Israel makes a huge mistake.

[KrazyHorse]

That's because it's inconvenient for Israel to abide by traditional rules and limitations on warfare.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Roland and KH are correct. For example US v. Al Queda is not a 'war', because Al Queda isn't a political entity. They have no land to conquer. Therefore, Israel v. Hamas cannot be a war as well. Extrajudicial killing is a good term to use.

[Arrian]

Similarly, when the US recently assassinated several men in a vehicle in the Sudan (?) using a missile from a Predator drone

That was Yemen, I believe. I was surprised it didn't draw more of a reaction (yes, I checked the international press, not American sources).

-Arrian

[Ned]

So, a guerilla war is not a legal war under international law. The guerilla's or for that matter terrorists who kill are premeditated murderers and those that bear arms with the intent to kill are conspirators. In either case, they have no rights under international law as POWs, and can be tried and put to death or imprisoned for life, not just the duration of the conflict.

Is that really the position of internation jurists on this issue?

[Az]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's because it's inconvenient for Israel to abide by traditional rules and limitations on warfare.

If one fails to understand that things have changed in the last decades, one deludes himself.

[Ned]

Also, I suppose, that under this same law that if a government deliberately killing an enemy guerilla commander that the government is guilty of some kind of crime?

Take the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflicts against the territory-holding-governments has ended, but the fighting continues. How in the world can one say that the deliberate killing of enemy commander is justified on day one and not on day two when the only difference between day one and day two is that the enemy no longer controls territory.

Now, if it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban commander under international law, it should be OK for Israel to do the same with a Hamas commander - that is unless there are some other legal distinctions that apply and not just some kind of double standard - one for the good guy NATO commanders and another for the Israeli commanders.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I trust Barak as well.

He's a cunning bastard, and if it wasn't for him, we'd still be deluded by Oslo agreements.

hi ,

tue , but the man has become a politician , ..... and top brass who become politicians tend to do funny things , ......


have a nice night

[Eli]

Yeah. Agreeing to give up the Temple Mount is real funny.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, I suppose, that under this same law that if a government deliberately killing an enemy guerilla commander that the government is guilty of some kind of crime?

Take the current wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The conflicts against the territory-holding-governments has ended, but the fighting continues. How in the world can one say that the deliberate killing of enemy commander is justified on day one and not on day two when the only difference between day one and day two is that the enemy no longer controls territory.

Now, if it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban commander under international law, it should be OK for Israel to do the same with a Hamas commander - that is unless there are some other legal distinctions that apply and not just some kind of double standard - one for the good guy NATO commanders and another for the Israeli commanders.

hi ,

the difference is that the nato officer does not have to count for his actions , the idf officers has to do so , ......

but no-one complains when an other country fights against terror , ......


have a nice day

[Ned]

Originally posted by panag



hi ,

the difference is that the nato officer does not have to count for his actions , the idf officers has to do so , ......

but no-one complains when an other country fights against terror , ......


have a nice day

It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues on why it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban or al Qaida commander, but it is not OK for Israel to do the same thing to a Hamas commander.

Or why we should not treat terrorist or guerilla war soldiers as murderers.

[HershOstropoler]

"It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues"

Tomorrow.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues"

Tomorrow.

We wait with quiet patience.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do find it amusing that the term 'extrajudicial killing' seems to arose so much protest from our Isreali-backing colleages... LOL.

I would also say (perhaps Roland and KH may not agree with me here) but simply because some is extraleagal does not necessarily make it illegal. There is a difference between what is prohibited (illegal), and what isn't exactly legal or illegal (extraleagal). It is not illegal to kill guerrila leaders, but not explicitly legal either. It's a grey area.

And furthermore, we've already said what the difference between the Taliban and terrorist groups are. You should listen (or read, as the case may be) instead of ignoring posts simply so you can try to look good making some 'point'. Mainly the point being that the Taliban controlled a state, de facto, if not de jure.

If you want to make a 'point', drop the Taliban and stress the Al Queda, which btw is also a extrajudicial (or extralegal) killing.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel


If one fails to understand that things have changed in the last decades, one deludes himself.

Bull****. This sort of conflict has been around since time immemorial.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned


It is interesting that we have not heard from any of our European or Canadian colleagues on why it is OK for NATO to take out a Taliban or al Qaida commander, but it is not OK for Israel to do the same thing to a Hamas commander.

Or why we should not treat terrorist or guerilla war soldiers as murderers.

a) Reread my post. I specifically mentioned the action in the Yemen (thank you, Arrian) as an example of extrajudicial killing.

b) When did I say you shouldn't treat terrorists as murderers? Catch them, prosecute them, lock them up.