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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All
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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. All

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