Israel, Hamas, War Crimes and the Geneva Suggestions

[Jormungandr]

That's tragic about the hostages. But, it makes you wonder if this is another "surrendering WW2 Japanese soldier" problem that caused them to adopt this rule of engagement.

 

[Husky_Khan]

That's tragic about the hostages. But, it makes you wonder if this is another "surrendering WW2 Japanese soldier" problem that caused them to adopt this rule of engagement.

I don't think any Hamas Militants have successfully Suicide Bombed themselves like in the Second Intifada yet but they've been threatening to do as much for a while now.



The IDF did state that there were Suicide Attacks and that Palestinians have claimed as such in Gaza, but I haven't seen any "evidence" of such. It could just be a timely press announcement.



I think you're right in that the hostages fell victim to nervous/paranoid IDF troops who don't want to get exploded, most of whom are reservists.

 

[Abhorsen]

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.

 

[Zachowon]

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.

While it is a war crime, the use of suicide bombings against forces when they act like surrendering is very common by juhadis

 

[ATP]

IDF Pumping Seawater Into Hamas Tunnels.

Maybe they should add pigs blood,muslims supposed to not like pigs.Althought @Abhorsen is right here,it is still war crime.

 

[Bacle]

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.

While it is a war crime, the use of suicide bombings against forces when they act like surrendering is very common by juhadis

This isn't a war crime, it is a tragedy brought on by conditions like those that US forces faced in the fight with the Japanese and their suicide methods like grenades, dynamite, and sometimes 500lbs bombs for anti-tank work.

Fake surrenders are a thing.

Hamas and other jihadi groups are openly talking about using suicide belts for the general populations as a means of resistance.

I think that this is a fog of war and accidental, unaware friendly fire incident, not a war crime.

 

[Abhorsen]

Maybe they should add pigs blood,muslims supposed to not like pigs.Althought @Abhorsen is right here,it is still war crime.

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.

This isn't a war crime, it is a tragedy brought on by conditions like those that US forces faced in the fight with the Japanese and their suicide methods like grenades, dynamite, and sometimes 500lbs bombs for anti-tank work.

It's literally a warcrime to shoot surrendering people. That you don't think this is a warcrime fits perfectly in with your other braindead takes.

Fake surrenders are a thing. You also aren't allowed to preempt them. No, it's not fair, but that's what having a standard is. It's a standard, a standard that those Israelis didn't meet. They need to be prosecuted for murder, because that's what they did. It doesn't matter if it was actually Hamas members, what they did was murder anyway.

 

[Jormungandr]

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

They accept a surrender? There's a chance they would explode, killing them.

They just shoot the surrendering Palestinian fighters? War crime, but they don't, ya know, probably get exploded.

 

[Bacle]

It's literally a warcrime to shoot surrendering people. That you don't think this is a warcrime fits perfectly in with your other braindead takes.

Fake surrenders are a thing. You also aren't allowed to preempt them. No, it's not fair, but that's what having a standard is. It's a standard, a standard that those Israelis didn't meet. They need to be prosecuted for murder, because that's what they did. It doesn't matter if it was actually Hamas members, what they did was murder anyway.

This is an active warzone, where the civies have been told to leave and the people who are usually 'surrendering' are Hamas, other jihadis members, or their UN patsies.

It's a tragedy and a friendly fire incident, not a war crime.

Context matters, no matter how much you try to force the rest of the world to conform to your deluded ideas of what is supposed to be 'fair' or not, or whatever 'standard' you think should apply here.

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

They accept a surrender? There's a chance they would explode, killing them.

They just shoot the surrendering Palestinian fighters? War crime, but they don't, ya know, probably get exploded.

When the combat environment is full of potential suicide bombers and fake surrenders are a known tactic, unfortunate things like this happen. I don't think any of the people involved are going to be able to serve regularly after this sort of thing, which will be traumatic as fuck to the soldiers who fired, and I expect some modification of checking for real versus fake surrenders.

The soldiers involved need therapy and probably to be shifted off the front-lines, not stuck in a war crimes trial.

 

[Zachowon]

Everything is fair in love and war, and this is war

 

[Abhorsen]

This is an active warzone, where the civies have been told to leave and the people who are usually 'surrendering' are Hamas, other jihadis members, or their UN patsies.

It's a tragedy and a friendly fire incident, not a war crime.

Context matters, no matter how much you try to force the rest of the world to conform to your deluded ideas of what is supposed to be 'fair' or not, or whatever 'standard' you think should apply here.

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 will cause Israelis to die. This is the cost of being moral superior, it isn't free.

It's a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

They accept a surrender? There's a chance they would explode, killing them.

They just shoot the surrendering Palestinian fighters? War crime, but they don't, ya know, probably get exploded.

That's the thing. War crimes generally make wars easier. We don't need to ban useless things. Adhering to the ban is what makes Israel better than Hamas. If Israel stops caring about warcrimes, congrats, I and everyone with basic morality stops caring who wins.

The use of rape as a demoralizing tactic is very effective. So is taking civilian hostages, targeting civilians, etc. But everyone agrees not to do this, so when one side does these awful things, and the other side doesn't, then there's a good side and a bad side. If both sides do this, then guess what? Both sides suck, no one cares who wins.

Israel is better than Hamas because and only because they don't do immoral actions. If they begin doing those actions, they become just as stupid to back as Hamas.

 

[Bacle]

Yes, this will cause Israelis to die. This is the cost of being moral superior, it isn't free.

And here you show the real crux of it; you expect Israeli's to die as much as needed to maintain some stupid and deluded sense of your personal morality, which you always try to foist onto others in debates.

It's the same sentiment that so many in the west have had, that Israel isn't allowed to effectively defend itself and must accept an infinite numbers of dead Israeli's forever more rather than remove the security threat to them and the rest of the west that Hamas and co. represent and deal with the real combat conditions on the ground that it requires to accomplish this.

There is a reason the US Marine's and Army soldiers didn't accept many Japanese surrenders in the Pacific, and it's pretty much the same here.

Admittedly there it was actually easier to tell friend from enemy simply by uniform, and the Japanese didn't tend to take many battlefield hostages.

This was a tragedy, not a war crime, and your petty little grudge with me over not bending knee to your 'moral supremacy' is making you come out to say some really stupid shit.

 

[Abhorsen]

And here you show the real crux of it; you expect Israeli's to die as much as needed to maintain some stupid and deluded sense of your personal morality, which you always try to foist onto others in debates.

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?

This was a tragedy, not a war crime, and your petty little grudge with me over not bending knee to your 'moral supremacy' is making you come out to say some really stupid shit.

It's literally a war crime. Killing people trying to surrender is a warcrime. How thick is your skull? Remember you complained that Russia did this? Where's your outrage now?

Well, guess Ukraine now has no reason to take Wagnerites prisoner either.

Oh, right, if you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any standards. I forgot.

Your bloodlust is Khornate, and can't be sated.

 

[Bacle]

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 warcrime. How thick is your skull? Remember you complained that Russia did this? Where's your outrage now?



Oh, right, if you didn't have double standards you wouldn't have any standards. I forgot.

Your bloodlust is Khornate, and can't be sated.

Show me where Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions, and show me where Ukraine has been issuing suicide belts to it's forces for Wagner to worry about.

But hey, since when has context ever gotten in the way of your grudge with me over your desire to push your morality on everyone else and every situation.

 

[Abhorsen]

Show me where Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions, and show me where Ukraine has been issuing suicide belts to it's forces for Wagner to worry about.

But hey, since when has context ever gotten in the way of your grudge with me over your desire to push your morality on everyone else and every situation.

"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 prisoner of war), and also about how rules of war apply to non-state actors, including people in rebellion, etc.

Maybe next time crack open a book before shouting your rank ignorance to the world.

Also, again, the bolded part is irrelevant until it's known that these Hamas were committing perfidy. If they were so concerned, they could have demanded they strip.

The bolded part is completely irrelevant. The US didn't violate warcrimes when we fished kamikaze pilots out of the water. Israel can do the same.

 

[Bacle]

"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 prisoner of war), and also about how rules of war apply to non-state actors, including people in rebellion, etc.

Maybe next time crack open a book before shouting your rank ignorance to the world.

Also, again, the bolded part is irrelevant until it's known that these Hamas were committing perfidy. If they were so concerned, they could have demanded they strip.

The bolded part is completely irrelevant. The US didn't violate warcrimes when we fished kamikaze pilots out of the water. Israel can do the same.

Yes, context does turn this into a tragic friendly fire accident, which I have mentioned already.

Also, you have not shown where Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions, only asserted that Israel must treat them under it regardless of if they have signed, rather than treat them as the terrorist scum they are.

So don't talk about 'rank ignorance' to me on this, when you are the one bending in knots to try to pretend this is a war crime rather than a friendly fire incident caused by the history of fake surrenders with suicide gear by Hamas terrorists and jihadi's in general.

You tried to pull some stupid gatcha with that post about what Wagner has done in Ukraine, only to completely ignore the different contexts.

You just want to force Israel to risk more of it's people, and get more of it's people killed, by pretending Israel has to follow the Geneva Conventions with non-state terrorist actors who already utilize suicide tactics as a matter of course and are priming the Gazan population to view suicide belts as 'means of resistance'.

The grudge you bear against me for not bowing down to your 'moral superiority', and calling out the context you miss or ignore because it undermines your bullshit, is pathetic, and you are grasping for any moronic attempt to try to 'gatcha me' but having it once again backfire on you because you missed context in your pursuit of your grudge and gatcha attempts.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, context does turn this into a tragic friendly fire accident, which I have mentioned already.

Only it doesn't, you absolute moron.

Also, you have not shown where Hamas signed the Geneva Conventions, only asserted that Israel must treat them under it regardless of if they have signed, rather than treat them as the terrorist scum they are.

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 sense of context. The only thing you need to determine if somethings a warcrime is who did it.

So don't talk about 'rank ignorance' to me on this, when you are the one bending in knots to try to pretend this is a war crime rather than a friendly fire incident caused by the history of fake surrenders with suicide gear by Hamas terrorists and jihadi's in general.

"Bending in knots" should be "Demonstrating basic reading comprehension."

 

[Bacle]

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 sense of context. The only thing you need to determine if somethings a warcrime is who did it.


"Bending in knots" should be "Demonstrating basic reading comprehension."

That you think the Geneva Conventions actually does hold to terrorists and the like is the real moronic thing here.

Then again you consider taxes 'theft', and pretend Wagner shooting Ukrainian who are surrendering to Wagner and getting executed is the same as what the IDF faces in Gaza with Hamas and jihadi's who use suicide belts.

This was a tragic friendly fire incident due to battlefield conditions.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

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 will cause Israelis to die. This is the cost of being moral superior, it isn't free.

The Geneva Conventions rules aren't quite that simple -- it's a war crime to *knowingly* fire on surrendering troops. This is not a strict liability offense, so it would not necessarily apply to situations where persons were fired upon as a snap decision and it was not recognized that they were attempting to surrender. Or more accurately, attempting to offer parley.

In other words -- it's a war crime if they did it *knowingly* and *on purpose*. It is more grey area if they were quick on the trigger finger in a tense situation; intent has to be proven.

 

[Zachowon]

Yep
Language barriers can often lead to that being an issue as well