CNN’s Wolf Blitzer seemed at a lost of words at the justification being used to bomb a refugee camp in Gaza.
And? If there’s a hostage situation, the answer is not to blow up the entire building, hostages and all.
Nah. We watched the Russians blow up the buildings in realtime without even worrying if military personnel were housed there. IIRC that was the theater bombing one that I am thinking of.
Yeah, Israel are straight-up taking plays from the Soviet handbook here. Indiscriminate murder of civilians is okay if you get one bad dude. They’ve already dehumanised Palestinians beyond belief, it’s no wonder that they view murder of innocent Palestinians as being completely different to murder of innocent Israelis.
They blew up that whole theater in Mariupol full of sheltering women and children, early on in the war. That must have killed hundreds.
That wasn’t a hostage situation that was plain ethnic cleansing. Russia has thrown pretty much the whole of the male population in the occupied territories in the meat grinder by now, btw.
What OP is referring to is the Dubrovka crisis where Chechens took tons of hostages in a theatre and Russia pumped the whole thing full of gas, probably some fast-acting opioid. Which isn’t that bad of a way to diffuse a situation they just failed to inform EMTs on what they’ve used or at least how patients should be treated which meant a lot more respiratory failures than was necessary. Still a better outcome than storming the thing and the Chechens blowing everything up.
С утра садимся мы в телегу;
Мы рады голову сломать
И, презирая лень и негу,
Кричим: валяй, ебёна мать!
At dawn we jump inside the wagon,
Quite happy for our necks to break.
Scorning all soft delight and languor,
We yell “Get going, for fuck’s sake!”
I agree, but militaries will absolutely strike any high value target no matter the civilian cost. That’s the human cost of war and why we have rules of war. Hamas doesn’t follow those rules and the IDF has labeled them illegal combatants. Thus, in a legal sense, these strikes are being carried out. It absolutely is sickening but this is what Hamas wants to happen.
Thus, in a legal sense, these strikes are being carried out.
That’s not how it works. The failure of an enemy to abide by the laws of war does not absolve your side of the necessity of following the laws of war.
Jesus, fuck, it’s the Bush administration all over again. I’m having fucking flashbacks to “Why it’s actually totally legal to torture ‘unprivileged combatants’”
That’s not how it works … Jesus, fuck, it’s the Bush administration all over again. I’m having fucking flashbacks to “Why it’s actually totally legal to torture ‘unprivileged combatants’”
They shouldn’t have gotten away with it… but they largely did, didn’t they? Plenty of tales of US forces executing men of fighting age, based on very spurious allegations. The US killed two Reuters journalists and convicted… Chelsea Manning for leaking the footage to wikileaks. Not as if this was new. Colin Powell started his career by arguably whitewashing the My Lai massacre and ended it by fraudulently justifying the war in Iraq. Certainly didn’t hurt his career. So apparently, it often does work that way. You hire some lawyers, you find a technicality, and you can get away with pretending it was legal. I look forward to seeing George Bush Jr. on dancing with the Stars.
You might suspect that might makes right, and the US, China and Russia get away with war crimes and/or a bit of genocide because they’re nuclear powers.
But that can’t be it, can it? Because Assad gets away with war crimes constantly. IRC there was a story a few years ago, about how doctors in Syria no longer told the UN where their hospital were located. The Syrians were deliberately targetting hospitals, based on UN information. You know, the UN says: ‘don’t bomb this, it’s a hospital, that would be a war crime’. So Assad bombs them all anyway. I think at one point they bombed 4 in one day. Anyway, Assad’s still in power.
That is actually how it works. It is not against international law to strike civilian areas if it cannot be avoided in order to attack military targets. It needs to be done in a manner appropriate to the situation, for which there is obviously no hard line defined. Assuming that Israel is not lying regarding the military target around/under the location of this strike (which they probably aren’t, because murdering civilians without reason hurts their interests), it is explicitly legal without any loopholes or weird interpretations.
Actually, it does if justified. I don’t agree at all with it, but that’s war. The IDF will justify it and no one will do anything but look the other way.
It’s not really relevant what Hamas wants to happen. The civilians don’t want to be murdered.
These are war crimes no matter what either of the beligerants think/want.
Most international law experts are already coming down on the side of civilian starvation being war crimes. History is going to judge this a lot more harshly than the talking heads of US/Israeli news.
Is bombing a hospital ok in the rules of war? Because they bombed the only cancer hospital in Gaza yesterday.
Ask Assad. He once bombed 4 hospitals in a day, and IRC at one point doctors in Syria stopped telling the UN where their hospitals were located, because their warnings to not target these hospitals was being used by the Syrians as targetting suggestions.
No idea why you’re downvoted, this is objectively true. One may consider it disgusting or morally indefensible, but a) unless Israel is lying about the presence of legitimate targets in the area it is not illegal b) using civilians as human shields is a staple Hamas tactic.
The truth is very hard to swallow. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, I’ve witnessed this stupidity first hand. Terrorists are cowards who hide behind civilians. They want civilians to die because for every civilian killed they gain more bodies to their cause.
