BF2S Forums Gaza War Crimes Investigation Over

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Both sides should be prosecuted, fat chance of it happening.

Israel can't claim the moral high ground at least.

Why? Because Israel invaded after suffering repeated rocket attacks for months? Please. If some of their soldiers got out of line then they should be prosecuted, yes. But to paint the entire country in a negative brush for an occupation that was entirely warranted? No way.

To "paint the entire country in a negative brush" for a campaign that has been found to be deliberately targeting civilians is perfectly natural.

It "concludes that the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole, in furtherance of an overall and continuing policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population, and in a deliberate policy of disproportionate force aimed at the civilian population," said the UN statement.

Punishing the civilians of any state for the actions of some terrorists is wrong, plain and simple. As is the widespread dismissal of it as being entirely warranted.

The terrorists themselves firing rockets at civilians is just as wrong, but they are not a government that is a serious global power.

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Sorry junior, but there are rules to war, and there have been rules for a very long time.

The rules should only apply when both sides heed them. In cases where one side chooses to ignore the Rules of War then they forfeit any rights that would come with obeying the laws.

That's what the Geneva Convention says.

It's not what the UDHR says though.....

That's still legally binding and applies to everyone no matter what.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Punishing the civilians of any state for the actions of some terrorists is wrong, plain and simple. As is the widespread dismissal of it as being entirely warranted.

The terrorists themselves firing rockets at civilians is just as wrong, but they are not a government that is a serious global power.

Aiding and abetting the terrorists firing rockets makes them just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves. They are the people that elected Hamas to run their 'country' knowing full well that it is a terrorist organization. I have no sympathy.

So it's fine to deliberately target civilians?

Where is the difference between the terrorists and the Israelis then?

Of course the Israelis do have a history of deliberate terrorist attacks on civilians in Palestine dating right the way back to the early 30's, so it's hardly anything new.

Bertster7 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Punishing the civilians of any state for the actions of some terrorists is wrong, plain and simple. As is the widespread dismissal of it as being entirely warranted.

The terrorists themselves firing rockets at civilians is just as wrong, but they are not a government that is a serious global power.

Aiding and abetting the terrorists firing rockets makes them just as guilty as if they had pulled the trigger themselves. They are the people that elected Hamas to run their 'country' knowing full well that it is a terrorist organization. I have no sympathy.

So it's fine to deliberately target civilians?

Where is the difference between the terrorists and the Israelis then?

Of course the Israelis do have a history of deliberate terrorist attacks on civilians in Palestine dating right the way back to the early 30's, so it's hardly anything new.

Shrug. The blurring of lines between civilian and military targets and populations is a relatively new concept in human history. Sure, knights of the Middle Ages fought by set rules during their time but it didn't stop them from cutting down any peasants that got in their way. It didn't stop FDR and Churchill from bombing Japan and Germany back into the Stone Age while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. It didn't stop the Russians from wiping out half of the population of Afghanistan during their invasion and occupation.

Civilians die in war. They are often targeted for psychological or for practical reasons like the blowing up bomb factories. Our generation has gotten used to the idea of wars being fought on TV with smart munitions that try to limit collateral damage. To think that all wars would resemble the Desert Storm conflict from that time forward is a fallacy. Sure, it would be nice to limit damage to innocents. But how do you pick out the innocents in a crowd that supports war?

Hamas may not have been a state sponsored military body but it sure as heck was supported by the people and the government of Palestine. If the people support the actions of the military then they are just as accountable as the man pulling the trigger. And yes, this makes every person in the US guilty for any atrocities that may occur in our wars. Does it work like that? No. But I feel it should.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

The rules should only apply when both sides heed them. In cases where one side chooses to ignore the Rules of War then they forfeit any rights that would come with obeying the laws.

That's what the Geneva Convention says.

It's not what the UDHR says though.....

That's still legally binding and applies to everyone no matter what.

The "rules" he was referring to are the tenets of the Geneva Convention. The UDHR does not contravene or override the GC.

And the UDHR is not legally binding. It is a declaration not a treaty.

wikipedia wrote:

Even though not formally legally binding, the Declaration has been adopted in or influenced most national constitutions since 1948.

That's the key difference: the UDHR is not a treaty...the Geneva Conventions are.