Israel declares war on Hamas

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So your argument is that what Israel is doing isn't illegal, so it can't be collective punishment?

No. It's perfectly possible to do something illegal, which is still not a collective punishment. There are many articles in Geneva convention, which one can break, without necessarily breaking article 33. Collective punishment is when people are being trialed and jailed based on the fact that they belong to a group, rather than because they personally did something wrong. Basically, this article deals with the way trials and jurisdictial processes are conducted (rather than with how the war is conducted).

[Fuzz]

Your saying it only applies in a legal setting. Every other source disagrees with you. The text doesn't say that.

The term refers not only to criminal punishment, but also to other types of sanctions, harassment or administrative action taken against a group in retaliation for an act committed by an individual/s who are considered to form part of the group. Such punishment therefore targets persons who bear no responsibility for having committed the conduct in question. Historically used as a deterrence tool by occupying powers to prevent attacks from resistance movements, collective punishments for acts committed by individuals during an armed conflict are prohibited by IHL against prisoners of war or other protected persons.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glo...ve-punishments

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

I have my answer: cry.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Your saying it only applies in a legal setting. Every other source disagrees with you. The text doesn't say that.




https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glo...ve-punishments

First, what you quoted is not a legally binding text. Second, it refers to "criminal punishment, but also sanctions, harassment or administrative penalties" against "prisoners of war or other protected persons".

If you look at the definition of protected persons on the same site, you would see that those are defined as

The basic definition of protected persons under the fourth Geneva Convention is the following: "Protected persons" are civilians who find themselves in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glo...lian-internees

The key here is "in the hands". Meaning they surrendered or were otherwise captured and are powerless and given up. So, collective punishment can only be applied to people, who have given up any resistance and are being "punished". It is not applicable in the settings of an ongoing battle.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I have my answer: cry.

Man, I generally have no problem discussing issues with people who have different views, but you really need to post something that is up to standarts.

[Azure]

Well this has to be mistake, amirite anti Israel folks?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1846987689016676806

[Fuzz]

Holy pretzel brains Batman. Can't keep going here, hurts too much.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well this has to be mistake, amirite anti Israel folks?

https://twitter.com/user/status/1846987689016676806

What are you suggesting is the issue? That he had bad breath?

[Azure]

Fitting end. Terrorist scumbags dead = good day for the world.

I might pop in again after page 900 to see how the gang is still trying to get their head out of the sand.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1846996237406687634

[AltaGuy]

Now that Sinwar's dead and Hamas has been crippled, I'm sure we'll see Israel begin to materially improve the lives of Gazans and rebuild the utterly devastated territory, maybe starting with the 25 hospitals they've razed.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Now that Sinwar's dead and Hamas has been crippled, I'm sure we'll see Israel begin to materially improve the lives of Gazans and rebuild the utterly devastated territory, maybe starting with the 25 hospitals they've razed.

Wow why are you so anti-Israel?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

What a terrible "gang of cohorts" that just wants less dead civilians. I can't believe anyone would have the gall to question a war and whether an occupying nation could just kill less civilians.

Pretty telling that an event that should be seen as a victory for everyone is being used by far right individuals as nothing more than a piece of rhetoric to attack and insult anti-war individuals.

Pointman, Azure, and the others have one less reason to justify and celebrate the killing of innocent civilians, so I’m sure they’re secretly seething that Israel accomplished this milestone.

For the rest of us, there is hope that this is the beginning of the end of the senseless killing and starvation.

[Bagor]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1746942160019034467

Nothing to anyone with a sense of humanity. But to a hateful genocidal maniac they'll always try and find a way.

Remember. This was the guy advocating for collective punishing of the whole population.

Originally Posted by Pointman

However, this is an eye opener for those, who believe that civilians are one thing and Hamas is another thing altogether. They are all one, they are united by one goal and one hate. Who is cooking food for Hamas fighters? Who is treating their wounds? Who is teaching their kids to hate Jews? The so called civilians. The whole Gaza population is rotten to bones. It's not a healthy population with Hamas being few bad apples that you can surgically remove.

The so called civilians. The whole Gaza population is rotten to bones. It's not a healthy population with Hamas being few bad apples that you can surgically remove.

[Fuzz]

Ya, pretty much just advocating genocide, but hey, it's justifiable because they are all rotten to the bone. No wonder he's not capable of having any empathy for the suffering of others. It's a lot easier when you can write them off mentally as monsters. Pretty sad, actually.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Your saying it only applies in a legal setting. Every other source disagrees with you. The text doesn't say that.




https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glo...ve-punishments

The source you just quoted says:

The term refers not only to criminal punishment, but also to other types of sanctions

https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glo...ve-punishments

Sanctions, in turn, are defined there as

In general international law, a sanction can be defined by an action carried out by one or more states toward another one to force the latter to comply with its legal obligations

So, by imposing sanctions on Russia, Canada commits a war crime.

Just to be clear, Canada doesn't actually commits a war crime. It's just an example of how easy it is to "prove" pretty much anything by using quotes from laws and explanations.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Pretty telling that an event that should be seen as a victory for everyone is being used by far right individuals as nothing more than a piece of rhetoric to attack and insult anti-war individuals.

Pointman, Azure, and the others have one less reason to justify and celebrate the killing of innocent civilians, so I’m sure they’re secretly seething that Israel accomplished this milestone.

For the rest of us, there is hope that this is the beginning of the end of the senseless killing and starvation.

I'm still waiting for your apologies by the way.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Bagor

https://twitter.com/user/status/1746942160019034467

Nothing to anyone with a sense of humanity. But to a hateful genocidal maniac they'll always try and find a way.

Remember. This was the guy advocating for collective punishing of the whole population.

Wait, collective punishment is a war crime. So, Guti is accusing Israel of war crime. But it was never determined in trial, that Israel committed that crime. So, Guti is accusing someone of a crime that hasn't been proven. Which is a huge violation of law and actually a defamation. Not to mention that he needs to brush up on the law at the first place.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, pretty much just advocating genocide, but hey, it's justifiable because they are all rotten to the bone. No wonder he's not capable of having any empathy for the suffering of others. It's a lot easier when you can write them off mentally as monsters. Pretty sad, actually.

That's interesting, because this opinion of mine is actually quite similar to that of anti-Israel ring. You said, time and again, that violence, blockade, humiliation and whatever other atrocities allegedly committed by Israel, would result in nothing but thousands more terrorists. Violence, as you often said, would only breed more violence. Provided it's truth, it means that after decades of "crimes and atrocities" Gaza would have turned into a terrorist nest with pretty much whole population being turned into terrorists or, at least, their supporters and symphathizers.

So, after saying all that you suddenly take a U-turn and claim that most Gazans are nice decent people, and Hamas are merely few bad apples? Doesn't it defeat your whole point?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Wait, collective punishment is a war crime. So, Guti is accusing Israel of war crime. But it was never determined in trial, that Israel committed that crime. So, Guti is accusing someone of a crime that hasn't been proven. Which is a huge violation of law and actually a defamation.

Are you just rambling at anything that will allow your sick genocidal mind to justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents?

You've done this before. Arguing the legality of barbaric acts to somehow justify it.

Originally Posted by Pointman

A gentle reminder that Israel did not sign a convention that bans using white phosphorus in civilian areas:

While the use of the substance in warzones is not banned outright under international law, use near civilians is prohibited under the United Nations Convention on Conventional Weapons, to which Israel is not a signatory

All your sick mind is doing is twisting and arguing the definition of collective punishment to try and justify the genocide. Like the above. In your warped world it's perfectly fine to chemically burn civilians because Israel wasn't a signatory to a convention. Therefore it's justified.

[Bill Bumface]