Thread: Cluster bombs

Originally Posted by surasak

Hasn't stopped them in the past, Hell, they even killed Jesus.

Nah...it were them Romans that did Jesus in.
Watched Mel Gibson's movie and it showed it right there...

But who asked the Romans to do it??

I mean when some is assasinated they try to get all the person behind the assasination plot not only the killer cos every one who planned it is responsible.

Originally Posted by surasak

That's what happens when you think you're the 'chosen ones.'

Means you get to do and act however you please without regard to those living around you.

Well there's a bit of a paradox then. American Jews have been on the forefront for civil rights in America. Jewish individuals by and large vote for Democrats in elections and they are strong proponents of human rights world wide. A person could argue they are only pursuing their own interests, fine people can look at it that way if they want, but the bottom line is people of differnet races, beliefs and lifestyles have benefited from the efforts of Jews dedicated to the ideas of human rights and civil rights. Given what I have seen of American Jews what makes Israeli Jews so different? Maybe it's the hostile enviornment they live in which intensifies a sense of tribalism. Given the attempts to exterminate Jews over their history (the story of Ester, the pursuit of the Jews from Egypt, the Nazi holocaust and the Soviet pogroms are a few I can think of ) and given present conditions I can understand why Israeli Jews insist on a Jewish and "loyal" Arab majority to control their democratic system of government. It's a matter of survival. Violence seems to be a natural part of ME politics. It makes it very hard for a normal democracy to exist.

Excellent logic attaboy.

Do you think, however, that those advances would be possible were it not for a complete and open system, one that, ironically, they won't support in their own home country?

Isn't it strange to use a free society to support an oppressive one? If they really are all about freedom and human rights then why exclude people on the basis of religion, something that would be illegal to do here?

We were a democracy before we gave the right to women to vote, but, it was hardly a democracy that represented all the people.

They don't exclude people because of their own religion or because of another's religion. People who are dedicated to killing them are kept at a distance. That sounds sane to me. Why shouldn't people who want to annihilate them be paid special attention and given special consideration?


It's not the fault of those who can't tolerate the existence of unorthodoxy in the world, it's the fault of the deviation or variance for existing that way. Israelis should stop being intolerable to the intolerant and everything will be better. They should go first. People should not offend others who have violent tempers. Palestinains are victims for wanting to kill Jews. People shouldn't be allowed to make fun of Mohammand. Islam should be the only religion given UNESCO status and it should be given its own niche at Epcot Center to perserve it.




It's the religious nutters on all sides who are the source of the problem. The consequences of their intolerance of others sucks everyone else around them into the violent enviornment they create.

Because to run for office in Israel one must support the notion of a Jewish state. That is undemocratic. It would be like a qualification to be President one must support Christianity above all other religions. How can one be Jewish and Arab or Jewish and Muslim at the same time?

Just admit it's not a real democratic state but a democracy limited to Jews. A non-Jew cannot be Prime Minister. In the U.S. an athiest, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, or Christian can be President.

I just find it offensive that my tax dollars are spent supporting this kind of nation when the spending of the same tax dollars here in the US would be unconstitutional.

The notion about intolerance is spot on, however.

Excellent logic Surasak.

I deplore the use of cluster bombs and cannot excuse the Israelis for using them. It doesn't make sense to me that they would do something that would so obviously be seen by the rest of the world as illegal. It is very puzzling. The one reason that I can think of is that it was done to slow up the repatriation of the Lebanese who travelled north to get away from the war, and give Hezbollah something else to do, rather than fire more rockets at northern Israel.

But I did find this section quite interesting in surasak's link to the Geneva Convention:

Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective...

I think Katyusha rockets easily fall (no pun intended) into the latter two categories.

In lawyers-speak it would be important to know whether there's an 'and' or an 'or' between 4(1) and 4(2).

I think one could argue that due to widespread conscription in Israel it could be suggested that all of Israel is a military target since a large percentage of the population is in some shape or form enrolled in the military (just as Israeli buses are a legitimate target due to the bus system's ferrying of soldiers around Israel).

Originally Posted by surasak

In lawyers-speak it would be important to know whether there's an 'and' or an 'or' between 4(1) and 4(2).

I think one could argue that due to widespread conscription in Israel it could be suggested that all of Israel is a military target since a large percentage of the population is in some shape or form enrolled in the military (just as Israeli buses are a legitimate target due to the bus system's ferrying of soldiers around Israel).

There WAS an "or" between 4(2) and 4(3) - which I didn't show - so I guess they were all "or'd" together, but I'm sure a lawyer would argue that point if it was in his favour.

I don't think you can justify blowing up buses just because SOME of them are used to transport troops around! I wonder why the Israelis don't use special troop transporters? Too easy a target? Or not enough transporters?

I also don't think you can say all of Israel - even northern Israel when all the troops were there - is a military target. How many mums and babies in the "target" population must there be, before it is not considered a "military" target?

It makes it a military target if it has a clear military purpose. A bus carrying soldiers in uniform unfortunately makes a legitimate target.

There are mothers and children on military bases. Does that negate the military nature of the base? Is it then a civilian target if military families live there? That's a tough call.

^That about sums it up.

Geneva Convention or not both sides are not going to act civilized. If we criticize Iran for supplying Hezbollah then we ought to act how we speak and cut off Israel as well.

Originally Posted by surasak

In lawyers-speak it would be important to know whether there's an 'and' or an 'or' between 4(1) and 4(2).

I think one could argue that due to widespread conscription in Israel it could be suggested that all of Israel is a military target since a large percentage of the population is in some shape or form enrolled in the military (just as Israeli buses are a legitimate target due to the bus system's ferrying of soldiers around Israel).

Yep, that works for me.

They Thai Army should start targeting all Muslims that ride motorbikes, because some militants also use them.

If Israel had gone in there with mine layers and mined all the civilian settlments would anybody have done anything?

1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective...

So Hezbolah did this at the time of war as did Israel. Which was wrong by both sides. Israel then went one step further though sticking their big Jewish/American finger up at the world by leaving behind enough small bombs to hurt 10,000's of people. after the war had finished.

No matter what they do now. They cannont improve their public image around the world with anybody because of this. Hezbolah the sworn enemy has now got great media ammuntion to use against Israel for the coming years.

Nothing is going to happen. We are all going to stamp our feet and feel frustrated. Boon Mee and friends will be upset with the terrorists. Mhz and co will be upset with the Israelis/Americans/Everybody. NO one will get punished. NO one will say they were wrong. NO one will listen to the rest of the world.

How long will the cease fire hold?

I think less than a year.

Originally Posted by benbaaa

Maybe the Americans will help to clean up, after all they're American bombs. Oh, sorry I forgot, the American are still busy fucking around in Cambodia.

quite.

Originally Posted by mrsquirrel

it is illegal to use them in civilian areas.

military targets are ok.

problem is most wars in this current area (ie post Vietnam) - the line btn

civilian targets and military targets is more than somewhat blurred.

Originally Posted by surasak

Yeah, boy, drag Israel's leaders to court and hang each and every one of them responsible:

yeah - and thats gonna happen when exactly ?

Originally Posted by surasak

The numbers of war crimes committed are countless.

possibly a little bit of hyperbole there.

certainly an enormous overreaction.

BTW what constitutes a legal war ?

That's the point, it never will happen. There isn't the will to enforce the Geneva Conventions especially if it's an 'ally' of the U.S.

A legal war would be a just war. When the U.S. fought Japan that was a just war. Vietnam was not (the majority would have supported Ho Chi Minh if the United States really allowed democracy to occur). Korea was not (for Korea, yes it was). Grenada was not (not a threat to the U.S.). Iraq is not (wasn't a threat to anyone in 2003).

Originally Posted by surasak

That's the point, it never will happen. There isn't the will to enforce the Geneva Conventions especially if it's an 'ally' of the U.S.

Ally or state ?

Originally Posted by surasak

A legal war would be a just war. When the U.S. fought Japan that was a just war. Vietnam was not (the majority would have supported Ho Chi Minh if the United States really allowed democracy to occur). Korea was not (for Korea, yes it was). Grenada was not (not a threat to the U.S.). Iraq is not (wasn't a threat to anyone in 2003).

[/quote]

sorta depends a little on the perspective dont it?

but i acutally was asking about the legal definition .. is there one? somewhere in the Geneva conventions or so on?

Within the framework of the UN an illegal war would be one that was started or conducted without the authorization of the Security Council.

Obviously under international law Israel's actions are illegal, and, therefore tantamount to war crimes against Lebanese civilians due to Israel's inability to protect them from shelling, bombing, etc.

Hezbollah is another story because Hezbollah isn't a nation-state like Israel.

Originally Posted by surasak

...Hezbollah is another story because Hezbollah isn't a nation-state like Israel.

Yes, they're just a bunch of well-armed terrorists with guns and rockets who have managed to capture the hearts and minds of the uneducated masses by very clever media manipulation.

Well, the problem is that a nation-state who is a signatory of the Geneva Convention cannot simply discard it when they attack terrorists in another state....the civilians and non-combatants don't lose their rights simply because non-signatories are being attacked.

Originally Posted by Mrs.Q

Mhz and co will be upset with the Israelis/Americans/Everybody

I aint upset with no one.My house is safe,my parents,my siblings and other family members are all okay.I dont have a reason to be up set.I might sound selfish but thats the way it is.

I do get up set with all those Children found in pieces just because of two Israeli soldiers captured.I dont care who is right or wrong but killing innocent children and women is very very wrong no matter what. I dont give a rats ass about Lebonan or Israel.