Post #8,382
9/11/01 3:38:49 PM
|
I'll settle for plain murder.
Though, I wouldn't mind the death taking a long time for people like this behind these things.
But you can't just go out and do stuff like that. The viceral reaction isn't always the right one.
You're upset, because in a similar (but not identical) situation, Israel is urged restraint, with the people they have to live next to.
As you might have noted, while Israel has done some incredibly dumb things - and you won't admit to some of the wrong things they've done - I don't fault them for hauling out "disproportionate" weaponry. Not really.
There is no doubt that the dropping of a nuclear weapon on a populated area is a war crime of the first degree. You are guaranteed to kill hundreds of thousand or even millions of innocent civilians.
Factually, you are incorrect. There is a lot of doubt with that statement.
There have been 2 nuclear weapons used against cities, with no condemnation for war crimes. There have been conventional attacks against cities, with many more than the nuclear attacks killed and wounded, without that claim being justified.
I personally don't consider getting killed by an atomic bomb "worse" than getting killed by a conventional bomb.
Does anyone here disgaree with them?
I don't totally agree with them, no. I disagree with "colonialism". Won't work. There should be a response.
There is/are some nations who have contributed to this attack. I would not rule out *any* retaliation as out of bounds against those countries, after war was declared against them.
Addison
|
Post #8,385
9/11/01 3:43:53 PM
|
War crimes
It is a war crime to target innocent civilians. A nuclear weapon by definition is indiscriminate. As for why no one was prosecuted fro war crimes after WW II for the raids on Dresden or Hiroshima, the answer is obvious, the US and British won the war and were therefore not going to prosecute themselves.
|
Post #8,393
9/11/01 3:51:51 PM
|
You're flat wrong.
It is a war crime to target innocent civilians.
First, its not.
Second, they're not civilians, they're [workers/soldiers].
As for why no one was prosecuted fro war crimes after WW II for the raids on Dresden or Hiroshima, the answer is obvious, the US and British won the war and were therefore not going to prosecute themselves.
How many germans were proscuted for bombing London and other cities? How many submarine commanders for torpedoing civilian vessels?
I pointed out that your statement "There is no doubt" was bullshit. There at *least* is doubt. Otherwise - prove why there is *no* doubt, per your statement.
Addison
|
Post #8,447
9/11/01 7:46:54 PM
|
Not a war crime to slaughter babies?
Well, that's a new one on me.
Is this just something they overlooked, or is it part of the fallout from Roe v. Wade? Or did some bioethics panel come up with this loophole?
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #8,492
9/12/01 2:50:13 AM
|
Did you read the Geneva Convention
It clearly outlaws the harming of civilians period
Here are quotes from Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
[link|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm|http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm]
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
"Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives."
Article 49: Definition of Attacks and Scope of Application
"Attacks" means acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offense or in defense.
The provisions of this Protocol with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted, including the national territory belonging to a Party to the conflict but under the control of an adverse Party.
The provisions of this Section apply to any land, air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population, individual civilians or civilian objects on land. They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air.
Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population
A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
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.
|
Post #8,523
9/12/01 9:06:29 AM
|
So why is Israel violating it?
|
Post #8,526
9/12/01 9:13:16 AM
|
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
9/12/01 9:46:43 AM
|
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
9/12/01 1:54:21 PM
|
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
9/12/01 10:24:17 PM
|
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
9/12/01 10:33:25 PM
|
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
9/13/01 5:45:29 AM
|
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
9/13/01 8:22:47 AM
|
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
9/13/01 10:00:20 AM
|
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
9/12/01 9:15:21 AM
|
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
9/12/01 11:12:03 AM
|
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
|
Post #8,406
9/11/01 4:08:48 PM
|
Venting anger...
Personally, I don't see how your discussion, as an Israeli, is productive? Those who express shock and anger have not set off a nuclear devices and are not, at any rate, likely in charge of the arsenal. They are simply expressing anger. The chances of the U.S. using a nuclear response are remote at best.
I'm not one that believes a quick strike against the terrorists is necessarily the best course of action. Will power and the ability to see this thing through over the long haul is what's needed. The terrorists have managed to captivate our attention, but I'm not sure what they hope to gain by rousing a sleeping giant. I'd be more likely satisfied with a response that involved mobilizing a fleet and our air force over a course of weeks. That would be more a demostration of willpower than just a single quick flyby. Let them see our resolve.
My own suspicion, though admittedly not backed up by evidence, is that this attack is somehow related to the original attack on the World Trade Center. If that were the case, then the likely source would be Egyptian, not the West Bank or Afghanistan - though I'm sure there'll be implications there as well. Before we even discuss the response, we first need to establish who it is we're dealing with here.
One thing we do know, though, is that we are not dealing with rational people. They don't operate under an economic or political motive. They simply sought to kill people. Well, killing a lot of people has been shown to be a relatively simple thing to do. Living life is the more difficult task.
|
