|
How do you feel about the killing of Ahmed Yassin(Hamas leader) (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
First of all this isn't a war that's why they call it a conflict. You have to have 2 sovereign nations to declare a war. I think you have been listening to politicians for too long. Just like the America's "war on terrorism isn't a war either. It's silly I need to explain things that are common knowledge to most people.
Second, Article 10 clearly states:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
That means people charged with a crime have the right to a trial and not be assassinate. Here we go again this is a very simple concept that I don't think should be difficult to grasp. So back to my original argument you can't be in favor of assassinations and the Geneva Convention. The two are incompatible.
Btw, Article 19 states right to freedom of speech, which yassin was ultimately killed for:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. |
Look, sorry to burst your bubble, but you're missing out on some critical points here:
1) The articles you are reading dictate intra-state affairs. They are not laws of war (or conflict) and were never meant to govern affairs between two neighbouring (let alone fighting) states.
2) Yassin killed for expressing himself? Bull, he is directly responsible for hundreds of actual or attempted suicide bombings including those involving small children. He was assassinated for coordinating terrorist activities, not "expressing himself", so let's cut the crap. Almost everything in the world can be called a "form of expression" but you have to draw the line somewhere, and Yassin was waaaaaay over that line.
3) In order to "charge" someone in a foreign state with a "crime", the state which is harbouring the alleged criminal must be willing to turn the accused over to the charging state, by means of an extradition treaty or something similar. I can assure you that no such treaty exists and that Palestine would never have willingly turned over Yassin to be tried for any sort of crime. Thus, the only way to deal with dangerous criminals in foreign nations is to get rid of them, as has been quietly done hundreds of times in the past by many countries.
4) Israel refers to the situation as a "low intensity conflict" but that doesn't mean it doesn't have the same characteristics of a war. It simply states that the conflict is benign enough not to be threatening the overall livelihood of their state; that is why Israel doesn't march into Palestine with their military and take over everything and everyone. However it does not mean that Israel will not take the appropriate actions to defend its people against that conflicting state.
The assassination of Yassin was almost certainly the best, most efficient, least cruel action they could have taken with the least amount of lateral damage. Unfortunately, there is no law in any of the documents you're reading that says Israel must taper its actions to appease civilians in faraway countries on other continents. You have to expect them to do what's best for their state, and not what will make people like you happy.
Sorry igottaknow, 99% of the time I think your comments are very insightful, but I think you're way out of your league here. The laws you're reading simply have no bearing on or relevance to the current situation. |
|
|
| Az |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Didn't see such comments from you after massacres on Israelis civilians. |
very rarely come in here anymore, it's a big pile of wank |
|
|
| igottaknow |
That's funny diginut, sounds like you’re the one whose out your league. Since I've taken a college class in the Philosophy of War, I think I'm more than qualified to discuss this topic. I unlike you have no axe to grind, since I'm not pro Israel or pro Palestine, I can keep a rational head.
You’re wrong that the Geneva Convention isn't applicable to this conflict. Let me refer you to its title "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". What part of the word universal don't you understand?
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
And I quote:
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
I've heard a million reasons from pro-Israel people like you, why the rules of war and internation human rights don't apply. You can brag about you intellectual prowess all you want, but it still doesn't justify the deplorable behavior on either side of the conflict. I know I just don't understand the special circumstance of Israel. :rolleyes: Call me crazy, I find the rule of law a better way to resolve conflicts than killing people. |
|
|
| caddyshack |
whew, you guys type messages that are too long
here i go,
he was a total piece of sh** and deservs to burn in hell, i could give a f*** about him. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
igottaknow,
Israel is following the rule of international law.
Again, what specific international law do you believe they are violating? |
|
|
| Palestinian |
| Yo! Piss! Why did you ask that Yassin's death be proven that it was a violation of International Law if you're not going to give the proof any credibility. Amnesty DOES have credibility because they're the ones that decide what's a violation and what's not. They decide. That's how this world works. Obviously you don't believe in International Law so why did you ask in the first place? |
|
|
| Yoepus |
those are all opinions. Even the UN Security Council are worded as opions. "deplores, condemns, calls, urges, recommends" this is all a matter of opinon.
The UN does not recommend Israel stop or it will face consequences. Nor finds it guilty on any violation of International law.
Aside from that, these links should illustrate to you the absuridity and false aurthority of the UN, especially when you consider there has not been one UN security council opinon against Palestinian aciton.
Palestinian:
Amnsesty has no more authority than me to proclaim what is a violation of international law or not.
As is written in the Geneva conventions, BOTH parties may call upon a neutral party such as the international red cross, to interpert violations if needed.
Both parties have not invited Amnesty.
| quote: |
Geneva 4:
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. |
Assuming however both parties have invited Amnsety and they do carry some authority, how did Amnsety come to the conlcusion that Israel is violating International Law? Where is their decision, and further what International Law(s) is Israel violating?
True courts have decisions and make their records public and open... They have to be, else they would be arbitrary, a violation of the UN Decleration of Human Rights;) :rolleyes: |
|
|
| dj_ilan_yosef |
igottaknow:
Yoepus skool'd your ass a page ago... your ignorant arguements are misleading and have no ground to stand on.:clown:
You could thank Yoepus later for granting you the ability to safely change your name to 'inowknow':clown: |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Actually, you make a good point the UN can only condemn countries that engage in human rights violations. The UN doesn't have the power to enforce its rules. Why do you think the UN didn't intervene to prevent the genocide in Rwanda? Likewise they would have only been able to condemn the Holocaust.
So both the Israelis and Palestinians may choose to engage in every conceivable human rights violation and thumb their noses at the UN. Why not they've done for over 50 years and they will most likely continue into the future. The UN doesn't need to punish them both sides are more than happy to carry out their own form of punishment to each other. Life has its own built in justice called "you reap what you sow". Ever wonder why god put the Israelis and the Palestinians together? ...because they deserver each other. :haha: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Doesn't it seem odd to you that despite the massive Arab influence within the UN, they still haven't actually taken specific action against Israel?
Their resolutions are nothing more than appeasement to the Arab presence. Haven't you figured that out yet? Beyond "condemning", however, they refuse to take action - try to honestly ask yourself what the reason for that is, and don't cite BS about how it's all because of the USA that they don't take a stance against Israel.
Ah the arrogance of the "I took a class on it" group... at least engineers, after 4 years of hard work, have the sense of humour and the sense of humility to admit that all we really know is that we don't know much of anything. I love how all the artsy types who take classes in politics think they're so much more well-informed and rational than everyone else on the planet... but unfortunately for you, igottaknow, you're handing us the same dry arguments that have already been debated to death in the past. Personally I don't have the patience to discuss U.N. issues (ESPECIALLY those related to that joke, the General Assembly)... if someone else wants to do it then great, otherwise, I don't care anymore, you win because of your superior college education. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| I didn't bring up my education to brag, you were the one who accussed me of being "out of my league". Btw, I've also taken couple middle east history courses, but I'm sure you would also find fault with that too. Look if you don't believe in human rights, internation law, or the UN, fine just say so. You would be doing me a favor so i wouldn't waste my time trying to have a rational conversation about the subject. |
|
|
|
|
