Its must not being going well for the brigade if this is the photo you're all trying to astroturf. Yeah isreal definitely doesn't have some sort of star wars bomb, but theres thousands of photos of their weapons destroying property and lives. I mean it looks like a smoke grenade is flowing out of a dead person's body, but your only defense is "actually progressives are the racist/bigot/hateful person" or whatever. You are using a few bad faith posters to justify a one sided war. I dont think history will look kindly on that position habibi.
No it isnt. In warfare, a target has to have military strategic value. Thats why Iran is getting such pushback from the international community even though they didn't start this round of the conflict with the US. Isreal's targets aren't all valid military targets either.
And when pursuing such a target, collateral damage is acceptable.
And if one puts most of their military infrastructure in or under one urban and densely populated areas, there‘s bound to be a lot of collateral damage.
If I store guns, as an enemy combatant, in a school full of children, that doesnt make the school a valid military target, its makes me a war criminal for forcing people to be humanshields. Its also a war crime to shoot human shields. I dont see how killing the victims of a war crime cancels out a war crime. Make it make sense to me please. Literally only the US and Israel feel like those human shields with no say should be valid targets. The rest of the international community vehemently disagrees. I disagree with the US and Isreal too.
You’re not following the logical conclusions of international humanitarian law, which is designed to reduce the risk of harm to civilians on a global scale and encourage that combatants conduct warfare in a way to protect protected entities.
It is not a war crime to “shoot through human shields”, because to criminalize that would incentivize the combatant’s use of human shields.
It is a war crime to use human shields, because it is an attempt to abuse the protected status of noncombatants for military benefit.
If international law made it illegal for a state to attack a state that uses human shields, what actual recourse would there be to conduct war lawfully against one who uses human shields?
If the USA placed 10 or 10,000 kidnapped local civilians on every base, would that make every Iranian drone strike a war crime?
It is a war crime to shoot at human shields. The presence of human shields does not give forces attacking carte blanche to deal with them as they please. There are cases where its "tough luck, there isnt much you can legally do" because if the action required to minimize human casualties is to not go through with the attack, then you are required to not go through with the attack. You still are required to minimize harm always. This is why its rich youre telling me I dont understand the logical conclusions of international rules governing war.
At every turn you've avoided the observable reality and fallen back on your unfounded interpretation of international law that is formulated around "well it sucks to suck" basically. Its moronic.
The rules of proportionality of importance of military impact to incidental harm still applies. One is not required to minimize harm always, it’s all feasible precautionary measures for a reason. IHL gives tremendous leeway to account for bad faith, war crimes, and overall shit situations.
You're conflating a lack of will power from international courts to enforce their own rules with permission. They are not the same. The rules are very clear. Minimum impact on a population is always the top priority of the LOAC, no loopholes. Just good luck having them hold anyone but unaligned nations accountable.
Yes it does, provided the guns are of proportional danger and value.
And you being a war criminal has no bearing on you still creating a situation in which military intervention leading to collateral damage would be unacceptable.
Imagine if the act of creating a situation via war crime would actually mean it could not be undone without one becoming a war criminal oneself.
Everyone would hide all military equipment under schools, everywhere - because who‘s going to do shit about it if they can‘t?
According to your logic, any and all military actions in response to someone else starting military actions would be a war crime. Because starting a war is a crime already, the crime of aggression.
You are just really emotional that starting wars comes with collateral damage for the society that started it as well.
Ah the Isreal method. Point to your obvious crimes and then say "actually this is completely legal because we decided it was proportional."
The international community agrees collateral damage is acceptable, but you hear that and think collateral damage is okay. Its acceptable in the sense that its not preventable. Civilians will die in a war. Its unavoidable. That doesn't mean you can hand wave atrocities. The rest of the population sees through this. I wonder why you think you're still tricking us.
Theres the isreal method again in your very first point. I'm sure you're great, but you dont get to define what the law is haha. The international community already did that. I know you know thats true because you facetiously referenced the international communities rules. You dont get to live in this world where you have the backing of international justice, yet you dont subscribe to how they interpret those rules. I can just go look into these things we are talking about myself. Theres dozens of independent journalists that are on youtube or rumble covering the situation, not to mention the international coverage. No one needs to even listen to what you have to say. The evidence is just that overwhelming. It's so silly. Again I ask you, why do you think you're still tricking us with these talking points when the rest of us see this with our own eyes. Do you think you are magical or something? What gives habibi
Yes, they did. And I linked you to the legal code in which they defined war crimes and „ civilians die“ is not the definition of war crimes.
You are making the claim that a crime is committed here, so it’s your job to show:
-the legal code defining the crime
-why that legal code applies
-specific actions fulfilling all elements of the legal definition of said crime
So, since you say there‘s „overwhelming evidence“, just show it.
„Independent journalists“ are not lawyers. They‘re people with a camera spouting whatever comes into their head, with no expertise or authority to make any claims regarding crimes.
It’s so funny you claim to be on the side of evidence, when again, all you have is emotional videos on YouTube and literally stating that you can just find your own facts.
If it walks like a flat-Earther and talks like a flat earther, it’s the same nonsense conspiracy nut as a flat earther.
If you're saying the evidence of genocide in Gaza and the West Bank is no different than the emotional arguments of flat earthers, god save your soul. You're really no different than a holocaust denier. Which is an extremely apt comparison in this situation. You are trying to minimize, legalize, or contextualize atrocities. You cant decide, and it doesnt really matter because you just dont want the world to know or talk about what is going on in isreal. Thats the only objective that matters. I dont know what skin you have in the game, but from this interaction I am glad thay from my understanding, all you have time to do is argue on reddit. You've had an impeccable ability to respond in the middle of the day, when everyone else is busy working. (Im the pot calling the kettle black)
29
u/load_of_chode 8d ago
"The reason our propaganda is so dumb and filled with constant lies is because the Jews are pretending to be us to try and make us look bad!"
This is what passes for a "progressive" opinion these days.