Israel-Hamas War 2023

[crazy canuck]

seems like he just switched to another moral set, rather than abandoning morality. Probably more in line with what the rest of the world uses too (i.e. my tribe first)

A starving Palestinian infant is not an issue of tribalism.

[Razgovory]

And no, I've stopped caring about international law and the Geneva conventions.  In Iraq and Afghanistan we followed the rules (well mostly), and our enemies did not.  They were triumphant and will never be seriously punished for their transgressions, just like the Hamas members, who flagrantly violate international law will never be punished.  In fact they many in the UN will celebrate them.  What good are laws that punish those that follow them and reward those that do not?

It's sad and a sign of the times that empathy has left a lot of us. I'm not sure what there is left to discuss if you're ok with starving children.

I hope you'll change your mind some day.

It's a pretty fucked up morality where using children as shields is rewarded.

[Razgovory]

seems like he just switched to another moral set, rather than abandoning morality. Probably more in line with what the rest of the world uses too (i.e. my tribe first)

A starving Palestinian infant is not an issue of tribalism.

But a strangled Israeli one is.

[Tamas]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

[crazy canuck]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

[PJL]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

Not a new thing, arguably the precedent was already made by Irish terrorists over a century ago.

[PJL]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

Not a new thing, arguably the precedent was already made by Irish terrorists over a century ago.

Or indeed, Jewish terrorists in the 1940s.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

if it does it needs to win. That too is reality.
Better accept that the liberal world order is being replaced by something new, which incidentally looks like what was before.
And a human life isn't worth much outside the western mindset. And as the progressives have been telling us for decades: you shouldn't apply, let alone foist, that western mindset on the other peoples of the world.

[Razgovory]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

How is that the logical conclusion?  Hamas blatantly commits war crimes, reaps rewards for it and has little or no negative repercussions.  Take for example Hamas fighting from civilian buildings without using any identifying insignia or uniform.  Not only does this allow them to survive, if they didn't do so they would be quickly destroyed, but the civilian casualties that it causes only results in more people sympathizing with their cause.  This is a clear war crime with major benefits and no downsides.  It is entirely logical for Hamas to do this.

[grumbler]

I believe that blockades are legitimate, as do you.  You said it about Gaza, I quoted you a few pages back.  Hell, you endorsed Morganthau plan for Germany after the war.  A plan that entailed the starving of millions.  If we could really cut off food imports to Russia and force them out of the Ukraine, would you do it?  Of course you would.

You believe that blockades are legitimate, but everyone else here believes that they are only legitimate when they comply with international law.  A blockade that prevents the delivery of humanitarian aid is a violation of international law and in extreme cases (like the one in Gaza) may constitute a war crime.

All of your attempts to distract the discussion from Epstein Israel's war crimes fool no one.  Your position leaves one with no choice but to believe that you support war crimes when they are carried out by "your side."

[crazy canuck]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

How is that the logical conclusion?  Hamas blatantly commits war crimes, reaps rewards for it and has little or no negative repercussions.  Take for example Hamas fighting from civilian buildings without using any identifying insignia or uniform.  Not only does this allow them to survive, if they didn't do so they would be quickly destroyed, but the civilian casualties that it causes only results in more people sympathizing with their cause.  This is a clear war crime with major benefits and no downsides.  It is entirely logical for Hamas to do this.

You might want to reconsider your argument that if a terrorist organization commits acts of terror, a state is then justified in committing war crimes.

[crazy canuck]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

if it does it needs to win. That too is reality.
Better accept that the liberal world order is being replaced by something new, which incidentally looks like what was before.
And a human life isn't worth much outside the western mindset. And as the progressives have been telling us for decades: you shouldn't apply, let alone foist, that western mindset on the other peoples of the world.

I am trying to understand your argument in good faith, but I am having trouble making sense of what you are saying.  Are you arguing that Israel must commit war crimes to protect itself from potential threats located in Gaza?

[Razgovory]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

How is that the logical conclusion?  Hamas blatantly commits war crimes, reaps rewards for it and has little or no negative repercussions.  Take for example Hamas fighting from civilian buildings without using any identifying insignia or uniform.  Not only does this allow them to survive, if they didn't do so they would be quickly destroyed, but the civilian casualties that it causes only results in more people sympathizing with their cause.  This is a clear war crime with major benefits and no downsides.  It is entirely logical for Hamas to do this.

You might want to reconsider your argument that if a terrorist organization commits acts of terror, a state is then justified in committing war crimes.

You are dodging my question.  Hamas, a de facto state, commits war crimes.  Why is it logical for them to refrain from these acts?

[Gups]

Like it or not if France and the UK recognise Palestine in the aftermath of the war started by Hamas'terror attack, the logical conclusion by all such groups will be that escalation via terror works

The logical conclusion is that a state should not engage in war crimes.

How is that the logical conclusion?  Hamas blatantly commits war crimes, reaps rewards for it and has little or no negative repercussions.  Take for example Hamas fighting from civilian buildings without using any identifying insignia or uniform.  Not only does this allow them to survive, if they didn't do so they would be quickly destroyed, but the civilian casualties that it causes only results in more people sympathizing with their cause.  This is a clear war crime with major benefits and no downsides.  It is entirely logical for Hamas to do this.

Rewards? They are all dead

[Razgovory]