- Apr 3, 2006
- 34,374
- 13,039
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Thats all it says.
If you can tell me whats under the paint I'll translate it for you
OK - other paint.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Thats all it says.
If you can tell me whats under the paint I'll translate it for you
OK - other paint.
But Hamas.
"and cases in which Israeli soldiers made dogs sexually assault prisoners."
Sounds legit.
You embarrassed yourself by linking an article that the experts interviewed in the article have come out and said misrepresented their views. It didn't even support your conclusion.I'm not sure you realise how bad it looks when someone posts like that on an internet message board.
I've had to correct you on your attempt to disregard the Times of London article (the people quoted didn't like the article, the quotes were correct; the Times are 'investigating it ).
Your inability to read isn't my problem.Your irrelevant Caroline test nonsense and nebulous claims about Hamas not being a state actor and their right of resistance (there is absolutely no relevance).
Your terrible argument that Israel is committing genocide. But then when confronted with the fact that the numbers of casaulties in the war is consistent with a modern war in an urban area and not a genocide, you have to say things like "oh but Israel has to have the appearance of showing restraint, so the numbers are consistent with showing restraint, but it's actually genocide. My friends and I have cracked the code..."Your terrible attempt at an argument defending Israel's slaughter of civilians (if they really wanted they would starve them all ).
Yes a proper investigation of the proportionality of the strike will take into account the military justification. What are you doing in this thread about war crimes if you know nothing?Your belief that nobody can investigate a war crime until the offending party offers their justification, or investigates themselves.
Legally, under the conventions that define occupation, it probably isn't going to be classified as an occupation. Let's have that argument if you want to lose again.Your attempt to say Gaza was no longer occupied post-2005 withdrawal.
Would you have believed the IDF use attack dogs with cameras on them to attack Palestinian civilians, if you hadn't seen the video yourself?
Or are you one of the 'Hamas did it' people?
How did Al Jazeera get the footage?
If that was an IDF dog that arm would not be attached if it were set on her.
Do IDF sharpen the dogs teeth or something?
You embarrassed yourself by linking an article that the experts interviewed in the article have come out and said misrepresented their views. It didn't even support your conclusion.
Your inability to read isn't my problem.
"It fails on so many levels on international law even if Hamas wasn't designated as a terrorist organisation and instead a state actor. It wouldn't pass the Caroline test, there was no immediate necessity that would pass this test for Hamas to launch the attack"
I never said that the Caroline test applies to non-state actors. Hamas are almost certainly a non-state actor imo, although it is possible to argue they can be considered a state actor under international law.
Read page 76 2nd and 3rd paragraph.
Your terrible argument that Israel is committing genocide. But then when confronted with the fact that the numbers of casaulties in the war is consistent with a modern war in an urban area and not a genocide, you have to say things like "oh but Israel has to have the appearance of showing restraint, so the numbers are consistent with showing restraint, but it's actually genocide. My friends and I have cracked the code..."
Yes a proper investigation of the proportionality of the strike will take into account the military justification. What are you doing in this thread about war crimes if you know nothing?
Anything else you want to bring up that you are wrong about?
Yeah but you didn't know why Palestinians are scared of dogs.
You're Israeli I take it?
You can pretend to laugh because you don't have a proper argument, but Israel's right to defense under article 51 against Hamas is extremely strong particularly with credible threats from the group to carry out more and more similar attacks. Actually, I would say it's going to be close to impossible to argue against it. You can try if you like. So the Israel Hamas is justified by October 7th and the continued threat posed by Hamas. This isn't context, it's justification.
Their quotes don't support your argument at all, unless you misread them. Their in-context quotes that they go on to clarify obliterate your argument completely. But I guess you want to ignore those ones. Woops.Their quotes are correct. The facts they spoke are still facts, regardless of the context they're used in.
There hasn't been a legal ruling on the status of Gaza since the withdrawal. I will go with legal experts such as the professor that I linked rather than you misrepresenting the ICC and ICJ.The ICC/ICJ, UNGA and UNSC consider Gaza to have remained occupied - I think I'll take their guidance thanks.
If Israel refused to cooperate with the authority investigating the potential war crime, they won't be in the clear. But Human Rights Organisations like Amnesty International can't determine whether a war crime actually occurred, they can only highlight and raise awareness for potential war crimes through their investigations. To know if a war crime actually happened in the case you linked, you need to know if Israel can militarily justify the strike. Amnesty International can't make that determination. They can say stuff like "we couldn't find a legitimate military target" but that does not mean there wasn't one.And if Israel just never offer a justification, they're in the clear! It's genius!
It must be embarrassing not being able to read "at least prior to September 11 2001". That's a huge whoopsie. Anything else you want to be wrong about?Oh gosh you're embarrassing.
Their quotes don't support your argument at all, unless you misread them. Their in-context quotes that they go on to clarify obliterate your argument completely. But I guess you want to ignore those ones. Woops.
There hasn't been a legal ruling on the status of Gaza since the withdrawal. I will go with legal experts such as the professor that I linked rather than you misrepresenting the ICC and ICJ.
If Israel refused to cooperate with the authority investigating the potential war crime, they won't be in the clear. But Human Rights Organisations like Amnesty International can't determine whether a war crime actually occurred, they can only highlight and raise awareness for potential war crimes through their investigations. To know if a war crime actually happened in the case you linked, you need to know if Israel can militarily justify the strike. Amnesty International can't make that determination. They can say stuff like "we couldn't find a legitimate military target" but that does not mean there wasn't one.
Like I said, it could be a war crime, or it might not. It depends on the information Israeli commanders had at the time and their justification for launching the strike. Surely you know this?
It must be embarrassing not being able to read "at least prior to September 11 2001". That's a huge whoopsie. Anything else you want to be wrong about?
View attachment 2037726
Nobody wants to hear your flat earth rape denialism. The 40 beheaded babies was never an official Israeli claim, it came from a single reporter who was reporting live in the chaotic aftermath. How on earth are you using that to support the idea Israel fabricated rapes? There are rules against misinformation on this site.
I merely posted an article which shows that investigators have been unable to find any evidence of sexual assault. No evidence has been presented. No survivors interviewed. No Israeli woman has testified to being sexually assaulted on Oct 7th. Israel refused to participate in an independent UN investigation. That investigation found no evidence to support the allegations. Witness testimony has proven to not match the scene. These are undisputed facts.
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, you're genuinely confused at this point.It is incumbent on the attacker to prove the legitimacy of their military conduct. How can you not wrap your head around this. You can't airstrike a refugee camp, kill 10 children, a barber, a falafel salesman, a dental assistant and a football coach and get a pass because you provide no explanation.
Your defence of this is demented.
No it doesn't. And you screencapped a section of the article you misread because you thought it supported your argument when it didn't. Pretty obvious what happened.Yes and after September 2001 there were two UN resolutions reaffirming the US right to self-defence due to an act of international terrorism. As you keep pointing out, this is not an international conflict, so those resolutions do not apply. I didn't actually mean to attach that, not sure how it got there, but it does show that Article 51 doesn't apply.
Nowhere did I say anything of the sort, you're genuinely confused at this point.
It's not true. If the denial hadn't been so thick as an immediate response to allegations of sexual violence on October 7, we wouldn't have seen so much pushback #BelieveIsraeliWomen
It wouldn't have killed people to quietly accept that it probably did occur, like it always does through war and allow the men and women impacted by it some dignity.
There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she presented findings from her visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank.
Reasonable Grounds to Believe Conflict-Related Sexual Violence Occurred in Israel During 7 October Attacks, Senior UN Official Tells Security Council | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
There are reasonable grounds to believe that conflict-related sexual violence — including rape and gang-rape — occurred across multiple locations of Israel and the Gaza periphery during the attacks on 7 October 2023, a senior United Nations official reported to the Security Council today, as she...press.un.org
I will tell you again: if Israel does not offer a justification for its strike to the proper investigatory authority like the ICC, the ICC can still potentially prosecute the case relying on available evidence... but Israel not being a signatory makes it more difficult as they arent legally obligated to comply in my understanding. America probably got away with more due to this too.That's the only logical conclusion that can be made from your claims. 8 months down the track Israel have said nothing about the attack - therefore there is no war crime.
I will tell you again: if Israel does not offer a justification for its strike to the proper investigatory authority like the ICC, the ICC can still potentially prosecute the case relying on available evidence... but Israel not being a signatory makes it more difficult as they arent legally obligated to comply in my understanding. America probably got away with more due to this too.
A humanitarian body like Amnesty International can't determine a war crime occurred. Israel is under no obligation to provide evidence or justification to a humanitarian investigation and such bodies can't formally find a nation guilty. There are good security reasons a state in a war wouldn't give evidence to such bodies if the strike was justifiable under law. We don't know if Israel could/did justify those strikes under IHL.
The report and article you link to states there are 'reasonable grounds to believe'...this is a standard of proof below 'clear and convincing', which itself is below 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. This would not secure a conviction in any court of law. While you may wish to think it's more likely than not to have happened, I believe that's a prejudiced view and would stick to innocent until proven guilty.
Ummm... again no. No Israel cannot legally slaughter civilians at will, that's a violation of IHL.So under your little construct Israel are free to slaughter civilans at will with no recourse available to anyone. How ****ing convenient.
It was systemic. What steps did Hamas take to prevent it? What actions are they taking to punish perpetrators? What systems are they putting in place to prevent further occurances? None, they are just denying and running cover while there is evidence of more sexual assaults occurring to the hostages they hold.I'm more than happy to wait for the International Courts to decide on prosecutions and am not convinced to now, the mass rapes and sexual assaults of Israeli men and women on October 7 was systemic over opportunistic.