|
Israel committed "war crime" in Gaza (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Israel, and any other nation, are only bound by geneva convention laws if its enemy (Palestinians/Terrorists) follow the convention as well.
The Geneva convention is formulated as a treaty that two warring parties enter into with each other by default once an armed conflict begins. The treaty, just like any other contract, needs to be no longer honored if one party violates it.................. |
I've been meaning to get to the Geneva laws in regards to Bush's itch for torture, but haven't had time for it just yet.
But if you've beaten me to the punch on this, could you point out where it says in the Geneva laws that whenever a side violates Geneva then all contracts pertaining to abiding by Geneva are therefore null and void? I would be very surprised if that were the case.
And on a simple ethical standpoint, what exactly does that say about anyone or any country (say, the U.S. for example) that is supposed to be a shining beacon of morality and democratic principle supposedly say "well you broke Geneva, you we're gonna do it now too"? In a simplistic sense, doesn't that more or less bring that "beacon of morality" country all the way down to the level of the disgusting opposition that broke such laws in the first place? I wasn't aware that being a leader of the free world (Israel included) that directly implies leading by example in both ethical and democratic principles for other countries to follow also entail that leader to rip up such morals whenever another country does the same?
So again, I haven't gotten to Geneva just yet, but I'm skeptical that such a null and void position would have taken place based on this rationale explained above. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
Just to address some complaints. But I am short of time. I would love to debate this indepth but have no time on this occasion.
Geneva is a contract:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm
| quote: |
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Convention concluded at Geneva on July 27, 1929 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, have agreed as follows:
PART I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
ARTICLE 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
ARTICLE 2
|
This is just Geneva 3, but all are similar int their introduction.
More later, gotta run.
Of course if a party violates this it doesn't mean you should morally get rid of all rules, but it should allow greater freedom in allowing you to operate militarily. So if Palestinian terror collectively punishes Israeli society, why can Israel not at its strategic discretion incovience Palestinian society? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| well, where and when did the lebanese military contravene the articles of war thus justifying attacks on lebanese civilian infrastructure? |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, where and when did the lebanese military contravene the articles of war thus justifying attacks on lebanese civilian infrastructure? |
The geneva conventions are obviously not going to have every scenario known to man so stop playing with semantics.
By the way I don't agree with the lebanese attacks. One kidnapped soldier doesn't = destruction of country. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| its not semantics. yoepus is asserting that if a party is not adhering to the rules of warfare, more "latitude" is/should be available to the "wronged" side. so i was merely asking how this is relevant considering israel was supposedly at war with hezbollah, not lebanon? |
|
|
| stevieboy32808 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its not semantics. yoepus is asserting that if a party is not adhering to the rules of warfare, more "latitude" is/should be available to the "wronged" side. so i was merely asking how this is relevant considering israel was supposedly at war with hezbollah, not lebanon? |
Alright I understand now and in that case I would have to agree with you. Sorry Yoepus. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Israel, and any other nation, are only bound by geneva convention laws if its enemy (Palestinians/Terrorists) follow the convention as well.
The Geneva convention is formulated as a treaty that two warring parties enter into with each other by default once an armed conflict begins. The treaty, just like any other contract, needs to be no longer honored if one party violates it.
Just as in any other business contract: Say a client agrees to pay me $1,000,000 in exchange for me shipping him 100,000 cases of my finest Zionist Mustard, and we sign and have an agreement, etc. I am not obligated to ship him those 100,000 cases if he never ended up paying me the $1,000,000.
Simarily, if the Palestinians violate the contract they entered into with Israel at the begining of the armed conflict, in which manner they will respectfully settle their differences through violence, Israel is no longer obliged to honor that contract.
Thats the basis of it, and if we would understand that, I think we would be the better for it. Afterall, the only reason terrorism works is because the West allows it to work by restricting its retaliation to its moral ideals. |
Thank Dog for lawyers.
Interpret the ideals of "good" as you will.
The only thing you're going to destroy is the future of this ape gene. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, where and when did the lebanese military contravene the articles of war thus justifying attacks on lebanese civilian infrastructure? |
Israel was not at war with the Lebanese military but with Hezbullah who happened to be operating in Lebanon.
Hezbullah operating out of Lebanon, did not operate by Geneva convention (shooting under civilian cover, out of uniform, into densly populated unstrategic civilian areas) |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Shibby
Thank Dog for lawyers. |
I'm not a lawyer, but I love learning and researching international law.
| quote: |
The only thing you're going to destroy is the future of this ape gene. |
Quiet the contrary, by the result of a "no-side wins" scenario by degregrading morals if a side chooses not to fight by the rules, both sides will realize they should try and fight by the rules, not without them. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
And on a simple ethical standpoint, what exactly does that say about anyone or any country (say, the U.S. for example) that is supposed to be a shining beacon of morality and democratic principle supposedly say "well you broke Geneva, you we're gonna do it now too"? In a simplistic sense, doesn't that more or less bring that "beacon of morality" country all the way down to the level of the disgusting opposition that broke such laws in the first place? I wasn't aware that being a leader of the free world (Israel included) that directly implies leading by example in both ethical and democratic principles for other countries to follow also entail that leader to rip up such morals whenever another country does the same? |
All I am saying is if the USA's enemy, Al Qaedia were to kidnap a US soldier, tie him up, gangrape him with all of Ahmad's friends, cut off a couple of his limbs and fingers, torture him some more, and then behead him (Instead of simplying capturing him putting him in a holding cell/camp and feeding him).
That yes, more latitude should be given to the US soldiers in fighting this enemy. For one, I would not be against a take-no-prisoners solutions. Perhaps then, Al Qaeda would realize the importance of honoring prisoners of war.
A real example of this would be WWII:
In the Phillipines, near the last years of the war, Japanese forces were left stranded after Japan decided it could not withdraw them or resupply them (due to the naval costs). They were fighting the Australians over the islands. There was no food, no water, many had not eaten anything for weeks. The Japanese started out by eating the bodies of dead Austrilian soldiers. Next, they went after the living. Austrinian POWs would be subject to the Japanese stomach. The Japanese would tear limbs off their Austrilian POWs (say an arm) as they would eat it, keeping the soldier alive to 'preserve' the meat in this jungle climate.
Other Australians soldiers got wind of this, by seeing the remains, a skull next to a pot that had a legbone in it, and from other accounts that spread.
Now what do you think the Australians did when the Japanese soldiers surrendered to them?
*mysteriously* enough, there were no Japanese POW after those incidents taken by the Australians. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| you still havent presented any argument that justifies the destruction of civilian infrastructue in a populace that israel supposedly wasnt fighting :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you still havent presented any argument that justifies the destruction of civilian infrastructue in a populace that israel supposedly wasnt fighting :rolleyes: |
What type of justification?
I haven't provided a strategic justification (as I think those are obvious), but I have provided a moral justification (that Israel has the ability to act with its force at its discretion against the opeations of an enemy who does not honor the laws of war). |
|
|
|
|
