Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Rethinking the rules of war


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Rethinking the rules of war Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 1:54:54 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		Right now, we are witnessing the appalling outcomes of the use of heavy weapons in urban/civilian areas in locations such as Syria Gaza and Afghanistan. Women and children, old people, civilians and non-combatants are exposed to fire from heavy artillery, drones, rockets and missiles as well as aerial and naval bombardments.

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific. Those firing the weapons may have no way of telling whether civilians are in the impact zone, how many civilians may be in the zone, whether they are children playing or combatants fighting, or whether the number of civilian casualties will meet the 'proportionality' thresholds of the Geneva Conventions that cover the laws of war. In the case of drone operators, they're not even on the same Continent as the impact zone. Pilots screaming overhead at speeds greater than the speed of sound, or flying at altitudes of 30,000 feet have no idea whether the impact zone is full of children playing or combatants. Likewise, naval commanders or commanders of artillery can be many miles from the impact zones they are attacking - they may be operating off no more information that a set of co-ordinates.

The poor civilians don't even get a choice, they are just sitting ducks. Usually they have no way whatsoever of telling what is coming, or when it will arrive. Even if they did know, there may not be any air raid shelters or protection available. Even if they did know what is coming, and have access to shelters, often there isn't enough time to get to safety.

In short using these weapons in civilian or urban areas is a guaranteed method of ensuring civilian casualties while offering no guarantee of any military advantage.

How many more civilians are going to be butchered before we act to protect them?
Isn't time that we re-thought the legality of using such weapons and tactics under the Conventions?
Isn't it time that these murderous strategies were outlawed?
Isn't it time that we brought the rules governing warfare in civilian or urban areas up to date?
Isn't it time that we placed the protection, safety and welfare of civilians and non-combatants ahead of combatants?

What do you think?


_____________________________
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 2:30:42 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline 		I think that you are unwittingly playing into the hands of the defense industry in even considering the concept that there is now or in the future any such thing as the possibility of war or war actions without essential civilian casualties.

As you point out, the high-tech that could conceivably accommodate such actions with fewer civilian deaths is instead concentrated on "remote control" warfare, which by nature eschews such considerations.

Forget the band-aids or duct tape, or whatever piecemeal fixes; unless and until we take the sociopolitical psychopaths off the road, or convince them to take the "taxi" of international guidance into serious consideration, the carnage will continue.

Redirection of economic incentives would go a long way towards getting us out of the early-mid 20th century 'energy control' mindset that besets us now.

The artificial parceling out of "kingdoms," (the house of Saud was so designated and appointed by Britain), the creation of modern Israel by same, and the Mossadegh coup accomplished by the CIA's Kermit Roosevelt at the behest of Britain, altogether was the Rubicon crossed by the UK and US.

And we still can't see that.

Unless and until we recognize the utter folly there, and ever take seriously the need, the survival of society, in fact, as would require retiring the notion of 'energy control' and 'empire,' both, then all else is ideological wanking.









< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 2:51:05 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 2:58:42 AM   
PunisherNOLA


Posts: 50
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline 		In theory, it's an admirable idea I think. But I can't see how it can be translated into reality.

Let's say for argument's sake some sort of UN resolution is adopted that makes civilian and urban areas off limits to any sort of attack. What would stop a country such as Palestine from putting their rocket launchers or any other valid military targets right in the middle of town, right next to a school? So, rocket launcher right next to a school is hitting me time and time again but because of the rules of war, I can't do anything about it. Well, I suppose I can complain loudly to the UN that my opponent isn't playing fair and hope they move the rocket launcher to a place that isn't off limits for me to attack..

Wars are not fought under the MoQ rules, and terrible things happen when they are fought. Innocent lives are lost. This isn't new, they didn't have all these computerized toys and pilotless planes in WWII, and the cities still got bombed. This isn't going to change as long as wars are fought.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:08:26 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline 		Someone needs to study on Asymmetrical Warfare. The Gaza militants are purposefully siting their weapons and assets in the midst of civilians then attacking the civilians of Israel to Provoke precisely the attacks you are horrified by. If they moved out of the populated neighborhoods, their life would last a few hours against the modern IDF weapons. Israel has little option but air or artillery attack if they don't want far more casualties from using ground forces. Which likely hurt even more civilians. Supply the IDF with more effective tactics targeting Hamas personnel and assets and they'd switch in seconds. As it is, valuable targets are hit wherever they are, and incidentally to punish the whole Gaza populace till the political pressure there brings the rocket attacks to a pause for awhile. It actually usually calms down when Hamas or whoever runs out of rockets and enough surviving command people with enough experience to operate. Nobody with a brain expects the militants to abandon attempts to eradicate the Jewish people and state. Sadly these tactics work to inflame the Islamic world that ignores the provocation, and Israel is so committed to using military force to reach it's ends they are nicely steered by the tactics. Other alternatives might be to simply carefully bulldoze everything in Gaza into the sea and push the people out of the region. Or wait for technology to produce smart self-guiding anti-personal weapons that actually target specific individuals and kill off all the Hamas armed wing. (Not that far from operational use, micro-drones that target individuals from genetic signals in the air are already in development. Lethal flying insects with noses better than bloodhounds. Unfortunately the technology will spread and anyone involved in political or military command and decision making will be living in tightly filtered and protected underground bunkers. And maybe a lot of the rest of us.
Syrian Army forces are in a fight to the death with the rebels, Jihadists are already committed to suicidal tactics to eradicate Jewry and the US isn't about to leave anything on the table when it's survival is truly threatened. The weaker forces will always use innocent civilians as shields or unwilling martyrs to the ends of propaganda and recruitment.

The Allies abandoned the Geneva Convention early during WWII, knowing they then had to win or be hung for the air war on cities in Germany and Japan. Which started by accident when some German bombers salvoed bombs on a city when lost over clouds and having to return to base. Churchill jumped on the opportunity and bombed several German cities almost within hours. Hitler was enraged and took the bait, abandoning the air attacks on RAF air bases that were within days of total success and turned to revenge raids on London. It cost thousands of civilian lives but saved Great Britain. General Lemay carried the strategy much further to supposedly win the war with attacks on the German urban labor force and factories, but actually to force a daytime air war of attrition that removed the Luftwaffe as a credible force so the Normandy landings could take place.
Japan was simple bloody mindedness. Like Germany, much of the strategic industry had been moved to more secure locations and the military command really didn't care how many civilians died. Only, the Emperor was finally horrified by Hiroshima and sued for peace. And almost captured by internal ultra Nationalists who wanted to suppress his surrender message and keep fighting, win or die, as a whole nation.
Movements committed to winning at any cost use what tactics they have. North Vietnam deliberately used up the Viet Cong forces of South Vietnamese to clear the field to absorb the South once America was bled white by the attrition N. Vietnam was more than willing to endure. They knew the US wasn't going to extinguish the whole people of the North and they could withstand anything less.
Unless the West figures how to nullify the propaganda and terror and subsequent Western repression recruitment tactics of the Jihadists, there will be no real peace in the Near East.
The African wars over minerals and oil wealth may be easier to solve. The Chinese Army might serve there as they will be the stabilizing force as the US retreats from the area as energy independence in North America removes those resources as such vital national interests. We may not like the unanticipated consequences of China running the whole south Eurasian and African continent but the mass use of heavy weapons will be by someone else and their allies for awhile.
How do you think nice American nobodies are going to get President Assad to stop shelling and bombing the rebels wherever they are? He is in a race and culture war with his life on the line. His family's survival and the holocaust that may engulf the largely heretic Alawite branch of Shia if the mostly Sunni rebellion succeeds is reason enough to use whatever forces are available against any useful target no matter what people on the other side of the planet are upset about.

The use of military force is because it works, or there is no obvious alternative in desperate situations. Everyone uses their strongest assets. Iran used millions of unwilling draftees in mass suicide attacks because they didn't have anything better. Saddam used poison gas on those attacks because he couldn't afford to let them succeed. As with 'rebellious' villages that might have started an internal rebellion if not extinguished.
Nice suburban ladies wringing their hands about atrocities and demanding treaties just like those constantly broken since before WWI aren't going to matter. The drone war in the Islamic countries continues because the alternative is another World Trade Center. Telling Al Qaeda it isn't suppose to target nice innocent Capitalists misses the whole point of the anti-Western struggle in the world. The drone strikes are also the best current recruitment possible for more Jihadists, but failure of imagination leaves little else?
No force of National or Religious Liberation is going to sign any treaty, or observe any niceties of warfare. All believe the ends justify the means, and often consider themselves the savior of mankind or the planet. Isn't the USA the last best hope for Freedom and Liberty? EVERYBODY is a jingoist for their cause and country. The masses just want a good job, a place to live and education and a future for their kids. All the fanatics and doctrinaires keep sucking us down into their insanity. I've family that wouldn't blink an eye if the USAF turned most of Islam into vast sheets of radioactive glass. Who cares the crazies are a couple of percent of the county's populations? Put a towel on people's heads and they all look alike?
Israel and the US are actually attempting surgical strikes with minimal collateral damage. Obviously the target populations aren't impressed, nor comprehending the larger dynamics involved. Or they would have strangled and clubbed to death the zealots that brought the horror and death to their neighborhoods. Interesting times, no?

< Message edited by epiphiny43 -- 11/19/2012 3:19:29 AM >

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:14:08 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

In theory, it's an admirable idea I think. But I can't see how it can be translated into reality.

Let's say for argument's sake some sort of UN resolution is adopted that makes civilian and urban areas off limits to any sort of attack. What would stop a country such as Palestine from putting their rocket launchers or any other valid military targets right in the middle of town, right next to a school? So, rocket launcher right next to a school is hitting me time and time again but because of the rules of war, I can't do anything about it. Well, I suppose I can complain loudly to the UN that my opponent isn't playing fair and hope they move the rocket launcher to a place that isn't off limits for me to attack..

Wars are not fought under the MoQ rules, and terrible things happen when they are fought. Innocent lives are lost. This isn't new, they didn't have all these computerized toys and pilotless planes in WWII, and the cities still got bombed. This isn't going to change as long as wars are fought.



Pretty much my view on the issue.

(in reply to PunisherNOLA)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 3:41:50 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: PunisherNOLA

In theory, it's an admirable idea I think. But I can't see how it can be translated into reality.

Let's say for argument's sake some sort of UN resolution is adopted that makes civilian and urban areas off limits to any sort of attack. What would stop a country such as Palestine from putting their rocket launchers or any other valid military targets right in the middle of town, right next to a school? So, rocket launcher right next to a school is hitting me time and time again but because of the rules of war, I can't do anything about it. Well, I suppose I can complain loudly to the UN that my opponent isn't playing fair and hope they move the rocket launcher to a place that isn't off limits for me to attack..

Wars are not fought under the MoQ rules, and terrible things happen when they are fought. Innocent lives are lost. This isn't new, they didn't have all these computerized toys and pilotless planes in WWII, and the cities still got bombed. This isn't going to change as long as wars are fought.



Pretty much my view on the issue.

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.

OTOH, the Israelis have been fighting an asymmetrical war for as long as I have been alive and longer - and they're still fighting it.

Coincidence?

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/19/2012 3:45:49 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 4:14:55 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		@ Epiphany: Firstly, thank you for your response.

On your claim about the IDF not having any choices about the tactics it employs, here's another view taken from the 'Magnes Zion' blog:
"All military actions, indeed, all actions having to do with Gaza, have one goal in mind: the subjugation of the Palestinian people there with minimum cost to Israel. In hasbara speak this is called "protecting Israelis," "defeating terror," "defending national security," even "protecting national honor," but it boils down to the same thing -- Israel cannot be secure if the Palestinians have real independence. That is why Israelis are divided into those who want to subjugate Palestinians by giving them no self-determination and those who want to subjugate them by giving them quasi self-determination in a quasi-state.

I spoke with an expert on the Israeli military shortly after "Operation Cast Lead," and when I told him that many argued that the operation was a reaction to Hamas rocket-fire, he laughed. He said that Hamas rocket-fire was deliberately provoked when Israel broke the cease-fire so that Israel could do a little "spring cleaning," deplete Hamas's arsenal of weapons.

He told me that this happens every few years, and that I should expect it to happen in another few years. Israel will assassinate a Hamas leader, Hamas will have to respond (wouldn't Israel, under those circumstances?) and Israel will perform a "clean up" operation. If Hamas is smart and doesn't play into Israel's hands, then Israel will also come out ahead, because it will be weakened in the eyes of the Palestinian public. It's win-win for Israel. That's what having control means."
http://www.jemiahhaber.com/2012/11/israels-pre-election-war.html

The IDF has at its disposal every military resource known up to and including nuclear weapons. It chooses to use the tactics it uses because they suit Israel's political purposes. If they wished to defeat a counter insurgency opponent, the IDF would would choose radically different tactics and strategies.
.
However you are correct to state that wars aren't fought according to MoQ rules, they are fought according to Geneva Convention rules. Or at least they are supposed to be. For far too long militarists have been getting away with wholesale murder (both literally and metaphorically) by presenting the same argument your post proposes. In the end, the argument boils down to might is right. We will do whatever we want because we can get away with it.

So if you accept the argument that might is right, your argument prevails and women and children and non-combatants of all sorts, ages and colours will continue to get slaughtered so that boys with big nasty toys can get their jollies playing with their big nasty toys. That is precisely what tightening up the Geneva Conventions would be designed to eliminate, by consigning it to the same place as we consigned the victors 'right' to rape and pillage. No doubt the might is right argument was used to opposed abolishing that 'right' too.

Either we are civilised or not, we stand for values or we are the same as the 'terrorists'. Freedom is not defended by descending to the level of medieval theocrats.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 11/19/2012 4:31:26 AM >

_____________________________



(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 5:56:33 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Israel has little option but air or artillery attack if they don't want far more casualties from using ground forces.


Israel has the option of recalling themselves to their original borders, anytime.


quote:

Sadly these tactics work to inflame the Islamic world that ignores the provocation, ...




I think it's safe to say that the Islamic world is highly unlikely to ignore the provocation of Israeli expansionism and 90+ years of ongoing and incessant British and American antagonism, invasion, confiscation of oil fields, instigation of coups of democratically elected leaders, supply to 'friendly' despots weapons of mass destruction, and then blaming it all on 'zealots' that these various torments have in fact created.

quote:

Other alternatives might be to simply carefully bulldoze everything in Gaza into the sea and push the people out of the region.


The best alternative would be to cease and desist the bulldozing altogether, but I guess you do have a point that Israel might at least consider a 'kinder, gentler' bulldozing henceforth.


quote:

The weaker forces will always use innocent civilians as shields or unwilling martyrs to the ends of propaganda and recruitment.



Good thing the stronger forces, Western powers, never revert to propaganda tactics , e.g., knowingly false accusations of WMD, to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. Nothing like good old-fashioned moral superiority, eh

quote:

(North Vietnam) deiberately used up the Viet Cong forces of South Vietnamese to clear the field to absorb the South once America was bled white by the attrition N. Vietnam was more than willing to endure. They knew the US wasn't going to extinguish the whole people of the North and they could withstand anything less.


The US was "bled white" from the Vietnamese war? Hardly. We stubbed our toe, comparatively speaking.
What happened is that the populace finally awoke to the fact that we had no business being there, and the US propaganda machine was at a low point, being that we still had sufficiently independent press at the time.

Once we allowed the media to run roughshod over existing laws disallowing multiple media ownership across different media outlets in the same market and then across all markets, going from over 50 media companies to the current 6 mega-clonglomerates, then much more immoral actions such as the recent ME invasions were easy-peasy, propaganda-wise.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 6:03:16 AM >

(in reply to epiphiny43)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 6:09:47 AM   
PunisherNOLA


Posts: 50
Joined: 9/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

However you are correct to state that wars aren't fought according to MoQ rules, they are fought according to Geneva Convention rules. Or at least they are supposed to be. For far too long militarists have been getting away with wholesale murder (both literally and metaphorically) by presenting the same argument your post proposes. In the end, the argument boils down to might is right. We will do whatever we want because we can get away with it.

So if you accept the argument that might is right, your argument prevails and women and children and non-combatants of all sorts, ages and colours will continue to get slaughtered so that boys with big nasty toys can get their jollies playing with their big nasty toys. That is precisely what tightening up the Geneva Conventions would be designed to eliminate, by consigning it to the same place as we consigned the victors 'right' to rape and pillage. No doubt the might is right argument was used to opposed abolishing that 'right' too.

Either we are civilised or not, we stand for values or we are the same as the 'terrorists'. Freedom is not defended by descending to the level of medieval theocrats.


Yes, the Geneva Convention, or rather the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 does deal with certain acts against civilians and other "protected persons.".. And it's murky since it was created as a result of what Gernany and Japan did during the war and didn't necessarily cover city bombings and the like.. I absolutely agree the Geneva Convention needs to be tightened up.

I wasn't making a might equals right argument at all. All I was saying is when the army opposing me is putting what would otherwise be valid military targets right next to a school, what choice do I have? Do I let my army continue to be hit with those rocket launchers, or I do what I have to in order to take out that weapon? When all is said and done, i'm going to go with option B every time. If i'm at war, i'm in it to win.

Yes, as long as we fight wars, innocent people will get killed. That's not to say it's right, or wrong, it's a simple matter of war.


(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 6:17:02 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		Excellent thread, Tweake . . . .






Attachment (1)

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 6:33:58 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

@ Epiphany: Firstly, thank you for your response.

On your claim about the IDF not having any choices about the tactics it employs, here's another view taken from the 'Magnes Zion' blog:
"All military actions, indeed, all actions having to do with Gaza, have one goal in mind: the subjugation of the Palestinian people there with minimum cost to Israel. In hasbara speak this is called "protecting Israelis," "defeating terror," "defending national security," even "protecting national honor," but it boils down to the same thing -- Israel cannot be secure if the Palestinians have real independence. That is why Israelis are divided into those who want to subjugate Palestinians by giving them no self-determination and those who want to subjugate them by giving them quasi self-determination in a quasi-state.

I spoke with an expert on the Israeli military shortly after "Operation Cast Lead," and when I told him that many argued that the operation was a reaction to Hamas rocket-fire, he laughed. He said that Hamas rocket-fire was deliberately provoked when Israel broke the cease-fire so that Israel could do a little "spring cleaning," deplete Hamas's arsenal of weapons.

He told me that this happens every few years, and that I should expect it to happen in another few years. Israel will assassinate a Hamas leader, Hamas will have to respond (wouldn't Israel, under those circumstances?) and Israel will perform a "clean up" operation. If Hamas is smart and doesn't play into Israel's hands, then Israel will also come out ahead, because it will be weakened in the eyes of the Palestinian public. It's win-win for Israel. That's what having control means."
http://www.jemiahhaber.com/2012/11/israels-pre-election-war.html

The IDF has at its disposal every military resource known up to and including nuclear weapons. It chooses to use the tactics it uses because they suit Israel's political purposes. If they wished to defeat a counter insurgency opponent, the IDF would would choose radically different tactics and strategies.
.
However you are correct to state that wars aren't fought according to MoQ rules, they are fought according to Geneva Convention rules. Or at least they are supposed to be. For far too long militarists have been getting away with wholesale murder (both literally and metaphorically) by presenting the same argument your post proposes. In the end, the argument boils down to might is right. We will do whatever we want because we can get away with it.

So if you accept the argument that might is right, your argument prevails and women and children and non-combatants of all sorts, ages and colours will continue to get slaughtered so that boys with big nasty toys can get their jollies playing with their big nasty toys. That is precisely what tightening up the Geneva Conventions would be designed to eliminate, by consigning it to the same place as we consigned the victors 'right' to rape and pillage. No doubt the might is right argument was used to opposed abolishing that 'right' too.

Either we are civilised or not, we stand for values or we are the same as the 'terrorists'. Freedom is not defended by descending to the level of medieval theocrats.


Um. So an anti-Israeli blog claims that Israel itself provoked the rocket fire.

My understanding is that the Arab nations use anti-Israel sentiment as a diversion to avoid anti-government sentiment and subsequent riots (a la Arab Spring).

The idea that Israel would sacrifice its own citizenry to deplete Hamas' weaponry when Hamas can easily get more is patently ridiculous.

My own take is that Hamas is not able to control wingnut factions among the Palestinians, and the factions are trying to use the rocket fire to force an Israeli response, and are sacrificing Palestinian lives to the predictable response, in order to reinforce anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas is not willing to admit that it cannot control the renegades, and Israel is holding it responsible for doing so.

I cannot explain the rocket attacks in any other way. Attacking a fully armed country and not expecting a response is silly.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 7:39:18 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		If you are the underdog, you WANT the enemy to butcher them. Thats a basic tenent. Then you use the outrage to broaden your support.


Isreal does not want a stable state but cant say that publicly. In addition, the right demands attacks that play into the jihadists goals. Its a bad spiral.

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:01:43 AM   
DomYngBlk


Posts: 3316
Joined: 3/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Right now, we are witnessing the appalling outcomes of the use of heavy weapons in urban/civilian areas in locations such as Syria Gaza and Afghanistan. Women and children, old people, civilians and non-combatants are exposed to fire from heavy artillery, drones, rockets and missiles as well as aerial and naval bombardments.

No matter how 'surgical' the strikes, civilian casualties are inevitable and horrific. Those firing the weapons may have no way of telling whether civilians are in the impact zone, how many civilians may be in the zone, whether they are children playing or combatants fighting, or whether the number of civilian casualties will meet the 'proportionality' thresholds of the Geneva Conventions that cover the laws of war. In the case of drone operators, they're not even on the same Continent as the impact zone. Pilots screaming overhead at speeds greater than the speed of sound, or flying at altitudes of 30,000 feet have no idea whether the impact zone is full of children playing or combatants. Likewise, naval commanders or commanders of artillery can be many miles from the impact zones they are attacking - they may be operating off no more information that a set of co-ordinates.

The poor civilians don't even get a choice, they are just sitting ducks. Usually they have no way whatsoever of telling what is coming, or when it will arrive. Even if they did know, there may not be any air raid shelters or protection available. Even if they did know what is coming, and have access to shelters, often there isn't enough time to get to safety.

In short using these weapons in civilian or urban areas is a guaranteed method of ensuring civilian casualties while offering no guarantee of any military advantage.

How many more civilians are going to be butchered before we act to protect them?
Isn't time that we re-thought the legality of using such weapons and tactics under the Conventions?
Isn't it time that these murderous strategies were outlawed?
Isn't it time that we brought the rules governing warfare in civilian or urban areas up to date?
Isn't it time that we placed the protection, safety and welfare of civilians and non-combatants ahead of combatants?

What do you think?



Though I question the timing, tactics and reasons for this by the Isrealis, I also have to say the following:

1. As long as Hamas or Hezbollah or any other "liberation" group put out videos and continue to hide their faces they won't be given any credence here. It is a cowardly thing to do and if you believe in the fight you are making you wouldn't care who saw who you were.

2. In all this time that this conflict has been going on why has no other Arab or Near Eastern Country offered Military Troops to help the Palestinians? Why is that? I think it says as much about the other nations and their motivations than anything else.

3. It is clear that other Arab or Near Eastern Nations have plenty of resources to help their fellow muslims economically in Gaza and the West Bank. Why arent they?

I am not saying Isreal doesn't have blame. But the rest of the regions USE of the Palestinians is a disgusting display of human behavior

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:16:22 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline 		There is no question, to anyone actually aware of the recent 100 recent years history of the region, as to the cause of the overall instability of the region.

(While we're at it; since the collapse of the USSR, there is, by attrition, only two counties left that have caused or otherwise have underwritten the largest portion of the turmoil in the world since 1990. Both begin with the letter "U".)

If the current Israeli government had any honest intent towards political and internal and cross-border stability of the region, they would politely request that the US and UK desist from their incessant antagonism, in the absence of which both Iraq and Iran would very likely have been modern developed, stable, and near-progressive countries at least 30 years ago and onwards. Pajamapants was elected in Iran specifically as result of the fears raised by the US/UK invasion of Iraq (for whom Iran otherwise certainly had no sympathy towards whatsoever), which made anyone running on an anti-West platform quite easily electable. The more virulent, antagonistic, and all elsewise irrational the blather and the rhetoric, the better. You know, as if somebody actually got elected by talk radio and Fox media hosts in the US.

Instead, the Israeli government are currently arguing most vociferously for greater, more destabilizing intrusion by the West.

< Message edited by Edwynn -- 11/19/2012 8:53:48 AM >

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 8:56:34 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline 		~FR~
A fresh viewpoint . .
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/hamas-and-israel-have-opened-the-gates-of-hell-in-gaza-yet-again-and-the-number-of-journalistic-cliches-in-hell-is-growing-by-the-day-8327133.html

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 9:20:38 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



(While we're at it; since the collapse of the USSR, there is, by attrition, only two counties left that have caused or otherwise have underwritten the largest portion of the turmoil in the world since 1990. Both begin with the letter "U".)



That was intended as saying countries, not counties.

The edit time-frame is short on this forum site.

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 9:25:04 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

What do you think?



War is hell...don't start a war you cannot win

Think of your children before you indiscriminately launch rockets against civilians.

Don't tell an enemy that they have no right to exist and you will exterminate them. Then attack them every day for a year with rockets and not expect retaliation.

Learn to compromise for peace.

Rid yourself of hate and forgive for the sake of your future and children.

Understand God is no more on your side than the enemies and abhors violence in his name.

Sue for peace and negotiate and appeal to supporters of peace... they are powerful and many.

Do not launch...construct... and store...weapons in civilian areas with children in an attempt to protect them from attack.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 11/19/2012 9:30:37 AM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 9:46:21 AM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.


Would you agree to the same type of occupation in Palestine by IDF as the British in Ireland?

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:47:54 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.

OTOH, the Israelis have been fighting an asymmetrical war for as long as I have been alive and longer - and they're still fighting it.

Coincidence?



Two differencess Tweakable one. The IRA never fired indicriminate rockets at civillians in the way Hams have fired them into Israel. The British Government were also willing to hold talks with the IRA with no preconditions from either side. That way both parties went to the negotiating table as equals. There are still murders being carried out by dissidents, the most recant was last this month. So some, dont wish for peace at any cost.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Rethinking the rules of war - 11/19/2012 10:50:46 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Really Polite? Your British Army fought an asymmetrical war in Ireland for 25 years without ever resorting to the weapons I listed in the OP. The situation in Ulster has been quiet for a decade now.


Would you agree to the same type of occupation in Palestine by IDF as the British in Ireland?

Butch



Chalk and cheese Butch.

Ulster isnt occupied and many Ulsterman want to remain British. Ulster was never under the blockade Gazza is under either.

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Rethinking the rules of war Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141