The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > War crimes, waffle and the war on terror > Comments

War crimes, waffle and the war on terror : Comments

By Clive Williams, published 9/8/2006

War crimes are being committed in the Middle East.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
speaking of war crimes, can anyone explain to me why the Australian media has completley ignored the fact the the US army has ADMITTED using the horrendous chemical weapon white phospherous in the battle for Fallujah?

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2853
Posted by Carl, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 11:04:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carl,

White phosphorous is a smoke round, it is used to cover troop movements, and it is not a chemical weapon, and every army in the world uses it entirely legally.

The author of this piece makes no attempt to address the onus and balance of proof pertaining to the prosecution of war crimes, which renders the entire argument specious and entirely fallacious.

The author, and others including Kofi Annan, have bleated on and on about supposed war crimes carried out by the IDF, without making any attempt to establish that a case could exist, completely abrogating the presumption of innocence to the extent that if an individual was identified, as being responsible for these 'war crimes' their publications would be defamatory.

Quite simply, the reason why it is impossible to state that any member of the IDF has committed war crimes is because the UN has made no attempt to collect the evidence necessary to prove these crimes, to beyond a reasonable doubt. All war crimes require 'intent', insofar as there are no unintentional 'war crimes', they are all closer to 'murder' than 'manslaughter'.

Thus it would have to be proved, by the UN, not that no weapons existed in the area, but that the person accused had no reason to believe that they did, or that that person had no reasonable grounds upon which to believe that their actions were likely to result in a significant military advantage, proportionate to any foreseeable harm to civilians. As civilians were warned to leave, the individual members of the IDF had every reason to believe that they had left, and that any and every suspected launch site could be hit with impunity.

Therefore, intent would be utterly impossible to prove, and no member of the IDF could be succesfully prosecuted for any such crime, unless they did so intentionally, in which case they should be prosecuted.

Dont like it, stiff sh*t, criminal law makes it almost impossible to prove intent in these situations for a very good reason.

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 11:42:31 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2bob,

read the article that I posted, a pentagon spokesman admits that “It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants,” not just for covering troop movements, this is illegal, and it is also terribly hypocritical because we invaded Iraq on the premise that Iraq posessed weapons such as these.
Posted by Carl, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 12:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pretty strange to be talking about war 'crimes' when the unbridled terrorism of Hezbollah is involved.
Posted by Leigh, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 12:34:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's all well and good to whine about breaches of international law, but laws are only as good as the body which is meant to enforce them.. the UN.
Posted by Kalin, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 1:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2bob

I think intent is proved in the case of the war crime being committed in the West bank and East Jeresulem. You know those illegal land grabbing settlements.

As for that bombing in Qana...your defense of the IDF fell apart when they admitted they knew Hezbollah had moved out of Qana two days before their murderous attack. As for the individuals involved. Well mate they are hiding among all Israeli's so I reckon the are cowards. And with the likes of you defending them I reckon they are likely to carry out similar cowardly and criminal attacks whenever they feel like it. That would make you complicit. You'd have greater success in the court of world opinion if you gave them up or became involved in and completed a successful prosecution against the individuals involved. Just like the Yanks did and are doing in Iraq. Or you could launch a prosecution against their 'line of command', unlike the Yanks in Iraq. Mate that would prove you are fair dinkum in being critical of any war crimes.

Mate that's common decency as exhibited in a liberal democratic country.

And mate, you keep repeating the line that the civilians were asked to leave areas before the IDF attacked. Well I just wonder if a case could be made, if the illegal occupation continues, using those leaflets as part of the proof that the IDF intended to clear Southern Lebanon of Lebanese so as to import Israeli settlements. Time will tell. Eh? Now that would be just another in a series of war crimes.

Nice language...but that tends to be a common and revealing trait among losers.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 2:13:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem.

This is the description of semitic in the US dictionary yet when people are abused as being anti-semitic they only ever mean Jews. Look though - Iraqis, Ethiopians and Arabs are all included which makes the term anti-semitic meaningless or you hate half the human race.

Leigh, Hezbollah has about 2,000 armed guerillas and only came into being in 1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and used christian Lebanese as a proxy army to kill muslims. Give it up.

Clive, yes firing rockets among civilians is a war crime and I have yet to find anyone say otherwise.

However, when we consider that people like Netanyahu are now claiming this war that Israel planned last year with the blessing of Bush and Blair, is about not stopping the Germans in 1930 we know the Israeli's are not just a few rogues.

They believe this rot. As an aryan with German background, and English ancestry that fought for Australia against the Germans I object strenuously to the Israeli's like Netanyahu blaming the arabs for the holocaust of the 1940's and want them to stop.

Start blowing up the 21 nations who ignored the holocaust instead even if that means the US, UK and us.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 2:19:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I took a step back when I read that the 1899 Hague Convention prohibited bombing form the air, considering that the first aircraft did not fly until 1903. On checking I find that the convention prohibited the launching of projectiles and explosives from balloons, and that the prohibition expired in 1904.

I do wish authors would get their facts right!

I think the real issue in the middle east, as well as in Iraq, is that both wars are ones of extermination, like the war with Japan in the pacific was during ww2. I remember my uncle, who fought at kokoda, telling me how the japs would torture captured Australian prisoners within the hearing of Australian troops hidden in the jungle, in the hope of drawing them out. I won't tell you what Australians did to the Japanese they got hold of, it might upset too many people.

We seem to be moving toward a world where more and more of it will look like Iraq and Afghanistan look today. As the end of cheap oil pushes living standards down everywhere, and the population increases, the last sixty years will look more and more like a golden age. The imminent prospect of nuclear war would make it look like a platinum one. Thank heavens we have a sea boundary, and are self sufficient in food, minerals and energy.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 2:45:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inshallah 2bob

mate why would we believe anythingg you say in defense of Israeli atrocities and war crimes. Especially when you mouth the following statements.

'Israel will pound Lebanon until someone realises that Lebanon is alone, and that Lebanon is beat.'

Inshallah

2bob

Posted by 2bob, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 1:01:44 AM

Mate doesn't that discredit you somewhat. You've run the Israeli line continually over the past 4 weeks.

Is this your truth now? You told us you were attacking Hezbollah not Lebanon.

You claim now to be attacking, not Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army, but Lebanon

Why?
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 3:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
War Crimes? What war crimes? BS..

When islamic nations occupy, it is called "Victory of Allah."
But when non-islamic nations do the same, it is a "War Crime"

To all jihad-supporters, go and hide behind women skirts and cry "War crime"
Posted by Darwin1, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 4:01:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wait for the day when the UN is no longer referred to as the penultimate determinate of morality and the ultimate formal authority in the world. Israel would not be waging war if the UN resolution for disarming Hezbollah was adhered to.

The amoral UN twittles its collective thumbs while thousands of children die in warring African nations. Two percent of the deaths are due to murder and 98% due to starvation etc. Blacks murdering blacks hasn't been a crime at the UN for decades. Israel killing civilians that provide moral support and refuge to an organisation that has the stated aim of destroying Israel, well that certainly is a crime worthy of the UN making a fuss.

How people can respect the pathetic posturing of Kofi Annan and then ridicule President Bush in another breath bewilders me. The UN has more than its fair share of blood on its olive branches. Who can forget the UN Dutch "peace keepers" observing ethnic cleansing and being ordered not to intervene.
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 6:03:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

I'd really like to see your evidence for the following claim...."As for that bombing in Qana...your defense of the IDF fell apart when they admitted they knew Hezbollah had moved out of Qana two days before their murderous attack.". I don't think any such admission was made.

Mark
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 6:35:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wars of extermination - aren't you a nice soul. What on earth do you mean? We should exterminate all the owners of the land because we want the oil?

Scary, ugly creature.

The IDF admitted that the so-called Hezbollah rocket launcher photo that they released was 2 days old - that there had not been any rockets fired from Qana at the time. It's strange that Hezbollah always send their rockets during the day giving everyone plenty of warning though while the IDF cowards drop 450 kg bombs on sleeping children in the middle of the night.

Now that is a war crime.

It is ironic though that the Nuremberg principles and most of the great human rights law and international law was spawned due to the west's war of extermination of the Jews and now the Jews think they can simply over ride those laws and blackmail the world into allowing it.

Well, not in my name.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 7:58:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive,

A useful article. I'd only add:

a)that, in relation to Hezbollah's culpability for war crimes, its rocket fire was in response to Israel's massive attack on Lebanon on July 12 and that Nasrallah has declared that it would cease if Israel stopped the air-raids which forced Hezbollah's hand in the first place.

b)that, by suggesting that many Israeli war crimes are down to mistakes/rogue elements within the IDF, you let Israel off the hook too easily. Human Rights Watch, for example, finds "a systematic failure by the IDF to distinguish between combatants and civilians" and notes that "In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians."
Posted by Strewth, Wednesday, 9 August 2006 9:09:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

Israel originally sought to provide the Lebanese Government with the necessary wiggle room, from which to escape having to admit that they supported, unequivocally, the actions of Hizbollah, notwithstanding their refusal to implement either UN Security Council Resolutions 425 or 1559, and placing Hizbollah on the border.

The Lebanese Government squandered this opportunity, instead praising the actions of Hizbollah, which does not even have the support of the majority of Shiites, Amal does, let alone the support of the majority of the country. This support for a minority party, who dragged the rest of the nation into an unwinnable war, demonstrates the Lebanese Government’s willingness to involve itself in this war, as stated in an interview on Lateline, by the Interior Minister, Dr Fatfat:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1703362.htm

That being so, if the Lebanese Government will not seek to disarm Hizbollah unless they have been convincingly, resoundingly, humiliatingly and utterly defeated, what is the Israeli Government to do, given that the vast majority of Israeli’s are sick of the constant bombardment, and members of the Knesset, are aware that anything short of absolute victory is political suicide?

The Lebanese Government is holding out for a less humiliating end to this war which will not be forthcoming, a good diplomatic solution requires military position. The Lebanese Government is in no position to dictate terms to Israel:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=109453

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3288359,00.html

As to the remainder of the ‘Sunni’ Arab world, do you really think that they will intercede despite the head cleric of the Wahabbi’s issuing a fatwah that to do so means damnation, will they?

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/95548

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525810323&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The translation of which is here:

http://www.homelandsecurityus.net/bin_gbrin_the_greatest_wahhabi_s.htm

Yes, they posture and say they will, but I don’t think that they will risk it. Egypt who would lose their status as most preferred client with the USA, Saudi Arabia, whose rulers are in power only because of the USA, or Jordan, on behalf of Lebanon/Syria/Iran?

Not likely, the Sunni hatred of the Shia is greater than anything bar the Shia hatred of the Sunni (nearly matched however by the Jordanian’s hatred of the Saudi’s & Alawites (Syria)).

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Thursday, 10 August 2006 12:47:39 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am with Keith.
How does Israel "warning" Lebanese that they should have to move out of their own homes in their own country somehow then absolve Israel of later massive casualties inflicted on civilians who have nothing to do with what goes on in Israel, the West Bank or Gaza?
Who the F- do the Israelies think they they are?
Only one other nation on earth also claims the right to play God to the extent that heavily-armed Israel does, and that is the U.S.
In respect to this aspect, the Plerdsus offers a useful comment. This comment locates the Lebanon as exemplar of a reality: the horror that is the WHOLE captive Middle East, of post WW2 history.
Marilyn Shepherd' comment concerning Netanyahu thus provides interesting evidence to the forgotten fact of global geopolitics.
What we have is not a provoked comprehensible retaliation from Israel against "terrorist" bogy-people, but a premeditated, cynical game developed in WaSShington and Tel Aviv, over time.
Are the wingnut apologists for Israel REALLY saying resistance groups like groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, fighting virtually only on raw courage, are GENUINE threats to militarised states like the US and Israel?
In reality, Lebanon is just a repeat of the much bloodier Iraq mess, with its "shock and awe" blitzkreig and collective punishments.
Consider also the serial interferences by the US that have turned Iran into the isolationist mess that IT is. The tactics are the same and come from the same origin; the Israel/US axis that has devastated the entire region for fifty years, usually for the most base of motives. Miniscule concern for the huge numbers of people living there has EVER been shown, against the pursuit of selfish strategic and oil-related motives. As the US has been Israel's proxy in Iraq and elsewhere, so Israel now duplicates this role for the U.S.
The U.S.could have halted the mess any time they had wanted to. We have heard too much of their sanctimonious windbagging about their "Christian humanity" and "superior civilised values" and seen too much of the substance and reality of these claims.
Posted by funguy, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:44:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funguy,

You must suffer from chronic ignorance or tunnel vision. The world is full of nations committing far worse attrocities than any you can lay at the feet of the US or Israel.

If the US is so bad, which powerful nation states do you think would make better allies than the Americans? Which paragons of morality and liberalism do you fancy as Australia's allies? China? Russia? Indonesia? Malaysia? Iran? What morally sound and upright allies these would make!

Whatever the sins of the US, it's a long way ahead of the competition - especially in our part of the world.
Posted by Kalin, Thursday, 10 August 2006 3:55:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kalin,

Typical Zionist finger pointing. 'Why, oh why, are they always picking on us? The war crimes, the lies and the sheer nastiness are one thing, Kalin, but it's the HYPOCRISY, the overwhelming, neverending HYPOCRISY of the US of Israel and its barrackers that gets up our sensitive nostrils . Democracy, civilization, light under the nations. Jeezus! Blight unto the nations more likely.
Posted by Strewth, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Strewth,

Answer the question.

If not the US as our regional ally, who then?
Posted by Kalin, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:37:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fungi,

Hizbollah in particular is not fighting on 'pure guts', they are fighting well, with the latest in laser guided anti-tank missiles (AT-13 Metis-M [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-7-specs.htm]& AT-14 Kornet [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/at-14.htm]: http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2006/060805-israeli-tanks.htm). They are essentially an extremely well equipped infantry brigade, with organic rocket artillery support, with a strong offensive capability [eg http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/mrl-iran.htm]. The use of these advanced, or heavily modified & updated AT weapons, is the cause of most of the casualties by the IDF [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746929.html:http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525834576&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull].

)as well as improved anti-tank grenades (RPG-29: ), direct from Russia via Syria [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/06/news/hezbollah.php]. Some of these weapons still are not general issue in frontline Russian Divisions, let alone in the Syrian defence force. They also have used Iranian/Chinese anti-ship rockets (C-802: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/c-802.htm).

Hizbollah are an extremely well equiped, and extraordinarily well prepared enemy, and the going will be hard and costly, but they will be beaten, and destroyed. Israeli politicians cannot afford anything less, if civilians refuse to leave that is really their problem, and their choice. If they are afraid to leave in cars, they can leave on foot.

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Thursday, 10 August 2006 4:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

This was the source of the statement. The Officer clearly stated Hezbollah had not fired rockets from Qana for 'one or two days'. Now given the IDF and Israeli propgandists penchant for minimising any Israeli guilt it would be reasonable to conclude it was at least two days.

'Q: I would like to ask Brig. Gen. Eshel: When was the last attack, the last launch of missiles from the Qana village to Israel? ...

Brig. Gen. Amir Eshel: ... If I'm not mistaken, the last one was one or two days ago. '

Here's the link to the full interview.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Terrorism+from+Lebanon-+Hizbullah/IDF+press+conference+following+the+Kafr+Qana+incident+30-Jul-2006.htm

Now Israel's problem is this: The Geneva Convention is incident specific. A generalised sanitation as Israel contuinually uses doesa not excuse attacks on civilian infrastructure or civilians where no military forces are present unless there is a clear military advantage for doing so. If that later condition is fulfilled then the onus is upon the attackers to satisfy themselves no civilains are present.
Since the IDF knew no terrorists were in Qana for the previous two days the officers involved in deciding there was a military advantage in destroying the civilian structure need to be interrogated as to whether they satisfied themselves the building was not inhabited by civilians. As do their chain of command.

I think it would be fairly easy to show that was not done at any stage. Any Legal practitioner with a modicom of common sense would show that quite clearly

All that claptrap that was written for 2bob on how innocent the officers are and the difficulty of the burden of proof is just that, the usual Israeli whitewashing claptrap.

It was a war crime and those responsible are being hidden behind the cowardly IDF propaganda machine and it's midless mouthpieces.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 10 August 2006 5:38:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
2bob

Jeez you are such a know all. From legal thesis like presentations and updates on war crimes, to extraordinary knowledge and detailed synopses about the armaments of your opponents coupled with a too well written justification for waging war on Lebanon is raising eyebrows.

Mate how much are they paying you and have they reprimanded you over your self discrediting gaffe'we're at war with Lebanon'.

Mate the more you spruik the the more you seem to be panicking.

Thirty thousand troops on the ground in Lebanon. And still the rockets rain down on Israel.

Your defence force is uselesss at attack!

I reckon OLO should ban Israeli propagandists.
Posted by keith, Thursday, 10 August 2006 5:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shepherd, did you go to school? The "West" did NOT target Jews for extermination - NAZI GERMANY, our ENEMY in WW2 did. How does that make the West responsible for killing Jews? Repeat, Nazi Germany is not the West; it was anti-West, much like Islam today in fact. Get your facts straight.
Posted by Kvasir, Thursday, 10 August 2006 10:58:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two major points,

1. I do this for love (translation = gratis, no employment, not at all).

2. Have you explained to the UN, The Arab League, Lebanon or even Israel, that this fight has nothing to do with Lebanon?

Face it, Lebanon CHOSE to place a heavily armed, indigenous paramilitary force on their border with Israel, knowing what would happen. When given the opportunity to declaim responsibility for the actions of Hizbollah, they chose instead to heap praise upon them. Therefore, and in the spirit averted to by Dr Fatfat, the Lebanese Government & Hizbollh are one.

Also please note, that paramilitary groups are not granted representative rights within the UN, and the ceasefire is to be worked out between Israel and Lebanon (bit hard if their not involved).

Finally see the figurative sword of Damocles hanging over Saniora's head, in order to pressure him into accepting the current proposal:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525841944&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Which harsh as it is, is nothing compared to what would happen if this is repeated, as this man would be in charge:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525841930&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Inshallah

2bob
Posted by 2bob, Friday, 11 August 2006 1:22:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clive writes: "As a reaction to 9-11, the Bush Administration adopted several controversial extra-legal recourses including introducing “illegal combatant” status "

This is not correct. The category called "unlawful combatant" (AKA "illegal combatant") (US) and "unprivileged combatant" (UK, Aus, NZ) have been around for decades.

He also implies that the Bush administration was the first to use “extraordinary rendition”. This practice was actually begun under Clinton.
Posted by Tim in Colorado, Friday, 11 August 2006 2:17:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Throughout the world, we hold no sanctity of life. We are pushing out the mentally ill, the disabled, the poor, etc. While we are behaving like this, there is no prospect of peace without dropping the big one.

As for Israel. There is no diplomatic solution but a solution involving military action.
Posted by Spider, Friday, 11 August 2006 3:15:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kvasir,
While the Nazis had a programme to exterminate the Jews, the West knew about it and chose to look away.

Some boatloads of Jews looking for sanctuary in "the West" were turned away.

Some countries paid the Nazis to take their Jews off their hands, even offering a special family rate in some cases.

Of course this means the Jews can now pay everybody back in kind with impugnity and are now apparently making up for lost time.
Posted by rache, Friday, 11 August 2006 4:01:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst Jewish refugees were turned away by many Western nations during the Nazi occupation, this generally occurred prior to the outbreak of war 1939 and any such occurences would have been rare indeed by the time Germany began its extermination efforts (which only began from around late 1942 I believe).

Shameful as this failure of Western nations was, they didn't know they were sending Jews to certain death. You trivialise the crimes of the Nazis when you equate their malice with the mere neglect of the West
Posted by Kalin, Friday, 11 August 2006 5:32:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "West" (BTW what does this mean?) did not choose to look away at the slaughter of Jews. In the mid-to-late 1930s the West could see a demented dictator and a Germany sick to its core heading down a path that nobody could believe...was it wishful thinking, that if ignored it would all go away? This is the stage we are at again, this time with Islamic fascism. We think that it will just vanish with appeasement.

But anyway, Jews were escaping persecution and legal restrictions in Germany in the 1930s, escaping to Shanghai or America if they could, but at that stage they weren't being slaughtered in death camps. Auschwitz opened about one year AFTER the start of the War; then Birkenau, the industrial-scale annexe to Auschwitz, another year after that. As you can see by then, the "West" was already committed to destroying Nazi Germany, and in doing so liberating Jews from death camps. So Rache, I just don't understand your point...

Israel is acting entirely in self defence. But this time Jews face an enemy even more demented than Nazi Germany. I think the fact that the feeble UN chided Hezbollah for blending in among women and children when firing missiles says it all. And the fact that the Left reflexively sides with monstrous Islamic dictatorships and vile Sharia states has made me lose my Leftism.
Posted by Kvasir, Friday, 11 August 2006 9:50:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know people who were living in Europe before and during WW2 and hatred of the Jews was very widespread in several European countries. (What I collectively referred to as “the West” because the “Eastern Bloc” didn’t officially exist until the Cold War began)

Concentration camps at Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachenhausen and Ravensbruck were in operation and being guarded by the SS even before the war began. The severe oppression of the Jews was common knowledge throughout the world for many years.
Although some respite was given during the Berlin Olympics in 1936, Jews were still denied basic freedoms and rights. This was no secret.

Despite this knowledge, Jews trying to escape this oppression were usually turned away by other countries. The St Louis for example, was not even allowed to dock in Cuba or the US and the passengers were returned to Europe as the war began.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that, although the mass killing didn’t officially start until late in the war, the world was well aware of what was happening in Germany for many years but still failed to help. I would consider this to be knowingly turning one’s back on people in desperate circumstances.

The policy of appeasement was followed in spite of these circumstances and for other reasons.

The Jewish were a “problem” in many European countries because it was felt their allegiance was to their religion before the country in which they lived. Their religion was also offensive to many Christians, particularly some parts of the Talmud that described how Gentiles are to be treated in relation to Jews. (Does this sound familiar?)

Many would have liked to see them deported but there was nowhere to deport them to. During the war, a lot of the killing was actually done by European civilians while the Nazis simply looked on. (Lithuania for example).
That war wasn’t fought simply to “liberate” the Jews. Their plight was always considered secondary.

It’s somewhat ironic that Hitler’s rise to power was funded and supported by the same American Jews who bankrolled Lenin’s Bolshevik revolution.
Posted by rache, Saturday, 12 August 2006 1:28:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rache - In 1941 the ship "Struma" left Romania for Palestine carrying 769 Jews but was later denied permission by British authorities to allow the passengers to disembark. In Feb. 1942, it sailed back into the Black Sea where it was intercepted by a Soviet submarine and sunk as an "enemy target."

By then the War with the Nazis was 2 years old so maybe at that time the Allies didn't know about what was happening to the Jews - or maybe they did know but didn't care enough.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 12 August 2006 1:46:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 1938 Australia said they would not have anything to do with Jews fleeing Germany because we didn't have a racial problem.

We didn't accept any Jews until 1945=-46 but we had no problem accepting a good number of nazis.

Australia, America, Britain and others were not fighting the Nazis because they gave a stuff about the Jewish people being slaughtered, they didn't even believe it was happening for god's sake.

All those nice, christian countries denied it was happening, said there was no way it was true and left the people to die.

It is like with the Taliban during the 1990's - the Afghans begged and screamed for help and no-one believed them or cared about them at all.

The few Jews who survived the concentration camps, who suffered torture and deprivation such as I hope we never see again are heroes to every person on the planet that I have ever spoken to.

But they do not approve of the punishment of the Palestinians and Lebanese. They even wrote to Haaretz saying so.

The collective west did sit idly by while 6 million people were murdered. That is an historical fact no matter what you might think.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Saturday, 12 August 2006 3:22:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Inshallah 2bob

Your labour of love, hangs on hate.

Keith
Posted by keith, Saturday, 12 August 2006 10:41:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just don't understand why Marilyn Shepherd is so full of hate towards Western countries...Doesn't she have any idea that Saudi Arabia is probably the closest of any country on earth to be the embodiment of total evil. Its vicious treatment of women, of gays, of non-Muslims and of apostates is sickening. It is a country without press freedoms, without religious freedom, without political freedoms, without even cinemas. It is a country where roving religious bully-boys, the Mutawwa, swagger around punishing people on the spot without trial for infringement of Sharia, and where people are beheaded in public. Iran, the standard bearer for Shia Islam is little better. As I've said before, Shepherd should be sentenced to spend her days in Saudi Arabia as a faceless, shrouded "black moving object" if she thinks the West is so bad. Any true progressive would be campaigning against the unspeakable human rights evils perpetrated in Muslim countries
Posted by Kvasir, Saturday, 12 August 2006 12:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,
You've got to be kidding. To prove your claim that the Israelis had "admitted they knew Hezbollah had moved out of Qana two days before their murderous attack" you show a comment from the Israeli spokesman that the last attack from Qana had occured in the last day or two. Surely you understand that these aren't even close to the same thing. Hezbullah had been firing from the village every day or so since the fighting started so a gap of 24-48 hrs between rocket launches was not unusal. They in no way support your assertion that this proves that Hezbullah had left the village. Why would they do so after hiding behind the local civilians for the previous two weeks?

As if to prove your bias you then rely on the assertion that the Israelis habitually lie and therefore you can put the worst possible connotation on their words.

The fact is Hezbullah was using the village and its inhabitants as a shield in the hope that this would allow them to attack Israeli civilian targets with impunity. Were the Israelis to allow this to continue, allow their own peoples to be killed from these protected positions without seeking to take out the launches simply because they were unable to prove that all civilians had left? Your assertion, for it is baseless in fact, that the attack was a war crime because the Israelis knew no forces remained fails.

Just on Qana in general, many questions remain unanswered..what happened in the seven hours between the Israeli attack and the fall of the building; why were there only women and children in the building; given the now proof that Hezbullah, using a gullible and willing press, used the event to stage photo opportunities, were they, as some bloggers have opined, in fact a lot more implicated in the deaths than the Israelis. These are questions that may never be answered and never answered to the satisfaction of those that think Israel is wrong no matter what happens. But they remain of interest notheless.

Mark
Posted by mhaze, Sunday, 13 August 2006 8:57:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst Jewish refugees were turned away by many Western nations during the Nazi occupation, this generally occurred prior to the outbreak of war 1939 and any such occurences would have been rare indeed by the time Germany began its extermination efforts (which only began from around late 1942 I believe).

Shameful as this failure of Western nations was, they didn't know they were sending Jews to certain death. You trivialise the crimes of the Nazis when you equate their malice with the mere neglect of the West
Posted by Kalin, Monday, 14 August 2006 11:24:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the posts from people like Ms Shepherd, you'd almost start to think that it was US and British soldiers dropping the pellets into the gas chambers.
There was no policy to deny Jews escape. When Hitler took power in 1933 there were 500000 Jews in Germany (and that includes the Sudentland and Austria). By 1942, when the Nazis closed off all avenues of escape, 72% of these had already left and been accepted into countries like the US and Britain. To be sure, a lot also went to France and Holland (where they felt safe) and therefore failed to escape but the fact is that any who wanted out, got out. Most of those that were killed after 1942 where the Jews from places like the USSR who couldn't have escaped even if they wanted to, or Romania, and the eastern European nations.

The western nations had done all they could to save those who were subject to Nazi persecution while they could although they didn't know at the time what they were being saved from. The fact is even the Nazis had no intention of exterminating Jews until 1941. Previously they had wanted to move them all to a place like Madagascar. So it is hard to understand how the US and Britain were supposed to know that the holocaust was immenent when even the Nazis didn't know it.

But for some, no matter what the problem it is the US's fault. I sometimes think that if OLO carries a paper on the extinction of the dinosaur, we'll have a group popping up to tell us it was all the US's fault.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 14 August 2006 12:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why are people complaining about Lebonese civilans being attacked ?
Hexbollah is not a military unit of the Lebonese governmant so all its members must be civilians. So why are people upset with Lebonese civilians being killed and injured ?

Surely this is why governments issue their armed forces with uniforms, paybooks and serial numbers.
Thats it, if you don't have these then you are a criminal.
That is where David Hicks got himself into trouble.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 14 August 2006 7:03:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

The Israeli spokesman wasn't just any spokesman. He was the IDF official spokesman and his answers to questions came in an IDF organised news conference. It was the official line. He also stated Hezbollah had previously been firing rockets from Qana everyday. Didn't you read the full transcript?

I see you've not researched the Geneva Convention as you peddle the generalised Israeli line about Hezbollah operating from civilian areas. The GC is incident specific. Your defence fails on this point but not on this point alone. The rest of you comments attempting to justify Israeli actions ignore basic precepts and articles contained in the GC.

Re-read the transcript, there were admitted attacks up to and including the time of the collapse of that building. The men were undoubtly Hezbollah terrorists. That would only make the Israeli's more likely culpable. A 'Let's punish their families' argument could be presented.

Mark if you are the Mark I'm familiar with then I expected a great deal better than a repeat of the Israeli line. I'm sorely disappointed.

For what it's worth.
I think the Israeli's had 'staked' out the site expecting the Hezbollah to launch from the site. When they realised the'd missed their opportunity I think they decided not to waste their effort and just got rid of the structure. Unfortunately they didn't adhere to the articles of the GC. Much more believable than the generalised statements and claims that characterise the defence of the Israeli officers involved.
Posted by keith, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 4:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Keith,

You suggest that I read the full transcript you posted to find out that "Hezbollah had previously been firing rockets from Qana everyday". Well in fact I had read it and that's why I'd written that they were firing every day OR SO. What the spokesman said was "There were launches from Qana on an almost daily basis". ALMOST. The difference is slight but your original theory collapses on that difference. You need to believe that they were firing daily because that is the sole tenuous thread upon which you can hang your claim that the Israelis 'knew' that Hezbullah had left. If they had previously not fired on some days then the fact that they hadn't fired in the previous day or so is neither here nor there.

You also demand that I read the transcript to learn that Israel "admitted attacks up to and including the time of the collapse of that building". Again, I had read the transcript which says that they fired on other targets half a kilometre away in the period between 1am and 8am when the building fell. Are we to think that they missed those targets by 500 metres?

Now as to the Geneva Convention...I've seen you claim on several ocassions that it is "incident specific" in regards to firing on human shields and used that claim to shout down others. Well how about you quote us chapter and verse because nowhere in the GC is the phrase "incident specific" used and nowhere is a notion like it mentioned. And in regards to the GC, I look forward to seeing you elucidate on its attitude to using civilians and civilian centres to protect military objectives as is/was done by Hezbullah.

Keith, I know that you are passionate on this issue and pasionate in your hatred of the Jewish state. But lashing out at all who fail (in your mind) to see that Israel is evil personified is unedifying. It is possible to form a view on these issues which places Israel in a reasonable light without necessarily falling for the Israeli line.
Posted by mhaze, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark

Was it everyday or everday or so? I think every day is the more likely.
They claimed they were not using precision bombs. That 7 hours is Israeli obsfucation. An independent enquiry would quickly get to the bottom of that. (I'm researching that 7 hours now too).

The GC does not allow general warnings as a substitute for warnings when attacks are made on specific civilian structures.
Here is a reference. Protocol I Article 52 (2) (3), Article 57 (1) (2)(a) (b)& (c)and Article 85 (3)

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

NB the words in Art 52(2) 'in the circumstances ruling at the time'.
Incident specific enough? I'd contend two days later in the circumstances of Qana placed those civilian structures outside the GC definition of a 'military target'.

NB the words in Art 52 (3)'In case of doubt ... a house or other dwelling ... is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.' They presumed ... what?

NB the words in Article 57 (a)'those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:...' Note what this article specifies what thay must verify. They didn't.

If you still have a problem, read the above in light of Article 57 (Among others)(b)'... or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;' What was the military advantage?

That should clear your misconception.

I'll defend myself from unfounded personal attacks and to that end:

I didn't yell nor lash out.
I have presented rational and supported information on the Israeli crime at Qana. I tend to respond negatively to put-downs, taunts, irrationality, poor argument and plain old or sneeing abuse. Usually I try it with a little humour.

I'm pacifist. I detest violence.
I don't hate Israel or Israelis.
I hate their actions.
I despise even more the machinations attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for the crimes of their minions.
Posted by keith, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 6:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy