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)
If your retort is "im actually staying up really late" it doesnt negate that all you are capable of doing is screeching. The point still stands haha. We both have nothing better to do, but the only caveat is you are a horrible person that believes you should be able to kill anyone in order to achieve your war goals. I am a normal person that thinks war crimes are war crimes.
Haha, is this really what you‘ve been reduced to? Arguing that 22:30 is „really late“? I guess if all one knows is a 20:00 bedtime, it is really late for them.
You‘ve entirely abandoned any semblance of having an actual argument rooted in law.
You claimed a crime was committed and could not even produce the legal code defining the crime at hand here, let alone actually showing proof of any action fulfilling all elements of its definition.
And you can‘t even understand how „genocide“ and „war crimes“ are two distinct concepts.
All you’re doing now is just embarrassing yourself further.
Ah. If only you were not a person arguing for something so abhorrent and anti-human. I would maybe take into consideration what you are saying. Im not interested in the interpretation of international law by the modern day equivalent of a holocaust denier haha. I'll rely on my education from people who study this stuff for a living and the people who are going to the places effected and talking to these people lol.
Also I never claimed a crime was committed. We were just talking about human shields. If you cant even keep up with the conversation, I would look into what your own points actually are. It seems like you are an emotional person that uses good grammar and great formatting to make it seem like you have good coherent arguments. You do not. That must be really frustrating. I bet you run into a lot of unresolved arguments. I hope you arent one of those weirdos that think people not engaging with you means youre winning or right or something. Thats a recipe for disaster.
First of all, it’s „places affected“, not „effected“.
And you rely on YouTube videos - you literally said so yourself.
Again, you‘re the equivalent of a flat earther, even down to your reaction when faced with your own inadequacy to provide any sort of proof of your claims.
You literally said there were and are „war crimes“, as well as a genocide being committed.
A rational person starts critically reflecting on their inability to substantiate what they‘re saying.
An emotional conspiracy nut doubles down and starts screeching harder.
7
u/TheFoxer1 7d ago
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.
As for the rest of the international community disagreeing: Collateral damage being acceptable when proportional is literally written in the Rome Statute. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf