8 canadians killed in south lebanon.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Your hyperbole is, well, just hyperbole, not worth the bits that describes it. You are comparing an unvolonteery stadium public to persons that are quite aware of their guests status.

Hyperbole is exageration to prove a point.

In any event, we don't know what the vicitims knew, do we? More over, I've argued nothing about the specific bombing, but have stayed general in nature. I don't know enough about that specific bombing.

When Israel killed that old blind crippled guy, who, incidentally, was the leader of a faction in Hamas who was calling for negotionations with Israel, was assassinated by the Israelis, they waited a period of time before firing a second missile at the exact same spot, killing several completely innocent people who were only trying to help the unknown victims of an apparent car bombing. An unreasonable number of Palestinian paramedics have been killed that way.

Israel shows no restraint when it comes to killing civilians when they want to get someone, and they never show any remorse other than the obligatory, "it's regrettable." I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

P.S. You could have just quoted the hyperbole and spared everyone the extended quote.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Hyperbole is exageration to prove a point.

Yep, but when the hyperbole becomes rediciolous, it looses it's power to do so.

In any event, we don't know what the vicitims knew, do we? More over, I've argued nothing about the specific bombing, but have stayed general in nature. I don't know enough about that specific bombing.

That doesn't make much sense unless you claim that those hizbollah leaders was so deep undercover that only the israelis knew them. Considering the area where it happened, they with high probability knew what they were.

When Israel killed that old blind crippled guy, who, incidentally, was the leader of a faction in Hamas who was calling for negotionations with Israel, was assassinated by the Israelis, they waited a period of time before firing a second missile at the exact same spot, killing several completely innocent people who were only trying to help the unknown victims of an apparent car bombing. An unreasonable number of Palestinian paramedics have been killed that way.

The only blind crippled guy that I can remember that was killed by the israelis was one that was determined on the destruction of israel and wich last thought was negotiation. About the second shot, well, I'm really confused. I won't deny it has happened, and then probably by accident. Belive me, there are lots of european journalists and newspapers that would kill their mothers if they was able to document such a pattern.

Israel shows no restraint when it comes to killing civilians when they want to get someone, and they never show any remorse other than the obligatory, "it's regrettable." I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I would say the quite opposite. My guess is that they are very restrainted and tries to minmize "collateral" damage. If they were as reckless as you claim, then the death toll would be much higher.

P.S. You could have just quoted the hyperbole and spared everyone the extended quote.

I thought I did, but didn't notice the mix of q and quote paragraphhs

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem here is you are conflating legality with morality. I'm not arguing, and I don't think GePap is either, that Israel committed a war crime. It is, however, immoral in the extreme.

BULL****. The people committing war crimes - morally and legally - are the Hezbollah leaders using human shields!

I, personally, see no substantive difference between the indiscriminate killing of civilians to hit a military target of dubious value, and the deliberate targetting of civilians. Whatever "moral" claims the Israelis might have about not deliberately killing civilians is heavily outweighed by the fact that they are far, far more lethal, and kill mulitple times more civilians than their enemies.

Leaders are of "dubious" value? It's indiscriminate killing to bomb the house where they are meeting?

As to the prupose of the section of the GC. I expect that it is less to do with justifying callousness towards civilians who are slaughtered with impunity to get at any military target than it is to discourage the use of civilian shields be unsavory governments.

In other words, exactly the situation I described.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


BULL****. The people committing war crimes - morally and legally - are the Hezbollah leaders using human shields!

So you didn;t read Article 33? Or do you refuse to take it at face value, like you think Article 28 should be taken? If so, care to explain your hypocrasy?

To add to our previous ongoing discussion, your interpretation is Article 28 is a bit nuts because you interpret is so broadly that it woudl invalidate the very meaning of protected person. You claim all Article 28 says is that the precense of a protected person does not mean it can't be attacked. Well, If that is all article 28 means, what is the point of the notion of portected person? By your standard (ditto what Jaguar was saying earlier) I could bomb orphenages and nuneries and state that I commited no war crime, cause hey, look at article 28!

Leaders are of "dubious" value? It's indiscriminate killing to bomb the house where they are meeting?

Last time I checked you could not even find the example.

In other words, exactly the situation I described.

Actually, given your interpretation of article 28 any attack would be justified, ANY attack.

[Kuciwalker]

So you didn;t read Article 33? Or do you refuse to take it at face value, like you think Article 28 should be taken? If so, care to explain your hypocrasy?

Article 33 doesn't conflict with Article 28 or Israel's actions in my example.

Actually, given your interpretation of article 28 any attack would be justified, ANY attack.

No it wouldn't. Strawman!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Article 33 doesn't conflict with Article 28 or Israel's actions in my example.

Who said it did? You cliamed only Hizbullah was committing war crimes. Article 33 prohibits collective punishment.

No it wouldn't. Strawman!

You have never provided any examples under which a site would not be liable for attack with protected persons in it, and explained the point at which a distinction would be made. All you have done is harp on the exact wording, as if that constitutes analysis, or understanding.

Again, all the exact wording provides is that the mere fact that a portected person is in a certain place does not mean it is immune from attack. Since all you do is claim that this is all the clause states, care yo exmplain why bombing an orphanage would be a war crime?

After all, The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. The mere fact orphans are there can;t mean the area is immune from attack.

[MRT144]

gepap, its best you leave kuciwalker alone, he uses magical powers of assertions to confuse and aggrivate the enemy but left to himself is relatively harmless.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


This justifies the al-Qaeda attack on the WTC, you realize. If civilians are responsible for their government's actions or innactions, than we deserved 9/11 because of what our government does. You're making the same argument as Ward Churchill. Congratualtions.

It appears I did.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Arrian
I hope Oerdin was just drunk.

Yeah, I was. I was in a local pub where everyone was getting drunk and arguing about the current war. Came home fired up and ready to argue.

[chequita guevara]

Friends don't let friends post drunk.

[Jaguar]

KH! What have they done to KH!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Jaguar
KH! What have they done to KH!

Isn't he busy with his marriage or something?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Yeah, I was. I was in a local pub where everyone was getting drunk and arguing about the current war. Came home fired up and ready to argue.

Drunkeness will sometimes do that. But you've definitely slid in that direction whilst sober, Oerdin.

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

[Sarcasm/irony] I'm also drunk now! And everything I wanted to say on this topic was already said by others! So let's Godwinize this thread and all agree that Hitler was right! Civilians make perfect targets, and jews are bad people! Or perhaps that's not a very good idea? ;P [Sarcasm/irony]

[Richelieu]

Good thing you put those tags in.