Merged Israel Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

theprestige said:
No, he was not simply stating a fact. He was trying to blame Israel for Hamas's moral failings, in direct contradiction of international law on the subject....
Click to expand...
Umm, you've made it clear in several posts that you believe International Law is worth less than toilet paper.

theprestige

Post in thread 'Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?'

Hercules56 said:
Amnesty International knows a lot more about international law and refugees, than you.
Click to expand...
International law is not a thing. It has no sovereignty. It has no enforcement.

The whole concept is blatantly anti-social and unjust. You shouldn't let your fetish for "international law" blind you to Mamdani's stupidity....
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Umm, you've made it clear in several posts that you believe International Law is worth less than toilet paper.
Click to expand...
I am trying to speak to you in terms you will understand.

For simplicity and to avoid unnecessary argument let's say we can agree that Israel and Hamas both should follow the Geneva Conventions, and other widely-subscribed western conventions on ethical warfare, acceptable collateral damage, etc.

And let's say we can also agree that when Hamas violates these conventions - by using human shields to try to win a battle, for example - it is Hamas, not Israel, that should be held accountable for the civilian deaths arising from Israel not granting them victory by means of human shields.

At least, I think we can agree on these things. Do you think we can agree?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I am trying to speak to you in terms you will understand.

For simplicity and to avoid unnecessary argument let's say we can agree that Israel and Hamas both should follow the Geneva Conventions, and other widely-subscribed western conventions on ethical warfare, acceptable collateral damage, etc.

And let's say we can also agree that when Hamas violates these conventions - by using human shields to try to win a battle, for example - it is Hamas, not Israel, that should be held accountable for the civilian deaths arising from Israel not granting them victory by means of human shields.

At least, I think we can agree on these things. Do you think we can agree?
Click to expand...
I agree that both Hamas and Israel and anyone else who uses civilian human shields in the battlefield should face war crimes charges.
 
Hercules56 said:
I agree that both Hamas and Israel and anyone else who uses civilian human shields in the battlefield should face war crimes charges.
Click to expand...
Not really what I asked, but sure.

With regard to @arthwollipot's post, I say Israel should absolutely bomb the ◊◊◊◊ out of Hamas, in spite of Hamas's use of human shields, and Hamas should bear the guilt for any human shields that are killed by this bombing.*

I also say that any other position amounts to saying that belligerents who use human shields are entitled to victory. And that is a horrific thing to say. A vile, despicable, morally reprehensible thing to say, even.
 
theprestige said:
Not really what I asked, but sure.

With regard to @arthwollipot's post, I say Israel should absolutely bomb the ◊◊◊◊ out of Hamas, in spite of Hamas's use of human shields, and Hamas should bear the guilt for any human shields that are killed by this bombing.*..
Click to expand...
Most deaths in Gaza are not human shields, but simply civilians caught in the crossfire. Or deliberate civilian deaths by Israel. Plus also Israel uses very big explosives that can kill anyone within hundreds of yards of detonation, obviously civilians are gonna die.
 
Hercules56 said:
Most deaths in Gaza are not human shields,
Click to expand...
Arth - and I - were specifically talking about Hamas's use of human shields, and whether Israel should bear moral responsibility for fighting through Hamas's human shields.

We can reach conclusions about this issue, without arguing or quibbling about whether a specific incident involved human shields. I'll leave that to others.
 
Hercules56 said:
Plus also Israel uses very big explosives that can kill anyone within hundreds of yards of detonation, obviously civilians are gonna die.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, western conventions on ethical warfare ("international law") do not require belligerents to refrain from attacking if their only available weapon is "overkill". If a target of military value presents itself, and all the commander has available is a 2,000 lb JDAM, it's ethical to use what's available.*

Israel has smaller blast-radius weapons in their inventory, but these are in much smaller numbers. Like the man said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish to have or plan to have at a later date.
 
Hercules56 said:
Who's fault is it that 2.5 million people are crowded into the tiny little Gaza Strip?
Click to expand...
It's Hamas's fault, of course. Surely an aficionado of international law, such as yourself, must be aware of the principle of military distinction.

Ethical freedom fighters would lay down their arms and surrender, rather than bring destruction down on the very civilians they are fighting for but cannot stay clear of.

Again, belligerents who ignore the principle of military distinction should not be entitled to victory.

Stop making excuses for Hamas. The best thing they could do for "their" people is admit defeat, lay down their arms, and surrender.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Arth - and I - were specifically talking about Hamas's use of human shields, and whether Israel should bear moral responsibility for fighting through Hamas's human shields.
Click to expand...
In my opinion there is very little moral difference between using human shields, and killing the human shields being used by the other side as though they were actual enemy combatants. Both are vile, disgusting, and despicable.

I hope that has cleared up any misunderstandings about my position.

theprestige said:
It's Hamas's fault, of course. Surely an aficionado of international law, such as yourself, must be aware of the principle of military distinction.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that military distinction applies to the entire Gaza strip?
 
arthwollipot said:
In my opinion there is very little moral difference between using human shields, and killing the human shields being used by the other side as though they were actual enemy combatants. Both are vile, disgusting, and despicable.

I hope that has cleared up any misunderstandings about my position.
Click to expand...
There was never any misunderstanding about your position, unless it were your own. You're clearly arguing that belligerents who use human shields for military advantage are entitled to victory.

This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the western conventions of ethical warfare. But here you are.

arthwollipot said:
Are you suggesting that military distinction applies to the entire Gaza strip?
Click to expand...
No, but Herc is. I'm stipulating to his claim for the sake of argument. If you have a problem with his claim, take it up with him. Otherwise it looks like you accept his claim, and have a personal problem with me.
 
theprestige said:
There was never any misunderstanding about your position, unless it were your own. You're clearly arguing that belligerents who use human shields for military advantage are entitled to victory.

This is, of course, diametrically opposed to the western conventions of ethical warfare. But here you are.


No, but Herc is. I'm stipulating to his claim for the sake of argument. If you have a problem with his claim, take it up with him. Otherwise it looks like you accept his claim, and have a personal problem with me.
Click to expand...
I have a personal problem with anybody who intentionally misrepresents me and puts words in my mouth that I did not say. Right now, yes, that's you (again). I would demand an apology but I know I wouldn't get it.
 
arthwollipot said:
I have a personal problem with anybody who intentionally misrepresents me and puts words in my mouth that I did not say. Right now, yes, that's you (again). I would demand an apology but I know I wouldn't get it.
Click to expand...
You won't get it, because I'm not wrong. You want ethical combatants to accept defeat, rather than fight through their enemy's human shields.

Or - even more morally depraved! - you want them to fight through the human shields, for their own survival, but still hold themselves guilty for doing so.
 
theprestige said:
It's Hamas's fault, of course...
Click to expand...

You are very, very wrong.

It is Israel, and only Israel, who has forbidden the refugees in Gaza from returning to their homes in Israel.

It is Israel, only Israel, who has placed extremely strict and draconian regulations on how Gazans are allowed to enter Israel or even the West Bank.

These inhumane cruel rules existed for decades before Oct 7, 2023.

Stop making excuses for Israel's terrible treatment of the Palestinians.
 
Hercules56 said:
You are very, very wrong.

It is Israel, and only Israel, who has forbidden the refugees in Gaza from returning to their homes in Israel.

It is Israel, only Israel, who has placed extremely strict and draconian regulations on how Gazans are allowed to enter Israel or even the West Bank.

These inhumane cruel rules existed for decades before Oct 7, 2023.

Stop making excuses for Israel's terrible treatment of the Palestinians.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about Israel's treatment of Palestinians. We're talking about the morality of Hamas embedding themselves with Palestinian civilians, to gain a military advantage in their war against Israel. Stop making excuses for Hamas.

Honestly the best thing you could do for Gazans is advocate for Hamas to surrender. Instead you're trying to excuse their horrific attempts to stay in the fight.
 
theprestige said:
You won't get it, because I'm not wrong. You want ethical combatants to accept defeat, rather than fight through their enemy's human shields.

Or - even more morally depraved! - you want them to fight through the human shields, for their own survival, but still hold themselves guilty for doing so.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, and now you are deliberately lying. You are using misrepresentation to make my entirely reasonable view that everybody in this situation is a moral monster sound like I am the moral monster. Why? Why do you lie about me? What do you have against me personally that you want to make me look like the worst person in the world? What did I ever do to you? When did I lie about you?

You think I'm taking it personally? Damn right I am. You have made it personal by deliberately and maliciously lying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom