babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Murdering Yassin

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Murdering Yassin
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 31 March 2004 09:24 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"According to international law, the execution of any person in an occupied territory is not allowed. The Geneva convention, born out of the horrifying experience of the second World War, sets limitations on the use of force even in times of war. The convention distinguishes between war and a state of occupation. Its fundamentals are, first, that occupied people are "protected", and that the occupier is responsible for their safety. Second, it determines that the occupied people have the right to fight for their liberation. International conventions are one of the means people have developed for self-preservation. Without them, there is a danger that the human race would annihilate itself - first the strong would wipe out the weak, and then each other.

During its 37 years of occupation, Israel has already violated every article of the Geneva convention. But what it did now is unprecedented. As Robert Fisk stated it in the British Independent, "for years, there has been an unwritten rule in the cruel war of government-versus-guerrilla. You can kill the men on the street, the bomb makers and gunmen. But the leadership on both sides - government ministers, spiritual leaders were allowed to survive." Even when the leader advocates violence and terror, the norm has been that he may be imprisoned, but not killed."


"The Geneva convention recognizes the right of the occupied people to carry out armed struggle against the occupying army, but not to use terror against civilians. Terror has no moral justification, and is not defended by international law. But it is necessary that we Israelis examine ourselves in this regard as well. What other way do we leave open for the Palestinian people to struggle for their liberation? Along the route of the wall in the West Bank, a new form of popular resistance has been formed in the last few months. Palestinian farmers whose land is being robbed sit on the ground in front of the bulldozers, accompanied by the Israeli opponents of the wall - the veterans of the Mas'ha camp. What could be more non-violent than this? But the Israeli army shoots at sitting demonstrators, like in Tiennamen square.

The Israeli army blocks all options of non-violent resistance from the Palestinians. With the arrogant elimination of a leader and a symbol, as he was leaving a mosque, the army knowingly created a new wave of violence and terror. It is hard not to get the impression that terror is convenient for Sharon and the army. It enables them to convince the world that the Geneva protections do not apply to the Palestiians, because they have terrorists in their midst, and that, therefore, it is permitted to do anything to them."

http://www.tikkun.org/index.cfm/action/current/article/227.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
DavidB-D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4572

posted 31 March 2004 10:22 PM      Profile for DavidB-D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"The Geneva convention recognizes the right of the occupied people to carry out armed struggle against the occupying army, but not to use terror against civilians. Terror has no moral justification, and is not defended by international law.

Yassin was a terrorist.


From: ON | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 31 March 2004 10:36 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, but killing him like that is still neither strategically defensible (in terms of the long-term peace situation) nor legally.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
R_Louis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5304

posted 31 March 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for R_Louis        Edit/Delete Post
Sez you. So are secure borders for Israel the answer? Or the question?
From: On the Border | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 31 March 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, what really annoys me about these arguments is when our guys dig up the history, dig up the laws, analyze carefully, put together arguments and statements which follow from each other logically--
and all we get in return is lazy-ass contemptuous bullshit, like the neocon side doesn't need to actually think, they just figure they're right no matter what they say by divine fiat or something. God, why do we bother debating these slobs?

From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
R_Louis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5304

posted 31 March 2004 11:59 PM      Profile for R_Louis        Edit/Delete Post
Is there a point to your post?
From: On the Border | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 April 2004 12:12 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You still here, troll? After being made to look like a complete idiot last night, I woulda thought you'd at least change your name . . .I might have hoped you'd change your style, but some things are best left un-wished for.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 April 2004 12:14 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by DavidB-D:

Yassin was a terrorist.


So, by any credible definition, was Begin. Exactly how would you have reacted to his murder by any Arab government?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 12:14 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by R_Louis:
Is there a point to your post?

Yes there was, and you just proved it.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
R_Louis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5304

posted 01 April 2004 12:21 AM      Profile for R_Louis        Edit/Delete Post
Hey, Saint Thomas, screw yourself into the ground in your royal little snit. You may sewer around Melbourne, but who cares?
From: On the Border | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 April 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, anyone know what the newest rendition of a clueless troll is talking about? I'm stumped.
From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 01 April 2004 12:46 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Personally, I don't wish to begin to guess.

quote:
God, why do we bother debating these slobs?

A most excellent question.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 01 April 2004 12:53 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
At the risk of thread drift I would just like to say Personally I subscribe to most of Mill's (John Stuart Mill's) ideology and he would say all voices must be heard for we never know when we maybe silencing the truth. So obviously were going to have to listen to a couple strange ones.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 April 2004 05:54 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
R_Louis, quit trolling. An official warning.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
R_Louis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5304

posted 01 April 2004 06:29 AM      Profile for R_Louis        Edit/Delete Post
Fuck you Michelle, you censorious bitch.
From: On the Border | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 01 April 2004 07:15 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by R_Louis:
Fuck you Michelle, you censorious bitch.

Moderators are supposed to be censorious on occasion. You just proved her right to do so. Bye bye!


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 April 2004 07:30 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, that was rather poetic. Sounds kind of imposing. I think I'll put that on my resume.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 April 2004 08:13 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michelle, not long ago I received a spam on leather bustiers made to order .... Time was, the censorious aspect would involve manipulating a blue pencil (doesn't show on the galley proofs) but modern computer technology has consigned that technique to the great dustpile in the sky.

While bitch rhymes well with twitch, witch, itch
Censorious goes well with glorious.

Imagine the possibilities.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 01 April 2004 09:37 AM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nobody puts baby in the corner.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 April 2004 09:59 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This didn't exactly turnout to be the substantive discussion I had in mind when I posted the article.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 April 2004 10:07 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Indeed, josh. Too bad, as it is a very thoughtful article, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of Yassin. I agree that there would be many reasons to charge him (and Sharon, and ...) in a court of law but the Geneva convention rules against reprisals and summary executions were an important step, if not always respected by any means.

Perhaps it will be possible to get back to a discussion of the original Tikkun article.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 10:21 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yassin was a terrorist.

Given that Jewish inmates in the Warsaw Ghetto aquired weapons and then fought the Germmans during WW2, were the Germans right in attacking the Ghetto, and killing persons therein?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 April 2004 10:24 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Nobody puts baby in the corner.

Is this where Audra and I dance?

Sorry, josh. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cuebnall wrote "Given that Jewish inmates in the Warsaw Ghetto aquired weapons and then fought the Germmans during WW2, were the Germans right in attacking the Ghetto, and killing persons therein? "

From a miliatry point of view on the side of the Germans, of course they were right., as in correct, not morally "right". Their goal was to pacify the Ghetto and they did what they had to do.

But I think what defines a terrorist is very simple...not the justice of the cause, which can be interpreted from subjective points of view, (everyone thinks their cause is just) but the TACTICS and the means which they use.

So what makes a terrorist? Their choice of targets. You deliberatley target civilians such as Jews in Warsaw or in pizzerias in Israel then you are a terrorist...your goal is to pull a "Spain" if you will..cause the population to capitulate and lose the will to fight by hitting them where they feel safe.

If you target the Millitary, like the Jews in warsaw then you can call yourself,"resistance", freedom fighters etc. So by this light, I would consider Hezbollah to be a guerilla resistance movement since by and large they go after the IDF. Any soldier from any side is a legitimate target...that is why they are in uniform, to distinguise themselves from civilians. And this is why hamas and their ilk are terrorists..they don't wear uniforms so they can blend in with the popualtion and their primary targets are civillians.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about the weapon used? IE: If you use a vest bomb to kill innocent people vs using a "made-in-the-USA" missile to kill innocent people?
From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From a miliatry point of view on the side of the Germans, of course they were right., as in correct, not morally "right". Their goal was to pacify the Ghetto and they did what they had to do.


Fine.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 01:19 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think the weapons are the issue..it is the targets. When we bombed civillian centers during WW2, we were engaging in terrorism..we were trying to cause the people to lose their will to fight..just like the Nazi blitz of Engalnd....but if you turn those same bombs
onto a collumn of tanks or a weapons factory, you are hitting a military target.

But I wouldn't judge our acions during WW2 too harshly..it was a period of "Total War" a clash of civilizations if you will...culture vs culture...something our pampered generation has never experienced and could never comprehend fully having not experienced it...Lets hope a new one isn't on its way.


Lets face it, with Israels millitary might, they could be slaughtering civillians as we speak..instead of pinpointing Yassin, they coul have fought their way in like the Nazis in warsaw, killing everything in their path, civilians and combatants. The fact that they don't is all the proof I need when someone trie to morally equivalate the IDf with Hamas.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 01 April 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
O:
quote:
Lets face it, with Israels millitary might, they could be slaughtering civillians as we speak..instead of pinpointing Yassin, they coul have fought their way in like the Nazis in warsaw, killing everything in their path, civilians and combatants. The fact that they don't is all the proof I need when someone trie to morally equivalate the IDf with Hamas.
But when they do engage in such acts, such as in Jenin (where it is undeniable, whatever one's interpretation of that event, that civilians and militants were killed in a Palestinian city on Palestinian land), necessity is claimed.

Now, I am no fan of Hamas. I do not like religion tied to politics as a whole, and particularly when combined with militarism. But to suggest that Hamas actions in Israel are wrong without making a similar, basic statement about the IOF in the OTs is disingenous.

But this is a thread hi-hack. Let us move on.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 01:48 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
I don't think the weapons are the issue..it is the targets. When we bombed civillian centers during WW2, we were engaging in terrorism..we were trying to cause the people to lose their will to fight..just like the Nazi blitz of Engalnd....but if you turn those same bombs
onto a collumn of tanks or a weapons factory, you are hitting a military target.

quote:

So when the Israelis drop a missile into a crowded square they really consider it the same as droping missiles on columns of tanks and weapons factories?

Then this same logic would justify Hamas actions, as what are the settlements which steal and destroy Palestian property, and settlers who shot at Palestinian farmers on their way to their orchards, than terrorists . . . un-uniformed "illegal combatants", hiding amoung the innocent Israelis?

When are occupation supporters going to come to the realization that what they are doing is just as much terrorism as any Hamas suicide bomber?

[quote]
But I wouldn't judge our acions during WW2 too harshly..it was a period of "Total War" a clash of civilizations if you will...culture vs culture...something our pampered generation has never experienced and could never comprehend fully having not experienced it...Lets hope a new one isn't on its way.


I don't think anyone is judging your actions during WWII . . . terrorism is never justified, but in almost all cases the reasons behind it can be understood . . . don't you think?


quote:

Lets face it, with Israels millitary might, they could be slaughtering civillians as we speak..instead of pinpointing Yassin, they coul have fought their way in like the Nazis in warsaw, killing everything in their path, civilians and combatants. The fact that they don't is all the proof I need when someone trie to morally equivalate the IDf with Hamas.

Yassin was murdered very early in the morning with only his body guards with him . . . a "police" action by Israel to arrest Yassin would not have caused many more deaths than the missile did, and it very likely would not have caused as many deaths as the murder will eventually bring.

The IOF, or rather the Israeli leaders, care little for the deaths of Palestinians, or Israelis for that matter. The only thing that keeps them for practicing their own form of genocide is that 1) the real Israelis would not follow them that far, and 2) even if they could get enough IDF members to turn IOF, the world, yes, even their benefactor the USA, would turn against them cutting off all aid, including the military aid that provides them the technology that keeps them in their "morally superior" position.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
evenflow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3493

posted 01 April 2004 01:57 PM      Profile for evenflow        Edit/Delete Post
Israel promotes terror in the occupied territories

quote:
By Tanya Reinhart

31 March "Yediot Ahronot" -- An extensive discussion has already taken place in Israel regarding the cost-benefit ratio of [Hamas leader Ahmad] Yassin's assassination. But the question of justice has hardly been raised.

According to international law, the execution of any person in an occupied territory is not allowed. The Geneva convention, born out of the horrifying experience of World War II, sets limitations on the use of force even in times of war. The convention distinguishes between war and a state of occupation. Its fundamentals are, first, that occupied people are "protected", and that the occupier is responsible for their safety. Second, it determines that the occupied people have the right to fight for their liberation. International conventions are one of the means people have developed for self-preservation. Without them, there is a danger that the human race would annihilate itself - first the strong would wipe out the weak, and then each other.

During its 37 years of occupation, Israel has already violated every article of the Geneva convention. But what it did now is unprecedented. As Robert Fisk stated it in the British Independent, "For years, there has been an unwritten rule in the cruel war of government-versus-guerrilla. You can kill the men on the street, the bomb makers and gunmen. But the leadership on both sides - government ministers, spiritual leaders - were allowed to survive." Even when the leader advocates violence and terror, the norm has been that he may be imprisoned, but not killed.



From: learning land | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 03:06 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No yards wrote "So when the Israelis drop a missile into a crowded square they really consider it the same as droping missiles on columns of tanks and weapons factories?

If a military target (a hamas militant) is using the civilians as human shields, it is the target that is putting their lives at danger. You cannot engage in terrorist acts and then say "sorry I am surrounded by civilians, i am now untouchable"..I believe even the UN supports this position...that is why the Geneva convention dos not apply to soldiers who are not clearly dressed in a uniform to distinguish themselves from civillians.


It is a very cynical tactic aimed at making the world tsk tsk at Israel, but will bring little to the Palestinians. I believe Golda Meir once said something like "we can forgive the Arabs for killing us, but not for forcing us to kill their children".


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 03:57 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
No yards wrote "So when the Israelis drop a missile into a crowded square they really consider it the same as droping missiles on columns of tanks and weapons factories?

If a military target (a hamas militant) is using the civilians as human shields, it is the target that is putting their lives at danger. You cannot engage in terrorist acts and then say "sorry I am surrounded by civilians, i am now untouchable"..I believe even the UN supports this position...that is why the Geneva convention dos not apply to soldiers who are not clearly dressed in a uniform to distinguish themselves from civillians.


It is a very cynical tactic aimed at making the world tsk tsk at Israel, but will bring little to the Palestinians. I believe Golda Meir once said something like "we can forgive the Arabs for killing us, but not for forcing us to kill their children".


A military target? So then would settlers, as they are engaged in destroying Palestinian property, and some even shot at Palestinian farmers.

As I said, this logic would justify the attack against Israeli civilian targets as they can rightfully claim that these "settler terrorists" are non-uniformed terrorists using innocent civilians as human shields.

as for your claim regarding the Geneva Conventions, in the situation of an occupation, the combatants under occupation do not have to wera uniforms, but only have to have their weapons in open sight when in the proccess of taking military actions.

When not taking military action they are allowed to be in civilian dress, and in any case, this cannot be used as an excuse to use unrestrained violence against the population.

quote:
Chapter II. Civilians and civilian population

Art. 50. Definition of civilians and civilian population

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 (A) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

Art. 51. - Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;

and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.


ProtocolI Article 50


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 April 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I highly doubt that these targets are jumping into crowds to escape arrest, a la Hollywood crime movie. They are generally just going about daily business, driving down some road, going out from morning prayers, or perhaps buying some fruit from a street market when the missiles hit. O makes it sound like the target jumps into a crowd and then jumps up and down shouting "Neener-neener-neener, you can't shoot me no-ow!"

Half of the time, they are probably unaware that the silent killers (American made attack choppers) are hovering nearby with murderous intent.

This sort of attack tends to deflate o's superior morality claim, anyway.

A statement by Palestinian security said there were three missile hits, and that those killed were struck by shrapnel from a missile fired after they had gathered near the vehicle. (note, the third missile strike hit the car some ten minutes after the first two missiles...when bystanders came out to aid the wounded.)


From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
God you can't even quote, Golda Mier: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children."

Any way you are wrong about the Geneva convention. Even the fact that he is in wheel chair (and therefore not capable of taking an active combat role) means that he is specially protected, under Article 3:

quote:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person. in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;


There are only two catergories of persons recongnized under the convention:

1) Soldier: (including militias, irregulars, etc. -- with a commander, openly carrying arms, with a clearly distinguishable insignia, below is an example.)

What is essential is that "active" means those who are fighting. Once a soldier is disarmed or takes his/her uniform off and is not engaged in fighting they become a civilian:

2) Civilian: Persons taking no active part in the hostilities.

Yassin at the time of his death was a civilian, unarmed, in cvilian clothing, sick, and exiting a site protected under the Geneva convention given its religious nature.

Therefore he was protected from execution because it is prohibited under the convention to exectute civilians without trial:

quote:
The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Potected under the Geneva convention by law!

[ 01 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 04:27 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lets face it..all international law and agreements are nothing more than abstractions and word games played by diplomats and global buerocrats. the strong and the murderous will do whatever thay want because they can, or because they have the will to carry out their operations. That is the grim reality of the world. All that really matters are the facts on the ground. Israel considered Yassin a terrorist, bye bye yassin. who is gonna take israel to court..belguim? who is gonna enforce the court order? canada? the babbler community? Is it right? well it's right for Israel. Furthermore, Israel is a nuclear power. Israel will do whatever it feels it needs to to keep itself alive. Which is probably what drives so many of you crazy. And on the flipside, the terrorists will do whatever they feel is justified to bring about their goals, law be dammed.

I can understand weeping for civiilian death but Yassin? The guy was the spritiual leader of a terrorist organization aimed at killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. Even wishy washy Canada considers Hamas a terrorist organization. He was a figurehead and an inspiration to homicidal mainacs everywhere. The world and the Palestinians are much better off without him.

Oh ya and Cueball, when I quoted Meir I said "she said something like..." I do not claim to be a walking encyclopedia, and am still too lazy to dig up the exact quotes. But the message of her quote still stands.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So you would say that unarmed persons who are members of an armed force, regular of irregular are fair game in war, whether or not they are engaged in fighting?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 04:40 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
Lets face it..all international law and agreements are nothing more than abstractions and word games played by diplomats and global buerocrats. the strong and the murderous will do whatever thay want because they can, or because they have the will to carry out their operations. That is the grim reality of the world. All that really matters are the facts on the ground. Israel considered Yassin a terrorist, bye bye yassin. who is gonna take israel to court..belguim? who is gonna enforce the court order? canada? the babbler community? Is it right? well it's right for Israel. Furthermore, Israel is a nuclear power. Israel will do whatever it feels it needs to to keep itself alive. Which is probably what drives so many of you crazy. And on the flipside, the terrorists will do whatever they feel is justified to bring about their goals, law be dammed.

I can understand weeping for civiilian death but Yassin? The guy was the spritiual leader of a terrorist organization aimed at killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. Even wishy washy Canada considers Hamas a terrorist organization. He was a figurehead and an inspiration to homicidal mainacs everywhere. The world and the Palestinians are much better off without him.

Oh ya and Cueball, when I quoted Meir I said "she said something like..." I do not claim to be a walking encyclopedia, and am still too lazy to dig up the exact quotes. But the message of her quote still stands.


Facist hypocritical drivel if I ever heard it.

But it is refreshing to see that you've finally stopped pretending that Israel is somehow morally superior in its murdering!


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 04:44 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Buddy, in this war everyone loses.
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 01 April 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What you fail to grasp, o, is that the Geneva Conventions are not a mamby-pamby group of informal throw-away laws meant to make one side or another look bad. They _are_ international law, enforcable in the countries that have signed onto the Conventions. The helicopter crew in the second link that I posted above should be indictable, in Belgium or elsewhere, for firing that third missile. Ariel "the butcher" Sharon should be indictable for his role in past massacres. The fact that these crimes (as well as those perpetrated by Hamas officials) go largely unpunished is not something to brag about. It is an indictment of the inhumanity created by the occupation. Claiming that might makes right, or that the ends justify the means, weakens your argument. The means are all there is to measure against our own humanity.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 04:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well now that is true.

But I am interested, we are actually talking about morality at some level when we talk about the Geneva convention (something you brought up) and you made a point about morality and the Warsaw Ghetto which I agreed with, war being what war is.

For instance I would argue that it is completely legitimate to shoot a known militant crossing the border, but not to shoot him in his bed or while he was driving his car to pick up his kids from school.

My question is simple: Would say that unarmed persons who are members of an armed force, regular of irregular are fair game in war, whether or not they are engaged in fighting?

[ 01 April 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Gee o, thanks for the slogan, us warmongers on the left would never have figured that little bit of "wisdom" all by ourselves!

[ 01 April 2004: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 05:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually Yassin is protected 'four way til sunday' by the Geneva convention, given that he was a cleric and clerics have the same status as medical personel, even if they say "go with god and kill."
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 05:13 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No problem yards, I try to spread my wisdom on a daily basis...glad you learnt something today..tune in tommorrow for more!

As to the killing of unarmed soldiers...I don't like it but war is war. Any soldier is a target. If Hamas manages to kill Sharon, I won't like it, him being a hero and all around good guy and all, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword. And yes, unfortunately might still make right in this world. The only reason we are not living under a facist Nazi regime and that our western liberal mindest has been able to dominate is becaue our boys with guns killed enough of their boys with guns, not because of the moral supremacy of our worldview.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 April 2004 05:26 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:

As to the killing of unarmed soldiers...I don't like it but war is war. Any soldier is a target. If Hamas manages to kill Sharon, I won't like it, him being a hero and all around good guy and all, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword. And yes, unfortunately might still make right in this world. The only reason we are not living under a facist Nazi regime and that our western liberal mindest has been able to dominate is becaue our boys with guns killed enough of their boys with guns, not because of the moral supremacy of our worldview.

By your logic, and given the fact that military service is mandatory in Israel, then you have no right to condemn suicide bombers. After all, every Israeli is a potential soldier.

Your survival of the fittest-style bullshit is why institutions like international law were created in the first place. Without it, we might as well still be sitting in the trees and throwing our feces at each other.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 05:44 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think o has made it clear that his claims of Israel owning the moral high grounds was all a ruse . . . all that matters is that the most powerful side is always right.

Make me wonder what the big complaint was in regards to how the NAZIs treated the Jews . . . weren't the NAZI's the ones with all the "might"??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 05:58 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Nazis weren't the ones with all the might. The allies were. thats why we won. Thats also why our worldview of freedom, capitalism and democracy are considered THE way to live. If the Nazis had all the might and won ww2 The holocaust would have been viewed much differently...the way you are hinitng.

Once an Israeli citizen becomes a soldier they are fair game. Just like when one of the 80% of Palestinians who support suicide bombings joins hamas or other terrorist groups, they are fair game. Until that point they are civilians.


From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 April 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well,o, like the shrink said to the man wearing Saran Wrap pants: I can clearly see you're nuts.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
The Nazis weren't the ones with all the might. The allies were. thats why we won. Thats also why our worldview of freedom, capitalism and democracy are considered THE way to live. If the Nazis had all the might and won ww2 The holocaust would have been viewed much differently...the way you are hinitng.

Once an Israeli citizen becomes a soldier they are fair game. Just like when one of the 80% of Palestinians who support suicide bombings joins hamas or other terrorist groups, they are fair game. Until that point they are civilians.


So you are saying that had the allies not won the war, and had lost, or even simply tied, then the Holocaust would have been just fine by you?

I guess we should give the Deli Lama a call and let him know that his cause is wrong, he'll never be as powerful as China.

Why am I hearing the theme music to the Twilight Zone??


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, it wouldn't have been fine with me, since I probably wouldn't be here, being descended from Holocaust survivors...the survivor part being the key word. however, if the Nazis did win, I am sure all the people who lived under their rule would have been just fine with the holocaust, being educated and conditioned under their world view..kinda like we are educated and conditioned under a westren liberal worldview..that doesn't make sense? Isn't morality a social construct?Or is it god given and unchangebale?
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 06:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to the killing of unarmed soldiers...I don't like it but war is war. Any soldier is a target. If Hamas manages to kill Sharon, I won't like it, him being a hero and all around good guy and all, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword.

Right, so Hamas and Yassin are not Terrorists as you first sumised, given that all Israeli, male and female (with the exception of orthodox Jews whom are exempt from serivice) are either in the IDF or are in the IDF reserve -- the peoples army. When they take their uniforms of, and are blown up in a plaza somewhere in Israel by a suicide bomber the rule that you are applying to Yassin, applies to them.

No more winging about suicide bomber for you.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
o
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4435

posted 01 April 2004 06:48 PM      Profile for o     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clever...I figured you would use that line of reasoning, but what about the orthodox who die? I guess they should only attack on shabbat!
From: toronto | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 01 April 2004 06:56 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is past the point of pointlessness.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 01 April 2004 08:38 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
Isn't morality a social construct?Or is it god given and unchangebale?

I would say neither of these things. I also prefer the term "ethics"; there are a lot of social norms which seem to be purely based on convention and/or prejudice. I'm willing to call these "morality". Things like what kinds of sexuality between consenting, responsible people are acceptable, or what kinds of clothes can be worn.
But ethics is, ultimately, remarkably constant across cultures. In my opinion ethics mostly derive from a basic principle sometimes called fairness, sometimes called "the golden rule", which is inherent in the realization early in life by everyone who isn't autistic or a psychopath that other people are also conscious beings with needs and desires similar to our own. So if I feel it's important that I get what I want and feel harmed if I don't, they clearly feel the same way and feel the same pain. Recognition of the importance of that basic insight underpins pretty much all ethics no matter how extended. The rules should apply evenly to everyone, if it's fair for me it's fair for you.
And this is why prevailing "moralities" are often challenged--because basic insights show them to be ethically wrong.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 01 April 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Clever...I figured you would use that line of reasoning, but what about the orthodox who die? I guess they should only attack on shabbat!

Its not my reasoning. Its Hamas reasoning. Your reasoning. One in the same.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 April 2004 09:34 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
As to the killing of unarmed soldiers...I don't like it but war is war.

Then why is Israel not obeying the Geneva Convention?

Ah, but now Israel is not at war.

If it is not at war, then why all these shootings and bombings and what have you.

Ah, so it is war.

It seems singularly interesting that those claimants that "Israel is at war" choose to do so selectively in response to how they feel such statements will buttress their points or not.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 01 April 2004 09:56 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by o:
Well, it wouldn't have been fine with me, since I probably wouldn't be here, being descended from Holocaust survivors...the survivor part being the key word. however, if the Nazis did win, I am sure all the people who lived under their rule would have been just fine with the holocaust, being educated and conditioned under their world view..kinda like we are educated and conditioned under a westren liberal worldview..that doesn't make sense? Isn't morality a social construct?Or is it god given and unchangebale?

So, then what about Tibet and Tiawan? China is certainly the "might", so they are "obviously" right!

Is their struggle for independance something we should be joining with China to crush?


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 April 2004 05:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Murdering Arafat? Apparently Sharon's taste for blood is insatiable:


"In an interview published Friday in Haaretz, Sharon said that Arafat and Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah could become targets for assassination.

The PA on Friday said that Sharon's threats against Arafat endanger the peace process in the Middle East.

"With these threats, Sharon is threatening the future of the peace process in the region," said Arafat aide Nabil Abu Rdeneh.

Sharon warned that both leaders were insurance risks. "I wouldn't suggest either one of them should feel secure. I wouldn't propose that any insurance company give them coverage," the prime minister said."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/411795.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 02 April 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Sharon warned that both leaders were insurance risks. "I wouldn't suggest either one of them should feel secure. I wouldn't propose that any insurance company give them coverage," the prime minister said."

He's good with the Soprano's type thug talk, no?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 April 2004 04:24 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sheikh Yassin and the Levitating German Corpses

quote:
In a very fundamental way, the Geneva Conventions and the Sciences are related: both are part of Man's audacity to use Reason. Both have their flaws and deficiencies: both conventions and scientific knowledge may be wrong, or abused. Both are never-ending projects: international conventions in their search for a better world, science in its search for truth. Being of human origin, Reason is not a perfect baby; it may even suffer from serious illnesses. But the worst cure would be to throw it out with the bathwater.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca