeowch!!! My Balls!!!
May 31, 2006

Dead Reckoning posted:

LOAC as a Jus in Bello concept (which is mainly what people mean when they talk about war crimes) is intentionally agnostic to the moral rightness of a cause, on the assumption that both sides (if they're the sort of people who care about LOAC) probably think they're the good guys: it prescribes certain standards of behavior that all combatants have to follow to be considered lawful. It's perfectly possible to be a lawful belligerent without a state of you follow the rules (responsibility to higher authority, carrying arms openly, etc). If it allowed an exception for "righteous" causes, then every side would claim to be righteous and the rules would be meaningless.

A rebellion which seeks to liberate, or which fights a more powerful foe, isn't excused from the minimum standards for lawful warfare, no matter how just their cause or vile their enemies.
First example which came to mind was post-WWII Soviet policy towards Germany in the lead up to Nuremberg. IIRC, they (and a few notable figures in the western allies) pushed pretty hard for collective guilt for the Germans.

is it just me or is arguing we were too hard on nazi war criminals in the I/P thread in defense of Israel a new and exciting low

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
This is an interesting little factoid

https://twitter.com/RobertMackey/status/996092547872247808?s=20

Negostrike
Aug 15, 2015


XMNN posted:

From the GBS thread:


it's beyond parody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI&t=92s

pro starcraft loser
Jan 23, 2006

Stand back, this could get messy.

Main Paineframe posted:

Since Gaza is completely contained and Israel hates Hamas, Gazans aren't a threat to Israeli interests no matter how angry they get. Whether they direct that anger at Israel or channel it into internal discontent, it works out fine for Israel.

On the other hand, West Bank settlements and infrastructure are often quite close to Palestinian land, and Israel likes Fatah and wants the PA to stay in power, so too much instability there is bad news. The settlements would be nearly impossible to defend against a serious uprising in the West Bank, so it's in Israel's interests to keep things from boiling over there. Besides, since the PA cooperates with Israel in "security matters" (i.e., anything that threatens Fatah rule), Israel can have the PA security forces beat up or arrest the demonstrators for them.

Well put, thank you!


Zero_Grade posted:

This one is much worse than the probable sniper video imo, since the journalists are extremely obviously being targeted by the drone:

Why isn't this all over the news? Its outrageously blatant.

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





pro starcraft loser posted:

Well put, thank you!


Why isn't this all over the news? Its outrageously blatant.

The US news? Because our country is so blatantly pro-Israel in this country that showing something like that in a sympathetic light would get backlash.

Again, 2 congresspeople even said a word about what Israel is doing right now. Ever seen another issue with such bipartisan support?

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

Ze Pollack posted:

is it just me or is arguing we were too hard on nazi war criminals in the I/P thread in defense of Israel a new and exciting low
You're missing the point hard here: the question after the was whether a distinction could or should be drawn between the actions of Nazi war criminals and the population of Germany as a whole. Which is pretty relevant ITT.

I'm not trying to defend a side here, I'm trying to help people understand the law of armed conflict in a more nuanced way.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:13 on May 15, 2018

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005





Dead Reckoning posted:

I'm trying to help people understand the law of armed conflict in a more nuanced way.

Oh please, do continue. I haven't gotten enough of your bullshit "well I'm just being neutral and nuanced" schtick over the past X number of years.

Are we doing a continuation of "well you see, black people...." or something more along the lines of "technically a magazine is...?"

sexpig by night
Sep 8, 2011

by Azathoth

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're missing the point hard here: the question after the was whether a distinction could or should be drawn between the actions of Nazi war criminals and the population of Germany as a whole. Which is pretty relevant ITT.

I'm not trying to defend a side here, I'm trying to help people understand the law of armed conflict in a more nuanced way.

this is really weird because literally nobody, not even the most hardcore anti-zionists, has ever said we need to put every Israeli on trial so what are you even saying you loving weirdo

Groovelord Neato
Dec 6, 2014


the woman here makes me sick but this is american media on the conflict.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/996139642348036096

glaude's the only person i've seen show outrage over what happened.

tsa
Feb 3, 2014

sexpig by night posted:

Hamas runs Gaza, any large scale action is done at least with their knowledge, what with them being a valid government and all.

Hamas probably approved of the protests because this is something worth protesting even at the risk of IDF overreaction.

That in no way means they 'controlled' the protests or have any blame in a situation where an incredibly powerful military force turned protesters into a loving shooting gallery.

Hamas approves, materially supports, and emboldens protesting because it increases their power. I'm not sure there's any other measure in which these protests can be viewed as a success from the perspective of actually accomplishing anything for the Palestinian cause. These sorts of things just have repeatedly not moved the needle one iota and there's no reason to think the next x times will be any different.

It's really not evident what will even change in the medium to long term since the Arab world is becoming increasingly pro-Israel, china / russia couldn't give a gently caress, Europe has always been vocal but it doesn't mean anything, and even if the unthinkable happens and US bipartisanship support evaporates the hard reality will be that they are a necessary bulwark against Iran. It's hard to imagine what opposition to Israel would even look like. Sanctions? Directly arming Hamas?

Regardless of what Israel does it seems like their worst case outcome for the next couple decades is they become a Turkey, but even that wouldn't be the end of the world.

pro starcraft loser
Jan 23, 2006

Stand back, this could get messy.

Groovelord Neato posted:

glaude's the only person i've seen show outrage over what happened.

That's really an excellent point he made. I don't see Hamas gunmen forcing protestors towards the fence. I can't imagine they'd force a woman to bring an 8 month old to the protest (I still don't understand why the gently caress anyone would do that). I haven't seen pictures of them hiding behind groups of people to setup a mortar attack.

Hamas is super lovely, no doubt. But from what I've SEEN, it just seems like they are stirring up the crowd and acting as the organizers of this, nothing more.

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011

sexpig by night posted:

this is really weird because literally nobody, not even the most hardcore anti-zionists, has ever said we need to put every Israeli on trial so what are you even saying you loving weirdo
i am harry asked if a "country [could] be guilty of war crimes while not being at war", which I answered by saying that war crimes do not require a declared war to occur, with an aside that war crimes are generally charged against individuals rather than countries.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004

Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration
Nap Ghost
The best defense against war crimes is being the victor.

It’s like getting a pre-trial diversion.


Well, it’s more like the DA works for your dad.

Volkerball
Oct 15, 2009

by FactsAreUseless
That's cute.

https://twitter.com/_alhamra/status/996528456476381185?s=20

Yardbomb
Jul 11, 2011

What's with the eh... bretonnian dance, sir?

pro starcraft loser posted:

I can't imagine they'd force a woman to bring an 8 month old to the protest (I still don't understand why the gently caress anyone would do that)

The same reason people bring their kids to protests anywhere, maybe they didn't have anyone to watch them, maybe they expected people to have the smallest shred of humanity, the blame is on the people who killed a kid, "Why were they even there?" is just victim blaming that gets trotted out to muddy the water.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dr Kool-AIDS
Mar 26, 2004


I think the causation is reversed here, because people have been accusing Palestinians of being crisis actors for decades.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply