• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Israel is under attack

Status
Not open for further replies.
pharmakos said:
It will involve more Israeli soldiers casualties but fewer innocent civilians casualties. So yes, absolutely, a ground invasion is what's called for.
Click to expand...

I think you have it totally backwards man. Ground invasion opens up a huge can of worms and will mean more civilians die not less. As I said, Hamas isn't going to change their tactics.
 
Soso78 said:
After further investigation I’m going to stop calling it the “hospital strike”
I will now refer to it as “car park strike”
🤣
Hospital window was broke, thsts about it
Click to expand...

yet 500 people died...
according to health officials
 
mal3volent said:
can you please cite one war in all of human history without a civilian casualty?
Click to expand...

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Almost all international lawyers and every state but Israel regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law, implying all states are duty bound to observe them. Israel alone challenges this premise, arguing that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories", and that the Conventions do not apply because these lands did not form part of another state's sovereign territory, and that the transfer of Jews into areas like the West Bank is not a government act but a voluntary movement by Israeli Jewish people, not acting under compulsion, a position contested by Yoram Dinstein.

The International community has rejected Israel's unwillingness to accept the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the territories it occupies.
 
pharmakos said:

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Almost all international lawyers and every state but Israel regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law, implying all states are duty bound to observe them. Israel alone challenges this premise, arguing that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories", and that the Conventions do not apply because these lands did not form part of another state's sovereign territory, and that the transfer of Jews into areas like the West Bank is not a government act but a voluntary movement by Israeli Jewish people, not acting under compulsion, a position contested by Yoram Dinstein.

The International community has rejected Israel's unwillingness to accept the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the territories it occupies.
Click to expand...
Quoted the wrong post on this one but I think you know the post I meant to reply to
 
pharmakos said:

International law and Israeli settlements - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org

Almost all international lawyers and every state but Israel regard the Geneva Conventions as part of customary international law, implying all states are duty bound to observe them. Israel alone challenges this premise, arguing that the West Bank and Gaza are "disputed territories", and that the Conventions do not apply because these lands did not form part of another state's sovereign territory, and that the transfer of Jews into areas like the West Bank is not a government act but a voluntary movement by Israeli Jewish people, not acting under compulsion, a position contested by Yoram Dinstein.

The International community has rejected Israel's unwillingness to accept the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to the territories it occupies.
Click to expand...

my only point in bringing up the Geneva conventions was to illustrate that it says you have the responsibility to minimize civilian casualties as much as is possible given the circumstances. Not that any civilian death is automatically a violation-- as someguyontheinternet was implying.
 
Seems like this conflict has been moved to the back burner today by most major media outlets, after the whole hospital kerfuffle yesterday. So weird!
 
someguyontheinternet said:
Why because the IDF can't stop aiming their rifles at Palestinian civilians?
Click to expand...

I love how much time and effort you put into your posts. The dedication you have to understanding the other person's argument and responding to it in a rational way is really second to none. I often read posts here from people that make me think, "I wish admin could use the ignore function..." but yours always leave me satisfied and glad I had the opportunity to engage in spirited debate.
 
pharmakos said:
👍

It's quite obvious how a bombs cause more collateral damage than a ground strike. Genuinely strange to me that anyone thinks it would be the other way around.
Click to expand...
Right? If that isn't it, what exactly are the logistics where there are more civilian casualties from sending in troops. Think about the weapons being used, what situations are the killing more civilians?
 
the spin of "they can't get to hamas without some civilian casualties" would hold water if israel wasn't deliberately causing countless civilian deaths, and war crimes

blocking their water, fuel, medicine

bombing u.n. shelters, schools, hospitals (this latest hospital bombing aside)

forced relocation of ridiculous amount of ppl in a short amount of time

speaking of which, that's all i have time for but there is more
 
pharmakos said:
👍

It's quite obvious how a bombs cause more collateral damage than a ground strike. Genuinely strange to me that anyone thinks it would be the other way around.
Click to expand...

Do you happen to remember the occupation of Iraq at all? 70% of the civilian casualties occurred after the invasion and after the initial air strikes.
 
pharmakos said:
www.pbs.org

U.S. vetoes UN resolution condemning all violence against civilians in Israel-Hamas war

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that Biden is in the region engaging in diplomacy and "we need to let that diplomacy play out." She criticized the resolution for not saying anything about Israel's right to self-defense.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...

some much needed context not found in your article:

US rejection​

US Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield explained her country’s veto in the Council chamber saying “this resolution did not mention Israel’s right of self-defence.”

“Israel has the inherent sight of self-defence as reflected in Article 51 of the UN Charter,” she added, noting that the right was reaffirmed by the Council in previous resolutions on terrorist attacks, “this resolution should have done the same.”

She said that though the US could not support the resolution, it will continue to work closely with all Council members on the crisis, “just as we will continue to reiterate the need to protect civilians, including members of the media, humanitarian workers, and UN officials.”

Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield also noted the US is also engaged in on the ground diplomacy, with the visit of President Joseph Biden, and other senior officials.

“Yes, resolutions are important, and yes, this Council must speak out. But the actions we take, must be informed by the facts on the ground and support direct diplomacy that can save lives,” she said.
Click to expand...

UK abstention​

UK Ambassador Barbara Woodward said that her country abstained from the resolution as the text needed to be clearer on Israel’s inherent right to self-defence, and because it ignored the fact that extremist group Hamas, which controls Gaza, is using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

“They [Hamas] have embedded themselves in civilian communities and made the Palestinian people their victims too,” she said.

She reiterated the UK’s support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas, rescue hostages and strengthen its security in the long term, while calling on Israel “to take all feasible precautions” to avoid harming Palestinian civilians.

She added that it will continue working with all partners to alleviate the humanitarian crisis, ensure protection of civilians and “to work towards the peace and stability promised by the two-State solution.”
Click to expand...
 
Mjäll said:
For westerners to take sides in this shit is a strong mark of intellectual desperation. They are simply two sides of fervently religious desert idiots that we're lucky not to be
Click to expand...
If I had to pick sides at a high-level overview, I would absolutely never pick the Islamic one. For all the faults of Judaism and Christianity, we all stand a better chance at a better life under the umbrella of the western system because it has evolved further than the Islamic world. The Islamic world is riding on the coattails of the west, and if oil is ever superseded they will literally have nothing to offer and just recede back into being tribal desert wastelands.
mal3volent said:
I really don't think you've come up with one decent argument in this entire thread. Every question that is ever asked you dodge or change the subject.
Click to expand...
It's all he does. Not even sure why he bothers posting at all to be honest.
AlsoTapered said:
It looks most likely to be an accident or an intercept involving a large Hamas rocket.
Click to expand...
From my understanding it wouldn't be an intercept. 'Iron Dome' functions as a geofenced area, intercepting any rockets that are calculated to land within its geofence area in Israel. Practically it wouldn't be possible either as it would take time for the Israeli missile to launch and intercept the trajectory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top