The anti Israel = anti semitism agenda

[Lord-Jaffa]

Giving notice doesn't preclude their obligations in terms of (not) targeting the press - though there may be other circumstances that give them wiggle room when it comes to a war crime.

Unless they can prove there was an imminent threat existing from that building technically it is a war crime and would be deemed as such if it was many other countries doing it.

"A statement from the Israel Defence Forces said the building had contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of Hamas."

“Prior to the strike, the IDF provided advance warning to civilians in the building and allowed sufficient time for them to evacuate the site,” the IDF statement said.

“Hamas deliberately places military targets at the heart of densely populated civilian areas in the Gaza Strip.”

0 Casualties = War crime

Firing thousands of rockets and purposely targeting civilians in multiple cities = Not a war crime

Nah.

 

[Rroff]

"A statement from the Israel Defence Forces said the building had contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of Hamas."

That alone doesn't change their obligations to not target the position of press - but it gets pretty complex from there.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

That alone doesn't change their obligations to not target the position of press - but it gets pretty complex from there.

You're working from the assumption that the press were a target, they clearly weren't. Maybe the press should do their job and not setup in a terrorist stronghold in the first place?

 

[MichaelAwkward]

You're working from the assumption that the press were a target, they clearly weren't. Maybe the press should do their job and not setup in a terrorist stronghold in the first place?

Clearly they were - there's probably no evidence in reality that the building "contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of Hamas" but it's a nice cover story for them to get away with it scot free. They probably class half the journalists working in the area as agents of Hamas because they don't write nice stories about Israel.

 

[alchal]

[

Giving notice doesn't preclude their obligations in terms of (not) targeting the press - though there may be other circumstances that give them wiggle room when it comes to a war crime.

Unless they can prove there was an imminent threat existing from that building technically it is a war crime and would be deemed as such if it was many other countries doing it.

Care to show us where destroying an unoccupied building holding the press and given warning constitutes a war crime.
I'm sure you can find it in the Geneva convention articles.
Look forward to seeing it.

 

[alchal]

That alone doesn't change their obligations to not target the position of press - but it gets pretty complex from there.

So if you don't want to be targeted all you have to do is set up a press office in the same building, a bit like human shields.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

[


Care to show us where destroying an unoccupied building holding the press and given warning constitutes a war crime.
I'm sure you can find it in the Geneva convention articles.
Look forward to seeing it.

I mean, even from a basic search, destruction of private property is prohibited unless "rendered absolutely necassary by military operations". Blowing up an entire building from miles away because it may or may not contain assets belonging to Hamas doesn't sound absolutely necassary to me.

I'm sure you could go down a rabbit hole and find Israel's actions in breach of the articles left, right and centre if you had the time.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...63fb0066f226/a13817cda3424c3cc12563cd0042c6e6

Very good website.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

From what i've read they gave the press a 1hr+ warning that the building was to be targeted. Doesn't sound very 'war crime' like to me. Probably is a genuine reason as obviously it will get a lot of scrutiny despite the 0 casualties - Hamas head of media operating in the basement or similar.

Destroying civilian property breaches the Geneva Convention and hence a war crime, as is killing civilians.

 

[Gerard]

Loyalists in Belfast having their say with the usual "No surrender" catchphrase which is so overused at this point it has virtually no meaning anymore.

Mind you this is the same mob that have flown nazi flags, have nazi tattoos, give nazi salutes, have dressed up in KKK uniforms...yet they "Support" Israel....Confused little bunch it has to be said.

 

[alchal]

I mean, even from a basic search, destruction of private property is prohibited unless "rendered absolutely necassary by military operations". Blowing up an entire building from miles away because it may or may not contain assets belonging to Hamas doesn't sound absolutely necassary to me.

I'm sure you could go down a rabbit hole and find Israel's actions in breach of the articles left, right and centre if you had the time.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...63fb0066f226/a13817cda3424c3cc12563cd0042c6e6

Very good website.

So did the IDF say they it may have contained Hamas or not or did they state that it did, thus making it a legitimate target?

What articles are broken with the mass rockets launched the other way, if not for iron dome the casualties would be much higher.

 

[alchal]

Destroying civilian property breaches the Geneva Convention and hence a war crime, as is killing civilians.

So what happens if you are at war and the other side decided to occupy a civilian building, does that make them immune to retaliation?

 

[MichaelAwkward]

So did the IDF say they it may have contained Hamas or not or did they state that it did, thus making it a legitimate target?

What articles are broken with the mass rockets launched the other way, if not for iron dome the casualties would be much higher.

Just because you state something doesn't make it true. What if Israel decides it doesn't like you and says your house contains military assets belonging to Hamas? Fair game then? So long as they give you warning to evacuate? I mean they couldn't possibly be lying to intimidate their enemies (which includes the press reporting on their actions), could they?

I'm not even going to respond to the rockets question as that was in response to Israel's aggression in the mosque, stealing people's homes and killing children, again. People have a right to defend themselves and cheap rockets are one of the few ways Palestine has of doing so.

So what happens if you are at war and the other side decided to occupy a civilian building, does that make them immune to retaliation?

Well no, that would be one situation where "rendered absolutely necassary by military operations" becomes true and a breach of those articles is permissible. As to whether blowing it up from afar along with all of its other occupants and their property or trying to take it with troops would both be reasonable... pick a side I guess. I don't know if that's ever been tested in the ICC.

 

[Johno please?]

Weekly? What you talking about son?

This is what I mean, youve no idea have you.

Heres a couple... wherever theres Islam, there's terrorism, its as simple as that.

https://english.alarabiya.net/News/...tants-kill-four-farmers-in-Indonesian-village

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/policeman-beaten-death-congo-eid-clashes-2021-05-13/

 

[alchal]

Just because you state something doesn't make it true. What if Israel decides it doesn't like you and says your house contains military assets belonging to Hamas? Fair game then? So long as they give you warning to evacuate? I mean they couldn't possibly be lying to intimidate their enemies (which includes the press reporting on their actions), could they?

I'm not even going to respond to the rockets question as that was in response to Israel's aggression in the mosque, stealing people's homes and killing children, again. People have a right to defend themselves and cheap rockets are one of the few ways Palestine has of doing so.



Well no, that would be one situation where "rendered absolutely necassary by military operations" becomes true and a breach of those articles is permissible. As to whether blowing it up from afar along with all of its other occupants and their property or trying to take it with troops would both be reasonable... pick a side I guess. I don't know if that's ever been tested in the ICC.

Just because you state something doesn't means it's true, how are you telling the ' truth '? Have you been in the building with all the intelligence etc?

Hamas is known, as are other Islamic or insurgency organisations to use the civilian population and centres as a way to hide from and escape destruction and to commit offences unmolested, it's being going on for centuries in most conflicts, especially when facing a superior force or the desire to show the other side as the evil force.
Read up on it.

Firing rockets on a superior force, explain how that works out for Hamas, other than more civilians dead and.... martyrs for the cause.

 

[Johno please?]

is it a coincidence these attacks happen as a direct result of western intervention of their countries? why do people like you think there is no 'cause', or no context..
do you even know what terrorism is? what USA/UK did in iraq, afghanistan, syria, libya and helping saudi in yemen - is a classic example of TERRORISM.. just because it is happening by 'us' doesnt mean it was ok.. you terrorised innocent ciivlians of aforementioned countries.. your soliders also committed abuses of civilians & despite having evidence it was brushed under... not to mention drone attacks in various countries still
if we were to list every civilians killed by The west... i wonder how BIG the book would be....

yes carry on interfering and when it blow back cry terrorism... one person dies in the west its a terror attack but how many of people in those ^ countries have been killed that people like you dont give two hoots about..

also he must have not heard about rohingya genocide by the buddhists in burma.. and also the latest overthrowing of democracy...


he is not wrong - USA does attack in various M.E countries ruined by US intervention daily - not to mention give weapons to Saudi who are attacking Yemen..

Oh that old excuse, so why is there terrorism in countries that haven't had "western intervention"

Il list just a few of them for you:

India
Indonesia
Nigeria
Kenya
Burkina Faso
The philippines
Niger

France has had 250+ citizens murdered by Islamic crackpots and they were against the war in Iraq, what did they do to deserve it?

 

[Azza]

"military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of Hamas"

But don't worry we'll give you an hour to evacuate.


Okay.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

Just because you state something doesn't means it's true, how are you telling the ' truth '? Have you been in the building with all the intelligence etc?

Hamas is known, as are other Islamic or insurgency organisations to use the civilian population and centres as a way to hide from and escape destruction and to commit offences unmolested, it's being going on for centuries in most conflicts, especially when facing a superior force or the desire to show the other side as the evil force.
Read up on it.

Firing rockets on a superior force, explain how that works out for Hamas, other than more civilians dead and.... martyrs for the cause.

I think I can see from this reply that you consider any organisation labelled as terrorists as being fundamentally 'bad' and deserving of what they get and because I fundamentally disagree with that this discussion wouldn't be productive. You're acting like Hamas and Israel are equivalent opposing forces when it couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[alchal]

I think I can see from this reply that you consider any organisation labelled as terrorists as being fundamentally 'bad' and deserving of what they get and because I fundamentally disagree with that this discussion wouldn't be productive.

Hamas are not a terrorist organisation.
Right.
I guess Isis and boko haram and Al Qaida etc are all okay as well...

 

[Rroff]

You're working from the assumption that the press were a target, they clearly weren't. Maybe the press should do their job and not setup in a terrorist stronghold in the first place?

Uh? clearly the press weren't the target - but knowingly targeting a position occupied by the press is a war crime (and there is no way they didn't know) unless there is a clear and imminent threat that can't be dealt with any other way. Giving a warning to vacate the area isn't enough on its own to absolve them of their obligations.

It is unclear what if any use the building had by terrorists - existing evidence doesn't support it being a terrorist stronghold though it is possible there may have been some activity connected to the building who knows. Most of the occupants are local or international organisations unconnected to Hamas.

I'm just going blow by blow on this so maybe more evidence will come out - one way or another.

 

[Freakbro]

I'm sure that fine upstanding gentleman is just waving......


to his other nazi mates