Israel declares war on Hamas

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

They aren’t. Go read page 37, article 6. It only applies to booby traps.

The stuff around targeting and proportionality applies to all of the device types.

They are, you’re confused because you’re citing Protocol II, which was amended. Israel is a signatory of Amended Protocol II, which (now Article 7) of is below:

Article 7
Prohibitions on the use of booby-traps and other devices

1. Without prejudice to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict relating to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other devices which are in any way attached to or associated with:
(a) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;
(b) sick, wounded or dead persons;
(c) burial or cremation sites or graves;
(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
(e) children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding, health, hygiene, clothing or education of children;
(f) food or drink;
(g) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations or military supply depots;
(h) objects clearly of a religious nature;
(i) historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; or
(j) animals or their carcasses.

2. It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.

3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or
(b) measures are taken to protect civilians from their effects, for example, the posting of warning sentries, the issuing of warnings or the provision of fences.

https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-u...TOCOL%2BII.pdf

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

But you don’t know because we don’t have numbers.

Why wager on something you don’t know other than to just reveal an implicit bias?

Maybe members of this criminal terrorist organization were carefree about how they handled the new ultra-high-security communication devices assigned to them, and left them lying around all over the place, lent them to children, neighbours, friends, etc. But I doubt it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They are, you’re confused because you’re citing Protocol II, which was amended. Israel is a signatory of Amended Protocol II, which (now Article 7) of is below:



https://geneva-s3.unoda.org/static-u...TOCOL%2BII.pdf

Thanks looks like it was illegal.

[afc wimbledon]

The get out clause for the 'booby trap' you guys are talking about is Israel will rightfully claim these weren't booby traps, just a legitimate attempt to disrupt Hezbollah's communications network, the US and everyone else has been using cell phone signals to kill people for years now and this is really no different

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The get out clause for the 'booby trap' you guys are talking about is Israel will rightfully claim these weren't booby traps, just a legitimate attempt to disrupt Hezbollah's communications network, the US and everyone else has been using cell phone signals to kill people for years now and this is really no different

Well, no, that’s absurd, because that reason doesn’t actually absolve them from anything and that’s not a “rightful” claim at all as the laws don’t have exceptions for “legitimate attempts to disrupt communication networks” or whatever.

What they’ll actually do is what they are already doing, which is not claiming responsibility for it and not caring if it’s illegal or not.

[chubeyr1]

Anyone have any proof Israel did this?

Pagers and Walkie Talkie attack?

Could just be Hezbollas cheaping out on communication equipment.

Bad manufacturer!

If you don’t have proof why discuss this?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Anyone have any proof Israel did this?

Pagers and Walkie Talkie attack?

Could just be Hezbollas cheaping out on communication equipment.

Bad manufacturer!

If you don’t have proof why discuss this?

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Right,

It could have been aliens from the Planet X that did this. I can’t prove it but funny enough can probably find a link confirming this somewhere on the internet.

Occam’s Razor! Muslim slasher movie you should look it up.

Hezbollah seems pretty upset with Israel. Israel should just say it wasn’t us!

Just poorly manufactured pagers lol!

You’re weird

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, no, that’s absurd, because that reason doesn’t actually absolve them from anything and that’s not a “rightful” claim at all as the laws don’t have exceptions for “legitimate attempts to disrupt communication networks” or whatever.

What they’ll actually do is what they are already doing, which is not claiming responsibility for it and not caring if it’s illegal or not.

3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or

Two points here, first every active Hamas fighter is a military objective as is every pager they use to communicate, the pagers themselves constitute a military objective

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’re weird

Flames Fan PhD Told me no one can prove Israel did this! Talk to that poster!

He is right though!

Common sense tells me a different story but I cannot prove the poster wrong. Personal opinion does not matter in the face of facts! Do you disagree?

Commom sense tells me one thing the proof tells me another.

You have anything relevant to add?

Do you have anything that could be considered proof?

I don't. Yet all your comments today are assuming things you cannot prove.

You are weird!

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

Can you walk me through how you are parsing this and how you connect the clauses. The whole treaty is sort of absurd because it’s trying to set in what conditions are you allowed to kill civilians.

This is the whole problem.

When I look at a situation where people are dying, I do NOT parse through the language and suddenly become a dictionary expert on how I can find loopholes and point out vagaries in order to excuse another nation / group / whoever that is killing people.

You want to parse tax law, go for it. But I'm not here to parse language in a way to excuse or relieve aggressors of their guilt in hurting human beings. This isn't some TV legal drama where everything hinges on the rare definition of the word 'is' or if *technically* one clause applies here or not elsewhere and the courtroom gasps.

We're here on this earth to defend innocent lives and spit on the aggressor first and foremost, whether that be hamas or hezbollah or the government of Israel or the US government or whoever.

So look at your quote:

booby trap means a device or materials that is designed adapted or constructed to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person approaches or disturbs an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

"Designed or adapted to ... injure?" Check. Adapted to injure, no doubt.

"Functions unexpectedly when a person ... performs an apparently safe act" Functions unexpectedly like explodes? Check... A safe act like picking up your beeping pager? Check.

Full stop. That's it. You have your answer. You don't need to go to dictionary.com and look up the alternate meaning to each and every word. You don't need to ask if a pager is technically a 'device' versus a 'gadget' or was it really 'adapted' when all they did was sprinkle some explosives inside blah blah blah...

Why? Because they're injuring, maiming, blinding, and killing human beings. So the last thing I do in my life is try and find some semantic language loopholes so that I can give a pass to those killing other humans. I don't care who it is.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or

Two points here, first every active Hamas fighter is a military objective as is every pager they use to communicate, the pagers themselves constitute a military objective

Bravo.

That last paragraph is... chef's kiss.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Maybe members of this criminal terrorist organization were carefree about how they handled the new ultra-high-security communication devices assigned to them, and left them lying around all over the place, lent them to children, neighbours, friends, etc. But I doubt it.

Good point.

Because we all know that Hezbollah shops at the Hezbollah Radio Shack, whereas doctors and health care works go to the non-Hezbollah Radio Shack. And those people who shop at the Hezbollah Radio Shack know not to leave their pagers lying around.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

3. Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3, it is prohibited to use weapons to which this Article applies in any city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians in which combat between ground forces is not taking place or does not appear to be imminent, unless either:
(a) they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective; or

Two points here, first every active Hamas fighter is a military objective as is every pager they use to communicate, the pagers themselves constitute a military objective

For one, we’re talking about Hezbollah.

Two, people (as defined in this document article) are not objectives. They can be, but for the purpose of this document, “military objectives” refers to objects, not people. You could argue that the pages are a military objectives.

Three, read paragraph two in the article, which I already bolded, as not violating one paragraph in the article doesn’t mean they didn’t violate the law. That’s not how this works.

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

Flames Fan PhD Told me no one can prove Israel did this! Talk to that poster!

He is right though!

Common sense tells me a different story but I cannot prove the poster wrong. Personal opinion does not matter in the face of facts! Do you disagree?

Commom sense tells me one thing the proof tells me another.

You have anything relevant to add?

Do you have anything that could be considered proof?

I don't. Yet all your comments today are assuming things you cannot prove.

You are weird!

That’s not what Flames Fan was referring to, and you’re free to look up the dozens of articles talking about Israel’s role in this, the off-record US officials that claim Israel took responsibility, and the other bits of “common sense” you were talking about to decide for yourself.

It’s especially weird that you’re only saying it wasn’t Israel (after crediting Israel with it initially), once the possibility of it being illegal was raised.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For one, we’re talking about Hezbollah.

Two, people (as defined in this document article) are not objectives. They can be, but for the purpose of this document, “military objectives” refers to objects, not people. You could argue that the pages are a military objectives.

Three, read paragraph two in the article, which I already bolded, as not violating one paragraph in the article doesn’t mean they didn’t violate the law. That’s not how this works.

You are weird!



That’s not what Flames Fan was referring to, and you’re free to look up the dozens of articles talking about Israel’s role in this, the off-record US officials that claim Israel took responsibility, and the other bits of “common sense” you were talking about to decide for yourself.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s especially weird that you’re only saying it wasn’t Israel (after crediting Israel with it initially), once the possibility of it being illegal was raised.

None of this matters if you don't have proof!

So you can also read other posters minds? Great talent you have!

Really simple question Pepsid! Do you have proof? Yes or No? Its not a debate. If you have proof post it!

I could not prove Flames Fan Phd was wrong and admitted it. Why cant you?

Unless you have proof.

Either post proof or shut up.



If you have proof post it!

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

This is the whole problem.

When I look at a situation where people are dying, I do NOT parse through the language and suddenly become a dictionary expert on how I can find loopholes and point out vagaries in order to excuse another nation / group / whoever that is killing people.

You want to parse tax law, go for it. But I'm not here to parse language in a way to excuse or relieve aggressors of their guilt in hurting human beings. This isn't some TV legal drama where everything hinges on the rare definition of the word 'is' or if *technically* one clause applies here or not elsewhere and the courtroom gasps.

We're here on this earth to defend innocent lives and spit on the aggressor first and foremost, whether that be hamas or hezbollah or the government of Israel or the US government or whoever.

So look at your quote:



"Designed or adapted to ... injure?" Check. Adapted to injure, no doubt.

"Functions unexpectedly when a person ... performs an apparently safe act" Functions unexpectedly like explodes? Check... A safe act like picking up your beeping pager? Check.

Full stop. That's it. You have your answer. You don't need to go to dictionary.com and look up the alternate meaning to each and every word. You don't need to ask if a pager is technically a 'device' versus a 'gadget' or was it really 'adapted' when all they did was sprinkle some explosives inside blah blah blah...

Why? Because they're injuring, maiming, blinding, and killing human beings. So the last thing I do in my life is try and find some semantic language loopholes so that I can give a pass to those killing other humans. I don't care who it is.

But it doesn’t function unexpectedly when used. It blows up when detonated. That difference was apparently significant enough that the next version that Pepsi linked made the “other devices” category to which these apply.

The question of was this a war crime was being discussed. That is a legalistic question that requires parsing of words. It likely was a war crime. The separate questions that you bring up of was this attack justified or was this attack ethical or will this attack cause escalation are separate discussions from the other discussion.

Not a war crime is not the standard that makes something acceptable.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

But it doesn’t function unexpectedly when used. It blows up when detonated.

Great job. Humanity is in great hands.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

[B]

None of this matters if you don't have proof!

So you can also read other posters minds? Great talent you have!

Really simple question Pepsid! Do you have proof? Yes or No? Its not a debate. If you have proof post it!

I could not prove Flames Fan Phd was wrong and admitted it. Why cant you?

Unless you have proof.

Either post proof or shut up.



If you have proof post it!

Sorry, man. People are having a conversation and there’s not really anything you can do about it. I’m happy to laugh it off and give you a light ribbing when you’re posting nonsensical stuff because I understand from your posting history that you struggle with routine adult conversations, but if you’re going to just tell people to shut up then maybe it’s time to go watch tv and have a nap or something.

[chubeyr1]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, man. People are having a conversation and there’s not really anything you can do about it. I’m happy to laugh it off and give you a light ribbing when you’re posting nonsensical stuff because I understand from your posting history that you struggle with routine adult

conversations, but if you’re going to just tell people to shut up then maybe it’s time to go watch tv and have a nap or something.

I asked you a simple question. Yes or no?

You cant answer that?

What is nonsensical about proof or the Truth?

Grow up child! I asked for proof... You have had every chance to provide this.

Yet you don't!

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by GGG

But it doesn’t function unexpectedly when used. It blows up when detonated. That difference was apparently significant enough that the next version that Pepsi linked made the “other devices” category to which these apply.

The question of was this a war crime was being discussed. That is a legalistic question that requires parsing of words. It likely was a war crime. The separate questions that you bring up of was this attack justified or was this attack ethical or will this attack cause escalation are separate discussions from the other discussion.

Not a war crime is not the standard that makes something acceptable.

You would have loved the 2000s and the whole ‘enhanced interrogation’ discussion all the serious thinkers were having while us unwashed were naively saying ‘you’re just torturing human beings.’ It was an exhilarating time to be a human being and see all the high level intellects having very erudite conversations.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by chubeyr1

I asked you a simple question. Yes or no?

You cant answer that?

What is nonsensical about proof or the Truth?

Grow up child! I asked for proof... You have had every chance to provide this.

Yet you don't!

Yeah, sorry again, I’m honestly not sure why you think I care what you’re asking for.

People are having a conversation. I know it’s probably at a level that’s difficult for you to engage in, but that’s no reason to lash out. You’re not going to gain anyone’s respect that way.