Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas Conflict

[jason_recliner]

Meanwhile an endless stream of weapons pour into Gaza from Iran via the tunnels. But let’s disadvantage Israel and make its annihilation easier.

Those children wouldn’t have lost their lives if
October 7 hadn’t occurred.
The hostages had been returned.
Hamas didn’t launch their attacks from among civilians and from refugee camps..
Hamas cared even a tiny amount for the Palestinian population.

It was the tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive Israel chose to drop on an imprisoned innocent civilian population that killed those children. None of the things you listed.

You get more worked up by the death of six innocent Israelis than literally a thousand times more innocent Palestinian children dying.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

It was the tens of thousands of tonnes of high explosive Israel chose to drop on an imprisoned innocent civilian population that killed those children. None of the things you listed.

You get more worked up by the death of six innocent Israelis than literally a thousand times more innocent Palestinian children dying.

Yep, they said, where are all those children, let's bomb them. Right.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Unfathomable cruelty of Hamas ghouls and a nation left with a broken heart

Unfathomable cruelty of Hamas ghouls and a nation left with a broken heart

todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au

Netanyahu is copping the blame for not negotiating a ceasefire. Do Hamas want a ceasefire? Only on condition that they are allowed to receive more arms via Egypt. Is that ok?

 

[jason_recliner]

Yep, they said, where are all those children, let's bomb them. Right.

No, I'm suggesting Nuttin' Yahoo and his cronies knew the children were there and chose to bomb them anyway. Do you think they were unaware there were thousands of children there?

 

[jason_recliner]

Unfathomable cruelty of Hamas ghouls and a nation left with a broken heart

Unfathomable cruelty of Hamas ghouls and a nation left with a broken heart

todayspaper.theaustralian.com.au

Netanyahu is copping the blame for not negotiating a ceasefire. Do Hamas want a ceasefire? Only on condition that they are allowed to receive more arms via Egypt. Is that ok?

You can rely on the Australian for news about Israel!

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

No, I'm suggesting Nuttin' Yahoo and his cronies knew the children were there and chose to bomb them anyway. Do you think they were unaware there were thousands of children there?

He would not personally make that decision. The IDF have very sophisticated technology so they would weigh up the dangers of terrorists and caches of arms being deliberately concealed among the population. Even the people themselves may well have been unaware of the danger they were in. When the hostages held by the UNRWA doctor were freed, the people caught in the crossfire were furious that Hamas was holding them there.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

You can rely on the Australian for news about Israel!

You rely on Twitter

 

[jason_recliner]

He would not personally make that decision.

Of course he does. The Israeli war cabinet could choose to stop the bombing and murders right now.

 

[jason_recliner]

You rely on Twitter

Don't know why you'd think that. The only time I've ever been on Twitter is when clicking a few links on BF. Can't stand it.

 

[jason_recliner]

US Department of Justice announces criminal charges against Hamas militants​

The US Department of Justice has announced criminal charges against Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and other senior militants over the October 7 terrorist attack in Israel. It's the first formal action taken by American law enforcement against the terrorist group over the attack. But the charges also relate to "a decades-long campaign to murder American citizens and endanger the security of the United States," US Attorney-General Merrick Garland said.

The charges filed in the federal court in New York City include conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organisation, conspiracy to murder US nationals and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction resulting in death.
The charging documents also accuses Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah of providing financial support and weapons, including rockets, that were used in the attack.

The impact of the case may be mostly symbolic given Sinwar is believed to be hiding out in tunnels and at least two of the other defendants are thought to have been killed. But US officials say at least one person, who they did not name, is expected to be brought to New York for prosecution.
"The charges unsealed today are just one part of our effort to target every aspect of Hamas' operations," Mr Garland said in a video statement. "These actions will not be our last. The Justice Department has a long memory."

Haniyeh is also named as a defendant, along with:

• Marwan Issa, the deputy leader of Hamas' armed wing in Gaza who helped plan last year's attack and who Israel says was killed when fighter jets struck an underground compound in central Gaza in March.
• Khaled Mashaal, another Haniyeh deputy and a former leader of the group.
• Mohammed Deif, Hamas' long-time shadowy military leader, who is thought to be dead following an Israeli air strike in southern Gaza in July.
• Ali Baraka, Hamas' head of external relations.

US prosecutors brought charges against the six men in February, but kept them confidential in the hopes of capturing Haniyeh, according to a Justice Department official. The department decided to go public with the charges after Haniyeh's death.

The charges accuse the men of orchestrating the attack, which killed 1,200 people, including more than 40 Americans. Mr Garland said his department was also investigating the death of Israeli-American Hersh Goldberg-Polin, who was among six hostages found dead in a Gazan tunnel at the weekend.

The Australian and US governments both class Hamas as a terrorist organisation.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-04/us-justice-department-charges-yahya-sinwar-hamas/104307582

 

[faible]

The IDF have very sophisticated technology

So you're telling us all the war crimes, crimes against humanity, and violations of both IHL and IHRL are deliberate?

Yet you're still supporting the regime?

 

[Kurve]

What's Eylon Levy doing at a Bondi service for the six executed hostages? None of them were Australians, were they? Not that that makes it any less awful.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

He'd be Jewish, wouldn't he? There will be a lot of memorial services, large and small. taking place all over the country.

 

[Jazny]

Can you explain why you have refused to acknowledge everything HRW have said about the apartheid?

I haven't.

But you're a big fan of HRW, why don't you join me in denouncing posters in this thread that downplay October 7th by claiming it would have been a legal operation if it weren't for the IDF approving the location of the Nova music festival and claiming the sexual assault of Israeli civilians was fabricated by the Israel? It's contrary to what HRW found. I expect you to be on my side next time, fellow Human Rights Watch friend

 

[Jazny]

You rely on Twitter

To be fair he is one of the only people who doesn't seem to and has criticised at least one post as potential propaganda before. He seems to link fairly reputable sources mostly.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Those children wouldn’t have lost their lives if
October 7 hadn’t occurred.
The hostages had been returned.
Hamas didn’t launch their attacks from among civilians and from refugee camps..
Hamas cared even a tiny amount for the Palestinian population.

‘look what they made me do’

Where have we heard that before?

 

[Jazny]

‘look what they made me do’

Where have we heard that before?

Every time posters try and argue in various ways that October 7th didn't occur in a vacuum.

 

[faible]

Every time posters try and argue in various ways that October 7th didn't occur in a vacuum.

Of course that's how you'd try to spin that.

 

[Jazny]

Of course that's how you'd try to spin that.

What's the purpose of saying "X didn't occur in a vacuum"? You might argue that nothing happens in a vacuum, which is true, but then you're not saying anything at all. Or you could say there is context to October 7th, but there's also context to everything that's ever happened. So again you're not saying anything. Then ask yourself how the following statements feel if someone else said it:

"The My Lai massacre didn't happen in a vacuum"
"Domestic violence doesn't happen in a vacuum"
"The policies that lead to the stolen generation didn't happen in a vacuum"

All these statements sound really insane, because they are seemingly implying there is some preceding event that in some way excuses, justifies, or in some way makes these unquestionably terrible things more understandable if only you knew the full story.

I admit I can't read your mind when you or others say it, you might mean something totally neutral. Or maybe you just like saying extremely obvious and meaningless things for no reason. But you have to admit that it's not unreasonable for someone to hear that and think you're to some extent excusing, justifying, or defending October 7th.

 

[faible]

What's the purpose of saying "X didn't occur in a vacuum"? You might argue that nothing happens in a vacuum, which is true, but then you're not saying anything at all. Or you could say there is context to October 7th, but there's also context to everything that's ever happened. So again you're not saying anything. Then ask yourself how the following statements feel if someone else said it:

"The My Lai massacre didn't happen in a vacuum"
"Domestic violence doesn't happen in a vacuum"
"The policies that lead to the stolen generation didn't happen in a vacuum"

All these statements sound really insane, because they are seemingly implying there is some preceding event that in some way excuses, justifies, or in some way makes these unquestionably terrible things more understandable if only you knew the full story.

I admit I can't read your mind when you or others say it, you might mean something totally neutral. Or maybe you just like saying extremely obvious and meaningless things for no reason. But you have to admit that it's not unreasonable for someone to hear that and think you're to some extent excusing, justifying, or defending October 7th.

It's thing Zidane does where he can't understand the different between context and justification.

Because that's largely what 'x didn't occur in a vacuum' means, context. Zidane can't comprehend that context isn't justification so makes endless arguments about how discussing something in context is therefore justification.

This conflict didn't commence on October 7th, a number of posters - and media outlets - like to pretend that nothing prior to October 7th is relevant, or claim that everything was peaceful and hunky dory, so having to repeat the same thing 'October 7th didn't occur in a vacuum' is necessary because those posters fail to acknowledge the history that has lead up to the point we're now at.

Strangely, it would seem those people complaining the most about this also tend to be the people who've spent the most time minimising, justifying or excusing the atrocities committed by the IDF against the Palestinian people.

 

[Jazny]

It's thing Zidane does where he can't understand the different between context and justification.

Because that's largely what 'x didn't occur in a vacuum' means, context. Zidane can't comprehend that context isn't justification so makes endless arguments about how discussing something in context is therefore justification.

I already explained how the "context" argument doesn't work. There is context for everything that has ever happened in the world, so it's either a meaningless statement or you are implying that the context in someway justifies, excuses or makes the event understandable.

I actually think you're pretty reasonable so what I think will happen is you will keep fighting my on this issue, but over time you will probably stop saying "October 7th didn't happen in a vacuum" because you probably acknowledge it comes across as unhinged just as much if you applied it to any other atrocity in history even if you don't mean it that way.

This conflict didn't commence on October 7th

This is your best defense, and I can accept you might actually be making this point when you say it. The problem is the war started on October 7th and because of October 7th. Most people in this thread don't know much about international law or international relations, so they think conflict always means the same as what we think of as war. It doesn't.

There is an ongoing conflict between North and South Korea right now. This doesn't mean that North Korea has jus ad bellum, or the right to launch a mass armed attack against South Korea due to the ongoing conflict (or vice versa). If they did, it wouldn't be just a normal continuation of the hostilities, it would trigger a war, and the new Korean War would be called something like The 2024 Korean War to distinguish it from the Korean war of the 50s. It would be incorrect to see the war as just a continuation of the conflict that started decades ago.

, a number of posters - and media outlets - like to pretend that nothing prior to October 7th is relevant

It's not relevant to the atrocity of October 7th.

 

[faible]

I already explained how the "context" argument doesn't work. There is context for everything that has ever happened in the world, so it's either a meaningless statement or you are implying that the context in someway justifies, excuses or makes the event understandable.

I actually think you're pretty reasonable so what I think will happen is you will keep fighting my on this issue, but over time you will probably stop saying "October 7th didn't happen in a vacuum" because you probably acknowledge it comes across as unhinged just as much if you applied it to any other atrocity in history even if you don't mean it that way.

This is your best defense, and I can accept you might actually be making this point when you say it. The problem is the war started on October 7th and because of October 7th. Most people in this thread don't know much about international law or international relations, so they think conflict always means the same as what we think of as war. It doesn't.

There is an ongoing conflict between North and South Korea right now. This doesn't mean that North Korea has jus ad bellum, or the right to launch a mass armed attack against South Korea due to the ongoing conflict (or vice versa). If they did, it wouldn't be just a normal continuation of the hostilities, it would trigger a war, and the new Korean War would be called something like The 2024 Korean War to distinguish it from the Korean war of the 50s. It would be incorrect to see the war as just a continuation of the conflict that started decades ago.

It's not relevant to the atrocity of October 7th.

And we're right back here:

a number of posters - and media outlets - like to pretend that nothing prior to October 7th is relevant, or claim that everything was peaceful and hunky dory, so having to repeat the same thing 'October 7th didn't occur in a vacuum' is necessary because those posters fail to acknowledge the history that has lead up to the point we're now at.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Every time posters try and argue in various ways that October 7th didn't occur in a vacuum.

So you think Israel can use Oct 7 as justification for killing 40,000+ Palestinians, because vacuum?

 

[Demons09]

You can rely on the Australian for news about Israel!

You can rely on Hamas about news on Gaza.

 

[jason_recliner]

You can rely on Hamas about news on Gaza.

The Australian and Hamas? Not a comparison I would have made, but it's a free country!