Search results for query: *

Yes, only we don't even know if that was the case here. It could have been seen and acknowledged, and shot anyway. It's quite likely, honestly. Any normal human would want to just kill Hamas extrajudicially. The thing is, impulses aren't always moral.

... Again, you show your complete ignorance. Yes, France was once Israel's best ally. But that hasn't been the case for around 50 years or so. They stopped sending weapons to Israel, because Israel was losing the PR war, and chose the Arab states. And on top of that, if Israel is losing the PR...

Literally I just demonstrated how you could easily obey the laws of war while safely doing a surrender. Read, maybe? Literally none of that means this also isn't a PR wars. In fact, Israel knows that the PR war is also existential, because if it loses it badly enough, it loses US backing. You...

If they don't act morally, then they become Hamas, and I'd have no reason to support them. Literally the reason we don't support Hamas and do support Israel is because Israel doesn't do these things. Furthermore, shooting surrendering soldiers isn't necessary. The Brits had the right idea in...

Soldiers are required to do this. But rebel soldiers? Not so much. They also don't get most of the protections either though, but they do get a few. Here's the relevant part: Basically, Hamas qualifies here. Crucially, there's a lack of obligation on Hamas to do basically anything, but note...

Trust me, I'm no fan of the US behavior in the war on Terror either. The Abu Grahib people should have been executed, and probably caused the killing of more US soldiers than any terrorist post 9/11. Yeah, this could end up being an accident as you described, I don't know at this stage. But...

You are the embodiment of Dunning-Kruger. While yes, the first two conventions were written in 1929, Article 3, Convention 4, the relevant part, is obviously part of the fourth Convention. When was that written? 1949. Eh, but there is a section in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols on how...

The ROE is one way a side implements the rules of war. Duh. The conventions were signed after a war with Japan, you think they didn't realize that, yeah, one side might break the rules, but it's still important to follow them anyway? In fact, they wrote that into the Convention also. This...

No. Again, do basic research before talking out of your ass. Again, it's for: That text is exactly copied from the source. The FFL are just treated as regular French Troops as far as Geneva is concerned. This was here because the Allies had just fought Germany with the help of a number of...

Again, you are admitting to not reading or doing basic research. HAMAS DOESN'T NEED TO SIGN IT. That's what Article 3, convention 4 is for. It's for "What rules do I need to follow when my opponent hasn't signed anything, because as a non-state actor, they aren't allowed to?" There's a very...

Article 3, convention 4, "armed conflict not of an international character." It's right there in black and white. You aren't allowed to kill someone hors de combat (which includes someone surrendering), even if nothing else from the conventions is in effect, and the other side doesn't hold to...

Only it doesn't, you absolute moron. They literally don't have to, again. The geneva conventions also apply to non-signatory parties to a war, like rebel groups. If you bothered to do any research, you'd know this. But you don't care to. You're just an empty headed NPC cheerleader with no...

"Muh context" If we add context, Israelis breaking war crimes caused them to kill their own side. Also, there's actually a clause in the Geneva conventions about applying the rules to people who break the rules (you've gotta still accept surrender, but then the person becomes a prisoner, not a...

Not my morality, the basic morality that every country has agreed to known as the geneva convention though (and before that, the Hague). And yes, if Israel doesn't uphold basic moral standards, then why should we support them? It's literally a war crime. Killing people trying to surrender is a...

No, it's you who doesn't understand context. If those were literally Hamas soldiers, this would be a warcrime. In an active warzone, you are obligated to accept surrender. Not doing so is a warcrime. No, being afraid of a suicide bomber isn't sufficient reason not to accept surrender. Yes, this...

How in fuck are they going to get pigs then? Also jews don't like pigs either, and no one can tell pig blood apart from other blood. This is fractally stupid. It's literally a warcrime to shoot surrendering people. That you don't think this is a warcrime fits perfectly in with your other...

Yeah, that's a straight up war crime by Israel. No other way to put it. Even if they thought it was Hamas (even if it was Hamas), it's a war crime. No, it isn't fair, but there are rules, and Israel is better not because it is Israel, but because it sticks to those rules.