Israel has invaded Gaza...

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

You just described a tactical operation against a target of opportunity. It's happened at least three times, indicating that this tactic is part of Israel's overarching strategy.

Say what you want, but I think it's clear that Israel does not perceive what I've termed collateral damage as being indiscriminate. Apparently you are unaware that Israel doesn't care what others perceive as Israel's best interest.

Raining down a 155mm howitzer barrage in the neighborhood through which a motorcycle cruises or from which a sniper fires a shot could, by the definition provided below, be considered a war crime (this is not to say that Hamas isn't also guilty of war crimes).

"....wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or any object not warranted by military necessity."

It's clear to me that Israel cares little for what anybody thinks of their tactics, including us. That said, they are using US weapons bought with US money ($3.1 billlion annually) to do this stuff and depend upon us to keep the UN and International Courts off their back.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Raining down a 155mm howitzer barrage in the neighborhood through which a motorcycle cruises or from which a sniper fires a shot could, by the definition provided below, be considered a war crime (this is not to say that Hamas isn't also guilty of war crimes).

"....wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or any object not warranted by military necessity."

It's clear to me that Israel cares little for what anybody thinks of their tactics, including us. That said, they are using US weapons bought with US money ($3.1 billlion annually) to do this stuff and depend upon us to keep the UN and International Courts off their back.

Your partial war crimes definition can be applied to either side of any armed conflict. Is it a part of a UN or International Court definition?

Combining your double negative (see bold) - Hamas is guilty of war crimes. Who is keeping UN and International Courts off their back?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by nailer

Your partial war crimes definition can be applied to either side of any armed conflict ever. Is it a part of a UN or International Court definition?

Combining your double negative (see bold) - Hamas is guilty of war crimes. Who is keeping UN and International Courts off their back?

These war crimes definitions didn't really come into play until after WWII and were codified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

AFAIK, both Hamas and Israel are being investigated for war crimes in this current conflict (as was true in 2009). It's far from a perfect system and nothing is likely to come of it, but there's little doubt that one side is as guilty as the other of war crimes in this fiasco.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08...-crimes-probe/

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by nailer

Not if the enemy is cancerous. Israel's goal is removal, not remission.

Thank-you. Most 'friends of Israel' are too cagey to admit the goal is genocide.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Thank-you. Most 'friends of Israel' are too cagey to admit the goal is genocide.

Keep tilting at those windmills. Understanding the historical context in which Israel exists makes one neither friend nor enemy. What is, is, and events are going to continue down the path of history regardless of the handwringing of those not even remotely involved.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Thank-you. Most 'friends of Israel' are too cagey to admit the goal is genocide.

I don't know about anybody else hereabouts...and regarding what I'm about to say, don't much care either...but with this one, any credibility you might have once had with me is flushed down the shitter.

[bobabode]

That was harsh on DQs part. Maybe it was in a fit of pique?

Needless to say there has been a lot of deliberate aiming at guardrails lately. I hope we can try to get along better in light of recent events here at PC.

Did I mention I hate the month of August? It's too damn hot and no one is thinking straight.

Ice cold cooler full of beer here and ribs are on the grill. Come on over, I'm pourin' Weller 107 for anyone who's interested.

[nailer]

Since I can't make it over, I'm pouring myself a Rahr & Sons Ugly Pug Black Lager (and having a toke to boot ) in your honor.

We Bobs need to stick together regardless of political leanings.

[donquixote99]

Oh I'm sorry. Apologies to all. The cancer/removal thing was just a metaphor. Silly me for think it meant a damn thing, let alone going all the way to genocide.

It might have just mean ethnic cleansing, after all.

And Ike, why is calling Nailer on a clearly outrageous metasphor a deadly sin? It was an outrage, wasn't it? Equating policy toward a group of human beings to surgical removal of deadly disease tissue?

[nailer]

You are a much better person than I. I'm humbled in your presence.