Support NeoGAF

[jason10mm]

Hospitals have special protection under international law. Disrupting a hospital during war means an automatic gigantic number of casualties with no way to treat injured people.

No, they don't, not to the extent you suggest. A hospital is not a magic bit of holy ground immune to trespass by an invading force. Going in with infantry to root out active combatants within is totally legal. Even forcing out patients and medical staff to later on destroy the facility is legal so long as they can make a show that it serves a purpose (such as storing hostages taken from Israel) beyond directly and ONLY targeting civilians and there is a place for these folks to go (hint, there is). The IDF isn't disrupting any legit operations of that hospital beyond what Hamas has done to it already. The IDF can most certainly prevent Hamas from using any part of it for military purposes.

But that stuff doesn't really matter to you. You don't care that Hamas rains down unguided rockets that strike Israeli medical facilities, just that the IDF has some guys walking through some halls as if they are stabbing newborns or something.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Straight retardation. I have no other way to explain this lemmings-like shit.

Below the P.O.W. flag. The irony is too thick.

 

[tommib]

No, they don't, not to the extent you suggest. A hospital is not a magic bit of holy ground immune to trespass by an invading force. Going in with infantry to root out active combatants within is totally legal. Even forcing out patients and medical staff to later on destroy the facility is legal so long as they can make a show that it serves a purpose (such as storing hostages taken from Israel) beyond directly and ONLY targeting civilians and there is a place for these folks to go (hint, there is). The IDF isn't disrupting any legit operations of that hospital beyond what Hamas has done to it already. The IDF can most certainly prevent Hamas from using any part of it for military purposes.

But that stuff doesn't really matter to you. You don't care that Hamas rains down unguided rockets that strike Israeli medical facilities, just that the IDF has some guys walking through some halls as if they are stabbing newborns or something.

Where the fuck am I saying that I don’t care about the terror Hamas has brought to Israel and Gaza.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

No, they don't, not to the extent you suggest. A hospital is not a magic bit of holy ground immune to trespass by an invading force. Going in with infantry to root out active combatants within is totally legal. Even forcing out patients and medical staff to later on destroy the facility is legal so long as they can make a show that it serves a purpose (such as storing hostages taken from Israel) beyond directly and ONLY targeting civilians and there is a place for these folks to go (hint, there is). The IDF isn't disrupting any legit operations of that hospital beyond what Hamas has done to it already. The IDF can most certainly prevent Hamas from using any part of it for military purposes.

But that stuff doesn't really matter to you. You don't care that Hamas rains down unguided rockets that strike Israeli medical facilities, just that the IDF has some guys walking through some halls as if they are stabbing newborns or something.

Yeah, some people are too "Israel needs to prove this or that". It does not matter - some groups of people will blame Israel for everything anyway, no matter what they do. So Israel should do what they consider right and the winner will take it all.

If terrorists can use hospitals as shields, then it can be checked and taken over by the opposing force.

 

[sonicwebster]

This actually answers my question.

Regarding the second part, I’m just frustrated overall that every single thing Israel does gets put under a microscope, but it seems like Hamas gets to act with impunity and huge swaths of the media give them a free pass.

It's simple Israel gets massive support from the US and internationally is especially us in terms of funding as such we get to examine what they're doing with our money and weapons and they don't get to act with impunity.

 

[VengefulValkyrie]

I get what you mean. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and I think the whole world just expects hell on earth from them - except Corbyn.

Everything Israel has done up to now has just been a self-defense response to a war that Israel didn’t start. It’s just that the hospital situation is particularly sensitive with the amount of injured and sick people that can’t be treated and are just dying.

Israel has some of the best intelligence services of the world. They just can’t fail with the assumption that the headquarters are there.

Didn't Israel fund Hamas long ago?

 

[Mohonky]

It seems like Hamas gets to act with impunity and huge swaths of the media give them a free pass.

Everyone already knows Hamas are terrorists, it's never been in question.

The question presently is whether the IDF are justified in their approach to bombing and raiding civilian facilities, especially ones like hospitals. Hospitals are a huge no no as far as rules of engagement are concerned with respect to international law unless it can be proven they are being used for military purposes.

Also need to separate Hamas from Palestinians because they aren't necessarily the same thing. I've not seen any media advocating for Hamas.

 

[Wildebeest]

Didn't Israel fund Hamas long ago?

Who hasn't funded Hamas? Billions of dollars in aid money from all over, and nobody really knows where it goes.

 

[VengefulValkyrie]

Who hasn't funded Hamas? Billions of dollars in aid money from all over, and nobody really knows where it goes.

I just need a simple yes or no.

 

[Tajaz2426]

Everyone already knows Hamas are terrorists, it's never been in question.

The question presently is whether the IDF are justified in their approach to bombing and raiding civilian facilities, especially ones like hospitals. Hospitals are a huge no no as far as rules of engagement are concerned with respect to international law unless it can be proven they are being used for military purposes.

Also need to separate Hamas from Palestinians because they aren't necessarily the same thing. I've not seen any media advocating for Hamas.

Where do you get that hospitals are a no no for sweeping missions? They are targeting and pushing them. There is absolutely nothing that says they cannot sweep hospitals, schools, etc. nothing they have done is against any international law, you cannot let terrorists just hide with civilians and say, “oh well, they’re in a hospital, better give up”.


Let me ask you this, if someone came and murdered your family would you tell the cops to stop if the perpetrator is hiding in a school or hospital? Where do some of you get this information?

Edit: could a mod edit this, I apparently know nothing of tech or how to use it.

 

[Mohonky]

Everyone already knows Hamas are terrorists, it's never been in question.

The question presently is whether the IDF are justified in their approach to bombing and raiding civilian facilities, especially ones like hospitals. Hospitals are a huge no no as far as rules of engagement are concerned with respect to international law unless it can be proven they are being used for military purposes.

Also need to separate Hamas from Palestinians because they aren't necessarily the same thing. I've not seen any media advocating for Hamas.
[/QUOTE]

Where do you get that hospitals are a no no for sweeping missions? They are targeting and pushing them. There is absolutely nothing that says they cannot sweep hospitals, schools, etc. nothing they have done is against any international law, you cannot let terrorists just hide with civilians and say, “oh well, they’re in a hospital, better give up”.


Let me ask you this, if someone came and murdered your family would you tell the cops to stop if the perpetrator is hiding in a school or hospital? Where do some of you get this information?
[/QUOTE]

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Entry into force: 21 October 1950 Part I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

www.ohchr.org

Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Your example is a load of rubbish.

Tbh I'm kind of done with any discussion in this thread. Some of the discussion is about objective as expecting a coherent and considered a response as LGBT for Palestine.

 

[Tajaz2426]

Everyone already knows Hamas are terrorists, it's never been in question.

The question presently is whether the IDF are justified in their approach to bombing and raiding civilian facilities, especially ones like hospitals. Hospitals are a huge no no as far as rules of engagement are concerned with respect to international law unless it can be proven they are being used for military purposes.

Also need to separate Hamas from Palestinians because they aren't necessarily the same thing. I've not seen any media advocating for Hamas.

Where do you get that hospitals are a no no for sweeping missions? They are targeting and pushing them. There is absolutely nothing that says they cannot sweep hospitals, schools, etc. nothing they have done is against any international law, you cannot let terrorists just hide with civilians and say, “oh well, they’re in a hospital, better give up”.


Let me ask you this, if someone came and murdered your family would you tell the cops to stop if the perpetrator is hiding in a school or hospital? Where do some of you get this information?
[/QUOTE]

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Entry into force: 21 October 1950 Part I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

www.ohchr.org

Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Your example is a load of rubbish.

Tbh I'm kind of done with any discussion in this thread. Some of the discussion is about objective as expecting a coherent and considered a response as LGBT for Palestine.
[/QUOTE]
That says they cannot be attacked, I have been part of a few missions in Iraq clearing schools and hospitals. You cannot go in a just hammer people. They have done nothing wrong, period.

While also being recognized by both parties. If terrorists are hiding in there, they can go in.

 

[EviLore]

-----
Under international law, particularly the rules governing armed conflict, there are specific protections afforded to certain types of facilities, such as hospitals and schools. The key principles that apply in this context are those of distinction, proportionality, and necessity, derived mainly from the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as customary international law.

1. Distinction: Combatants are required to distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects at all times. Hospitals and schools are typically considered civilian objects and are therefore protected from attack unless they are being used for military purposes.
2. Proportionality: Even if a hospital or school is being used for military purposes, any attack must be proportionate. This means that the anticipated military advantage must outweigh the potential harm to civilians and civilian objects.
3. Necessity: Military necessity requires that any measures taken against a military objective must be intended to achieve a specific military advantage and are not otherwise prohibited by international law.

If a hospital or school is being used by enemy combatants, it may lose its protection against attacks. However, the principles of proportionality and necessity still apply. Before an attack is carried out, all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid or minimize civilian harm. This includes warning civilians of impending attacks when possible.

Furthermore, if combatants are using a hospital or school for military purposes, this could be considered a violation of international law, particularly the principle of distinction. Such actions may constitute the use of human shields, which is prohibited.

In practice, the decision to engage in military operations involving hospitals or schools is complex and context-specific. It requires a careful assessment of the facts on the ground, the applicable legal framework, and the potential humanitarian impact. The presence of enemy combatants in a hospital or school does not automatically make it a legitimate military target, and sweeping such facilities would require strict adherence to international humanitarian law principles.
-----


^ Hamas is breaking international law by using protected civilian buildings for military operations. The IDF is not breaking international law by clearing those targets of Hamas as long as the attacks are proportionate to the military presence there.

 

[badblue]

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

Entry into force: 21 October 1950 Part I GENERAL PROVISIONS Article1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.

www.ohchr.org

Article 18
Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.

Article 28​

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's simple Israel gets massive support from the US and internationally is especially us in terms of funding as such we get to examine what they're doing with our money and weapons and they don't get to act with impunity.

I would buy that reasoning if it weren't so unilateral.

 

[Happosai]

I would buy that reasoning if it weren't so unilateral.

Don't temp those who question very opaque scenarios. This is another one of those posters attempting to bait someone into a lengthy discussion of Israel committing war crimes. Saw this back on like page 2 or 3...I'm getting tired of it, so not even going back to quote the first ones who started stirring that crap up. The logic I'd challenge with that argument would be a question: you jealous that wealthy & successful Jews have financially supported Israel since their statehood? Or...you jealous that they have the money to defend themselves off against terrorists who were funded by Qatar, Iran and other larger Islamic terrorist havens?

Same argument as the idiots from yesterday about territories and ethnic cleansing
Same as Mohonky 's argument that they can't target certain areas in a war zone because that makes them war criminals somehow...even though, it doesn't
Same argument as that above: how dare they get money somewhere outside Israel

All three 'same' I listed are basically stating either: Yeah, Hamas are terrorists but so are Israelis or...they just leave the Hamas part out. These morons think they're geniuses toting anti-Semitism as long as it looks like appears they might have seen the Hamas attacks on the 7th as inhumane. Better question to ask them: which one are you funding?

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

nonsense vomit

Just log out and never log back in.

 

[Liljagare]

For me, it is just sad that the Nazi playbook of Himmler is actually being used again.

 

[BlackTron]

I just need a simple yes or no.

Israel didn't fund Hamas directly in the sense that they sent a check made out to "Hamas" to their base. But of course they did because Israel provided aid and support to the Palestinian people, who were fleeced dry by Hamas and took everything.

 

[Happosai]

Israel didn't fund Hamas directly in the sense that they sent a check made out to "Hamas" to their base. But of course they did because Israel provided aid and support to the Palestinian people, who were fleeced dry by Hamas and took everything.

He's going on 12 posts in with that account. Bets are on you get this tossed back as: so that a yes or a no? As I mentioned a few minutes ago, people are dipping into this thread with that type of bait to try to paint Israel as war criminals. There's a difference between someone who types a message saying: I don't understand the history and giving clarification. However, when you're pushing a 'yes' or 'no' with attempts to for a gotcha at Israel's expense...what's that really say?

 

[BlackTron]

He's going on 12 posts in with that account. Bets are on you get this tossed back as: so that a yes or a no? As I mentioned a few minutes ago, people are dipping into this thread with that type of bait to try to paint Israel as war criminals. There's a difference between someone who types a message saying: I don't understand the history and giving clarification. However, when you're pushing a 'yes' or 'no' with attempts to for a gotcha at Israel's expense...what's that really say?

I agree, so I checked his post history first. He's been around 3 years and mostly discussed Capcom games. Will surprise no one if he tries to stir shit or doesn't reply since his gotcha moment was taken, but I gave the benefit of the doubt.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I just need a simple yes or no.

No more, actually far less, than the United States as well as other Israeli allies have been funding tens of billions to several Islamic nations who have been on record for decades saying they want to wipe Israel and the Jewish people off the map.

Hell, Bidenomics just handed over Hamas handlers, Iran, another $10b+ check today.

Direct your ignorance there and ask them why they continue to support terrorist regimes, especially in wartime. A time where crosshairs of those nations are on Israel.

 

[violence]

YouTube algorithm just recommended me this

 

[DeepEnigma]

YouTube algorithm just recommended me this

Ah yes, the Onion's attempt at humor but still enriched with "both sides" rhetoric that Israel says the same things Palestine says when it comes to genocide, which they don't.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Surprise of all surprises, guy who shows up at rallies of violent Khalistani groups flying posters of the Air India Bomber also supports another terrorist group

'Hypocrite': Jagmeet Singh called out for mirroring Sarah Jama and calling Israel an 'extremist government'

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh became the second prominent Canadian politician to call out Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu for running what Singh describes as an “extremist government."

ca.news.yahoo.com

 

[ADiTAR]

 

[Havoc2049]

One less clown in the University System, polluting young minds.

 

[DrKeo]

Hospitals have special protection under international law. Disrupting a hospital during war means an automatic gigantic number of casualties with no way to treat injured people.

If there are no Hamas tunnels under the hospital (which I doubt, the IDF already uncovered one yesterday and will probably uncover more in the coming days) then the IDF will look like clowns and it will feed the Hamas propaganda machine. But if we are talking about international law, as long as they prove terror activity was committed from inside the hospital grounds and they provided an evacuation warning to all civilians in the hospital and enough time to evacuate (which they have), then the IDF is upholding international law.

Article 19 of the Geneva Convention:

The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.

 

[BlackTron]

One less clown in the University System, polluting young minds.

Great, but people should not need to die for them to be removed. It begs the question, what was this guy doing in the system to begin with?

He made a "mistake" and went too far with too direct an attack. His role was to help create an enviornment over the long game for it to be okay for other people to kill Jews. So long as professors keep themselves in check unlike this guy, they will be allowed to continue their agenda with wild abandon?

 

[StueyDuck]

TikTok, melting the brains of an entire generation.

Are people willing to admit yet that tiktok is and always has been a platform for brainwashing by the CCP and its allies...

I genuinely can't believe that in the short span of just 20+ years we are seeing Americans Justify the horrific attack on the US.

You guys have something really bad growing over there and I genuinely don't know how you stop it.

Edit:

Why are these influencers not arrested? Surely advocating terrorism isn't "free speech"

 

[ADiTAR]

Are people willing to admit yet that tiktok is and always has been a platform for brainwashing by the CCP and its allies...

I genuinely can't believe that in the short span of just 20+ years we are seeing Americans Justify the horrific attack on the US.

You guys have something really bad growing over there and I genuinely don't know how you stop it.

Edit:

Why are these influencers not arrested? Surely advocating terrorism isn't "free speech"

They can ban TikTok, as it's clearly poison just like any drug. They won't, but they should.

 

[DrKeo]

Dec 19th 2016, Mosul.

 

[FunkMiller]

Are people willing to admit yet that tiktok is and always has been a platform for brainwashing by the CCP and its allies...

I genuinely can't believe that in the short span of just 20+ years we are seeing Americans Justify the horrific attack on the US.

You guys have something really bad growing over there and I genuinely don't know how you stop it.

Tiktok, like Twitter, is a fucking cess pit.

But, like Twitter, it is entirely unrepresentative of the wider views and opinions of society.

We need to be aware of the kind of poison being spread on social media, but that should always be tempered with the context that social media does not reflect the views of the vast majority of society, in any way.

Polls show this to be the case time and time again.

 

[winjer]

They can ban TikTok, as it's clearly poison just like any drug. They won't, but they should.

Both the Trump administration and the Biden administration threatened to ban it. And it's one of those things that has significant support both on the Democrats and Republicans, as they clearly understand it one of the main tools of the CCP's propaganda.
So I'm really surprised it hasn't been banned yet. And this delay will have a cost, as there is a generation growing up while being indoctrinated by this crap.

 

[StueyDuck]

Tiktok, like Twitter, is a fucking cess pit.

But, like Twitter, it is entirely unrepresentative of the wider views and opinions of society.

We need to be aware of the kind of poison being spread on social media, but that should always be tempered with the context that social media does not reflect the views of the vast majority of society, in any way.

Polls show this to be the case time and time again.

while I agree with political ideologies it's mostly the vocal minority, however when it comes to something like this which is straight up Glorifying and supporting terrorism on your home country, even one person is one too many and is a huge massive problem.

and it's one that needs to be stopped and stifled from growing any further, even if there's only 100 videos from influencers, that's a 100 potential radical future terrorists who could potentially attack the US in some form in the future. Radicalization shouldn't be viewed the same as political disposition.

 

[FunkMiller]

while I agree with political ideologies it's mostly the vocal minority, when it comes to something like this which is straight up Glorifying and supporting terrorism on your home country, even one person is one too many and is a huge massive problem.

and it's one that needs to be stopped and stifled from growing any further, even if there's only 100 videos from influencers, that's a 100 potential radical future terrorists who could potentially attack the US in some form in the future. Radicalization shouldn't be viewed the same as political disposition.

I think the key point is that these fuckers have always existed, it's just that social media now gives them a much bigger platform to vocalise their nasty bullshit. I maintain that as long as polls continue to show a vastly different opinion in the wider community to the kind you see on social media, then the issue is manageable. If anything, sunlight tends to be the best disinfectant, so these people being allowed the platform to spread their hatred might actually be the best way to destroy them, in the long run.

 

[ADiTAR]

Tiktok, like Twitter, is a fucking cess pit.

But, like Twitter, it is entirely unrepresentative of the wider views and opinions of society.

We need to be aware of the kind of poison being spread on social media, but that should always be tempered with the context that social media does not reflect the views of the vast majority of society, in any way.

Polls show this to be the case time and time again.

Yes, but.

There's a diff between a Chinese controlled app, that surveys do show affects young people. Just look at the difference between justification for Hamas between young and old. It does affect people.

 

[FunkMiller]

Both the Trump administration and the Biden administration threatened to ban it. And it's one of those things that has significant support both on the Democrats and Republicans, as they clearly understand it one of the main tools of the CCP's propaganda.
So I'm really surprised it hasn't been banned yet. And this delay will have a cost, as there is a generation growing up while being indoctrinated by this crap.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/31/tiktok-bytedance-spent-millions-on-lobbying-congress.html

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...r-years-amid-crackdown-on-tiktoks-china-ties/

ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, poured millions into lobbying spending amid a nationwide push to ban the video-sharing app after U.S. officials increased scrutiny over data security and its Chinese government ties.

 

[StueyDuck]

I think the key point is that these fuckers have always existed, it's just that social media now gives them a much bigger platform to vocalise their nasty bullshit. I maintain that as long as polls continue to show a vastly different opinion in the wider community to the kind you see on social media, then the issue is manageable. If anything, sunlight tends to be the best disinfectant, so these people being allowed the platform to spread their hatred might actually be the best way to destroy them, in the long run.

well i just hope that sunlight does destroy rather than embolden, it at least has put a spotlight on the CCP (tiktok) cause they got caught out and are now saying they are going to delete all these videos, so lets see what they actually do.

 

[FunkMiller]

Yes, but.

There's a diff between a Chinese controlled app, that surveys do show affects young people. Just look at the difference between justification for Hamas between young and old. It does affect people.

I don't think those polls have really changed much over the years. Young people (especially the ones in higher education) have always tended to skew far left with their politics. And they always fall back to the centre once they actually grow up and have to enter the real world.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[DrKeo]

 

[BlackTron]

I don't think those polls have really changed much over the years. Young people (especially the ones in higher education) have always tended to skew far left with their politics. And they always fall back to the centre once they actually grow up and have to enter the real world.

I agree with you, but I don't think we should take it for granted either. It seems to me that for very many their version of entering the real world is crying victimhood to get away with it for far longer. We could be dealing with multiple stacked generations skewing farther left than in the past.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

TikTok, melting the brains of an entire generation.

Why wouldn't you believe verbatim in what a terrorist that just murdered thousands of innocents is saying about your country?

The worst mistake of Internet and social media was making a whole generation completely devoid of ability to thing critically and analyze the data presented to them.

 

[cormack12]

Maybe I'm naive but how does TikTok have this much influence? I don't get it, I don't have an account but from what I've seen it's just twitter for videos.

Is there a different kind of influencer on that platform compared to youtube etc.?

 

[AJUMP23]

Why are these influencers not arrested? Surely advocating terrorism isn't "free speech"

Fortunately it is. You can call for the nuking of the world and it is free speech.

 

[BlackTron]

The worst mistake of Internet and social media was making a whole generation completely devoid of ability to thing critically and analyze the data presented to them.

This is IT right here. And sums up IMO the biggest problem/challenge facing society today, that is most likely to lead to its perdition. When nobody can think for themselves, everyone is just told what to think. Groupthink. Next, any free-thinkers are demonized.

 

[Wildebeest]

Why wouldn't you believe verbatim in what a terrorist that just murdered thousands of innocents is saying about your country?

The worst mistake of Internet and social media was making a whole generation completely devoid of ability to thing critically and analyze the data presented to them.

It's not that they have no ability to think but that they are socially ostracised for not going along with what is fashionable.

 

[BlackTron]

Fortunately it is. You can call for the nuking of the world and it is free speech.

At the same time, hate speech is illegal. What defines hate speech? Apparently, that depends on the present majority, the group it's directed at, or the mood of the police.

 

[AJUMP23]

At the same time, hate speech is illegal. What defines hate speech? Apparently, that depends on the present majority, the group it's directed at, or the mood of the police.

Hate is subjective. And you shouldn't police speech.

"hate speech can only be criminalized when it directly incites imminent criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group." Which just seems like a judgement call. Depending on who the judge is, not what the evidence is determines guilt.