8 canadians killed in south lebanon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So bin Laden isn't a valid military target?

Maybe from an emotional standpoint, but the more I learn about the guy, he was just the moneybags. Pretty useless now. Zuwahiri is apparently the actual leader of al-Qeada.

We're talking in context of the Geneva Conventions. I can't believe you're even defending GePap when he's obviously grasping at inane straws.

Do you actually think that the article of the Conventions I quoted doesn't mean what Jaguar and I say it means, or are you just looking for some possible tangential point on which you can disagree with us and agree with GePap?

[chequita guevara]

You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Jaguar

Well, the idea is to hope that your military is good enough to protect you, and hope that your leaders are smart enough not to get you into a war that threatens your homeland in the first place. America's pretty good about that. On a more personal level, if you don't want to get killed, then you stay away from likely targets and stay out of the military.

You didn;t answer the question.

The latest version of the Genevan Conventions comes from 1948 IIRC. As we all know, in WW2 the doctrine of strategic bombing, including the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets was not a crime. The thinking being that those civilian centers are the nodes of political and economic power of the regime, and hence they are not really "civilian" per se, but valid targets of total war. That mindset places the "rights" of states above those of anything else. A state has a right to defend itself, and to degrade another state's ability to make war- therefore anything in the other state becomes a valid target.

But after that war, and beginnig with the Geneva conventions of '48 more emphasis has been placed on the rights of individuals, as distinct from the rights of states. UNder that doctrine, indiscriminate city bombings become a crime. The fact that Cities remain the eocnomic and political nodes of a state does not change, so what changed is the notion that any state has the right to slaughter any individual as it seeks security.

We recognize people as having rights, rights that can only be violated under extreme circumstances, EVEN when a state of war exists.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


We're talking in context of the Geneva Conventions. I can't believe you're even defending GePap when he's obviously grasping at inane straws.

Do you actually think that the article of the Conventions I quoted doesn't mean what Jaguar and I say it means, or are you just looking for some possible tangential point on which you can disagree with us and agree with GePap?

You have provided NO meaning for that quote. All you did is quote it. And we can all read it. Its a rather short and simplistic quote.

So put up or shut up boy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
If they were planning strategy, then it was a valid target.

GePap concedes.

[Jaguar]

I don't believe countries should explicitly target civilians, but I wouldn't put it past them to do so, and when they do, I expect they will get away with it to some extent.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


GePap concedes.

Actually, I re-affirmed my arguement and showed consistency in my principles.

You on the other hand have yet to even make an arguement.

So again, put up or shut up.

[Kuciwalker]

Let's recap: I was presenting an example of completely justified civilian casualties. You went to the ends of the Earth trying to dispute my example. You then say that the example was a valid target.

How is that not a concession?

[Kuciwalker]

Che: your only function in these threads is to deliberately distract from the actual arguments by attacking us and defending GePap on tangential points, because he's been thoroughly pwned. I'm just going to leave you on ignore for the duration of the issue if you don't fess up with your answer to this question:

Does the following quote:

"The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." (Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. 287, art. 28)

clearly justify Israel's strike on a home containing both a family of civilians and the Hezbollah leaders that had been invited in? Or at least clearly absolve them from blame accruing from the resulting civilian casualties?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Let's recap: I was presenting an example of completely justified civilian casualties. You went to the ends of the Earth trying to dispute my example. You then say that the example was a valid target.

How is that not a concession?

You stated that simply hosting Hizbullah leaders made a home a valid target. I stated that what makes a target valid is whether there is military value and went on further by stating that the mere precense of a leader does not make a place a military target, but instead the question is whether there is military related activity in the target.

IF a group of Hizbullah leaders were meeting to make strategy at a home, then that becomes a target of military relevance. If they were just there visiting someone, not carrying out any activities that would make it military relevant, then no, the house would still not be a legitmate target.

Note that I said "if they were planning strategy". Last time I checked, IF is a conditonal clause.

[Kuciwalker]

Note that I said "if they were planning strategy". Last time I checked, IF is a conditonal clause.

Since when are you arguing about what actually happened in the example I gave? Especially since I never provided a link, you have no clue.

Incidentally, I'm still trying to find the specific reference. It was only a paragraph or two in one article, and google news searches for "hezbollah" and other terms are turning up a lot of hits, for some reason.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Note that I said "if they were planning strategy". Last time I checked, IF is a conditonal clause.

Since when are you arguing about what actually happened in the example I gave? Especially since I never provided a link, you have no clue.

Incidentally, I'm still trying to find the specific reference. It was only a paragraph or two in one article, and google news searches for "hezbollah" and other terms are turning up a lot of hits, for some reason.

Since what actually was going on is what matters.

In your post to Che you reiterate that the mere fact that a family of civilians had invited the Hizbullah leaders (who are after all political leaders in their own country) should absolve the Israelis of blame in killing said civilians, again implying that in the act of welcoming these people into your home, no matter what, you made youself a valid target.

That is what I contend is wrong and immoral.

[Kuciwalker]

How is Israel supposed to know whether they're discussion the whether or where to target their shiny new missiles from Iran?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
How is Israel supposed to know whether they're discussion the whether or where to target their shiny new missiles from Iran?

they don't. And in that case, the balance should fall on the side of NOT attacking, as opposed to hitting and risking the innocent lives.

You are free to disagree, but that is my contention.

[Kuciwalker]

You're an idiot. And the Geneva Conventions don't agree. The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. A general, whether he's asleep in bed or in the field, is a valid target. The presence of civilians may not be used to render him immune from attack.