So why is Israel violating it?

Post #8,523 by addison 9/12/01 9:06:29 AM Reply	So why is Israel violating it?
Post #8,526 by bluke 9/12/01 9:13:16 AM Reply	How exactly is Israel violating the Geneva Convention? I have already pointed out here that the settlemennts do not violate the Geneva Convention (see the comments I posted from Eugene Rostow). Israel has tried very hard not to kill innocent civilians, it has used precision weaponry etc. to minimize the casualties.
Post #8,532 by drewk 9/12/01 9:46:43 AM Reply	That's interesting First you say: Did you read the Geneva Convention It clearly outlaws the harming of civilians period. Then, you say: Israel has tried very hard not to kill innocent civilians ... So, is it wrong, period? Or is it OK if you try really hard not to? This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Post #8,630 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:54:21 PM Reply	Don't be perfectionist. Reasonable precautions are precisely that. Reasonable. All things considered, Israel is on far better moral ground than its enemies. Not that that's saying much. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,764 by bluke 9/12/01 10:24:17 PM Reply	Don't be ridiculous The nature of war is that people including civilians get killed. The Convention is talking about attacks where it is clear that many civilians will also get killed.
Post #8,768 by addison 9/12/01 10:33:25 PM Reply	Make up your mind. You make absolutes that are ridicolous. Then you bitch when the same question is asked of sainted Israeli actions. Either its absolute, or its not. Pick one, and shut up already. Addison
Post #8,808 by bluke 9/13/01 5:45:29 AM Reply	Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited The Geneva Convention prohibits indicscriminate attacks: "Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Dropping a nuclear weapon is an indiscriminate attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life. The firing of a missile at a car carrying terrorists is not.
Post #8,816 by Andrew Grygus 9/13/01 8:22:47 AM Reply	Which is why . . . . terrorists and governments of similar mind deliberately disperse their military installations among heavily populated civilian areas. This was not much done at the time this accord was written, but is a result of the accord. The civilian population knows what's going on and supports it, they have to expect "collateral damage". It would not, however, be proper to use something like a nuclear weapon or even a B52 run (total destruction, but confined to a 1/4 x 1/2 mile rectangle) unless the target was extremely important with no other way to handle it. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #8,843 by addison 9/13/01 10:00:20 AM Reply	Re: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited Dropping a nuclear weapon is an indiscriminate attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life. Bullshit. Haven't you figured out by now you don't KNOW ENOUGH to be talking about Nukes? The firing of a missile at a car carrying terrorists is not. And a helicopter ripple-firing rocket pods at an apartment building is? Addison
Post #8,527 by bluke 9/12/01 9:15:21 AM Reply	What is the relevence here You said that dropping a nuclear bomb and killing civilians is not a war crime. I pointed you to the Geneva Convention which clearly states that indiscriminate attacks where civilians are likely to be killed are prohibited. This clearly disallows the above.
Post #8,567 by addison 9/12/01 11:12:03 AM Reply	You don't know the meaning of the word "relevance". You said that dropping a nuclear bomb and killing civilians is not a war crime. 1) Dropping atomic weaponry doesn't, by itself, kill civilians. 2) Killing civilians by itself isn't a war crime - as you note, Israel is killing quite a few. Targetting civilians might be another story, but (And the Geneva convention (which the US was not signatory to in WWII) you cite was AMENDED after that war. But you're trying to use it to talk about something previous). And by the by, Israel is taking out quite a few civilians who are ACCUSED of being terrorists. No trial, no arrest, no conviction. There he is, hit him with an anti-tank rocket! This clearly disallows the above. No, it doesn't. And its been explained several times. Don't you use the word "clearly" or "all" or other superlatives - you're not clear enough on them to be able to. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!