RE: Rethinking the rules of war

RE: Rethinking the rules of war (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 12:54:39 PM)
It was as far as the Jews were concerned... they had no say in giving the French Syria. It is the same double talking the Arabs have used ever since. Butch

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 12:55:36 PM)
And changes were made.....................

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 12:57:18 PM)
That is the point...they are forever making agreements then breaking them... The jews did not break the agreement did they? Butch

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And changes were made..................... And don't get me wrong...Israel added its far share to this war... but to say Israel started it in all eras is wrong and not history. Butch

Aswad -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:07:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub This one statement makes all further comments suspect in my view. Which is analogous to a logical fallacy. But by all means, let's have a look. The problem begins with the ousting of Arab serfs by Jewish settlers in the course of the Zionist movement, along with mass immigration to the Palestine region by Zionists and Jewish refugees. Mohammad Amin al-Husayni proceeded to inspire riots on the Arab side in response to this, culminating in the Jaffa riots, leading to the Haganah being established. Later, we see the '36 to '39 revolt by the dispossessed Arabs in Palestine. This all takes place under British administration, as per Balfour, and the British take it quite seriously, resulting in the '37 suggestion to split the region into two states, rejected by both parties. Neither party accepted the Peel Commission, and so the British tried to ease tensions by limiting the rate of immigration and setting out to create a one state solution, based on limiting the ability of the Jews to displace the native population, first under British control, and later as sovereign unto themselves. In short, an effort to avoid violence. The Jews circumvented these measures with illegal immigrants that came in large, coordinated waves. In effect, this was socioeconomic, demographic and political warfare, what you might call nonviolent war, with clear leadership and the stated goal of expanding to encompass all of Palestine. In response to these efforts, the Arab population aligned itself with Hitler and the Axis powers, which resulted in deteriorating relations with the British, who eventually turned to the Jews for support in Palestine. Following the war, the Jews turned to terrorism in fighting the British mandate, as well as the Palestinians. Due to adverse responses to the terrorist effort, the Jews changed their strategy to invasion by mass migration, as well as playing off the Holocaust. Oh, and at some point during that whole process, they declared the State of Israel, as a one state solution, shortly after the UN resolution to establish a two state solution with Jerusalem as independent territory under UN administration. Executive summary: a Zionist invasion started this whole snowball. IWYW, — Aswad.

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:09:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub That is the point...they are forever making agreements then breaking them... The jews did not break the agreement did they? Butch Often enough.

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:15:08 PM)
quote: The problem begins with the ousting of Arab serfs by Jewish settlers in the course of the Zionist movement Wrong again... This land was duly and legally purchased by the Zionist movement. quote: mass immigration to the Palestine region by Zionists and Jewish refugees This was agreed to by the ruling Arab authority. And all problems from there were retaliations from the provocations of Arabs. Yes at times as Israel gained strength in relation to its Arab nations the retaliations were beyond necessity. My logic cannot be faulty when history… Now the logic of those involved, even when outside Israel’s control, were certainly faulty. Butch

Aswad -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:26:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub This land was duly and legally purchased by the Zionist movement. Whereupon they ousted the serfs, as was their legal right. quote: This was agreed to by the ruling Arab authority. The early mass immigration was agreed to. The later were not. The Arab authority wasn't ruling at that time. quote: And all problems from there were retaliations from the provocations of Arabs. C'mon, that's a bit simplistic. quote: My logic cannot be faulty when history… Now the logic of those involved, even when outside Israel’s control, were certainly faulty. Your logic in saying that a statement you disagree with can be projected onto everything else said by the same person is on par with an ad hominem. Not unusual. Just faulty. IWYW, — Aswad.

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 1:27:52 PM)
http://www.palestineinformation.org/history.htm Except there was an expectation (in the Balfour document) that there would be a palestinain state....that didnt happen...and this link sees the events differently, and who is the right definition of events?

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 3:54:11 PM)
quote: The Arab authority wasn't ruling at that time. I gave a link to the agreement where an Arab authority, along with Great Briton, had agreed then reneged as has proven to be an ongoing tactic in dealings with Israel. quote: Your logic in saying that a statement you disagree with can be projected onto everything else said by the same person is on par with an ad hominem. Not unusual. Just faulty. I don’t disagree with history…you do… I often agree with what you have to say but you have a notion in your mind about the tragedy in the middle east and it is clouding your view of the reality in the past and present...What happened happened and is well documented and no amount spin can change it. Butch

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 4:43:50 PM)
quote: . Those standards will go right out the freakin window when they are involved in an actual war that actually threatens their lives, freedom, or sovereignty. The existing standards are, in fact, common across all signatories to the treaty... including the US. That doesn't stop the US and others from breaking those rules when they want to. In the US's case it doesn't even bother to be covert about it. That shouldn't be a surprise. We have, by far, the most powerful military in the world. What use could we possibly have with rules? We have POWER. We use it as we see fit. Really, much as folks may or may not like this, in the end might really does make right -- or close enough to it that it hardly matters. That is a reasonable description of the US at war. Anyone who doubts it is invited to examine the recent massacre at Fallujah, where an entire city was turned into a killing zone and flattened. But what enables the USA to get away with it, another cases like Haditha or My Lai is that there is no independent investigation or prosecuting authority. So the US can ignore its many violations of international law confident that it thwart almost all investigation, or block any prosecution (as in the case of the Goldstone Report) or when the full facts become so widely known some kind of trial is unavoidable, stage an occasional show trial and impose a ridiculously mild sentence. Had these events been investigated and prosecuted by an independent authority with no interest in the outcome, the results would have been very different. In the real world, the chances of change along the lines I am advocating is remote at the moment. But that does not make it impossible to achieve, nor does it make it a waste of time to discuss how things can be improved. It is a political issue and politics is above all else, the art of the possible. The kind of resigned cynicism I hear in your posts is most definitely not a reason to put things on the back burner. Nor is the current lax and selective enforcement a reason to duck the challenge. We are all agreed (I presume) that the current rules are an improvement on no rules at all, even if their enforcement is uneven. Having established that we need rules in these matters and then having created the rules, there's no reason why they cannot be tightened and loopholes closed. Had people been swayed by such arguments such as those you have presented, there would be no rules governing the conduct of war in the first place.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 5:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Yanno DS, if we were to refrain from making a law because someone is likely to break it, we would never introduce any laws anywhere for anything. Because laws will always be broken by someone or other. But that has never stopped us introducing them in the past, it doesn't stop us today nor will it ever stop us in the future So, you're taking the Burger King approach (ie. Rules are meant to be broken)? No. She was pointing out the fact that that's what your premise was based upon. Yeah, missed the "not" in front of taking there. quote: Please read more carefully. Sorry, Mr. Perfect. I'll do better next time. quote: quote: It's not that there is always someone that is going to break it that I'm most concerned with. I'm much more concerned that it's going to increase the odds of it being broken. While I am well aware of the 'unintended consequences' thing, as some of us are, I'm not sure as to the extent that international laws of whatever sort concerning warfare, genocide, improper raising of hostilities, etc, ever have or ever would result in increase in such actions. Really? You can't see how, say, Palestinians lob mortars and missiles into Israel and then hide within the Civilians, which would either increase the number of Civilians killed, or render Israel impotent to return fire. Israel either can't defend itself, or they increase Civilian casualties. That is how it would increase the odds of the newly banned occurring.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 5:41:02 PM)
The Israelies had no problem being terrorists when it suited them.

kdsub -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 6:57:07 PM)
quote: Except there was an expectation (in the Balfour document) that there would be a palestinain state....that didnt happen...and this link sees the events differently, and who is the right definition of events? There would have been an autonomous Arab Palestine except the Arab Emir the Sherif of Mecca, when awarded Iraq, backed out of the deal. There was no fault with Israel. You stated in your document quote: ...."Nevertheless, in March 1920, a Syrian congress held in Damascus rejected the Balfour Declaration and elected Faisal King of a united Syria which was to include Palestine. The French then deposed Faisal in July 1920, and he later became King of Iraq under a British mandate." This is not entirely true... THIS agreement was made between the French and British and governed the French possession of Syria before the Balfour Declaration. The Emir knew this before he signed the Declaration and changed his mind later when his personal negotiations with Great Briton over control of the confederation of Arab States fell though. But which ever version you choose to believe in neither was Israel at fault or failed to live up to an obligation. All changes were outside of their control and a rejection of a signed previous agreement that gave Israel autonomy and permission for all Israeli refugees to emigrate to Palestine. And in the end was the root of the present war. Butch ps... You would think the US would have learned from Great Britons' failure at nation building...but no… history repeated during the Bush one and two.

SimplyMichael -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/23/2012 7:30:45 PM)
Uh, the BRITS actually have a pretty good track record with nation building.

mnottertail -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/24/2012 6:23:29 AM)
Butch, quote: I gave a link to the agreement where an Arab authority, along with Great Briton, had agreed then reneged as has proven to be an ongoing tactic in dealings with Israel. There would have been an autonomous Arab Palestine except the Arab Emir the Sherif of Mecca, when awarded Iraq, backed out of the deal. There was no fault with Israel. You said this and more, and of course if you stop to think about it, it is rather like the French telling us that Romney is president whether we agree with that or not, or alot like us putting Reza Pahlavi on the throne. The external guys picked their puppets, and the people didn't buy it. To say that Oh, it is Britain and France, so of course it is real, authoritative and binding is simpletonian and foolish. Why should Israel kick? They were getting a country they didn't have. Why should the Arabs kick? First, they didnt back this clown no more than Iraq backed Chalaby. Second, the deals got further away from reality the further they got away from reality, and it was a State for Israel, and nothing for Palestinians.

Moonhead -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/24/2012 7:52:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Uh, the BRITS actually have a pretty good track record with nation building. He's probably thinking of the godawful mess we made of cobbling together three states into the mess called Iraq, rather than the examples elsewhere that worked a lot better.

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/24/2012 10:01:22 PM)
It is interesting to note some posters (almost always pro-Israeli posters) using the terms "Israeli" and "the Jews" interchangeably. Whether by accident or design, this adds a totally unnecessary racial dimension to the discussion. No surprise then that often the same posters resort to throwing out the old canard of "Anti-Semitic' to smear their opponents. This is a tactic designed to mislead. Israel is home to about half of the world's Jewish population, and the Jewish people have a long and separate history to that of modern Israel, which was created a little over 60 years ago. A given person can be Jewish without being Israeli or having any connection with Israel, or Israeli without being Jewish. The two terms are not interchangeable. Ditto 'Palestinian' and 'Arab'. Actions on the Israeli side are carried out by Israelis, not "Jews" or "the Jews". Actions on the Palestinian side are carried out by Palestinians, not "Arabs" or "the Arabs". Misusing these terms advertises the user's fundamental misunderstanding of the situation in the region. It will help maintaining a civilised tone to these discussions if posters took more care when using these terms and ensured they are used accurately and appropriately.

BamaD -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/24/2012 10:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: . Those standards will go right out the freakin window when they are involved in an actual war that actually threatens their lives, freedom, or sovereignty. The existing standards are, in fact, common across all signatories to the treaty... including the US. That doesn't stop the US and others from breaking those rules when they want to. In the US's case it doesn't even bother to be covert about it. That shouldn't be a surprise. We have, by far, the most powerful military in the world. What use could we possibly have with rules? We have POWER. We use it as we see fit. Really, much as folks may or may not like this, in the end might really does make right -- or close enough to it that it hardly matters. That is a reasonable description of the US at war. Anyone who doubts it is invited to examine the recent massacre at Fallujah, where an entire city was turned into a killing zone and flattened. But what enables the USA to get away with it, another cases like Haditha or My Lai is that there is no independent investigation or prosecuting authority. So the US can ignore its many violations of international law confident that it thwart almost all investigation, or block any prosecution (as in the case of the Goldstone Report) or when the full facts become so widely known some kind of trial is unavoidable, stage an occasional show trial and impose a ridiculously mild sentence. Had these events been investigated and prosecuted by an independent authority with no interest in the outcome, the results would have been very different. In the real world, the chances of change along the lines I am advocating is remote at the moment. But that does not make it impossible to achieve, nor does it make it a waste of time to discuss how things can be improved. It is a political issue and politics is above all else, the art of the possible. The kind of resigned cynicism I hear in your posts is most definitely not a reason to put things on the back burner. Nor is the current lax and selective enforcement a reason to duck the challenge. We are all agreed (I presume) that the current rules are an improvement on no rules at all, even if their enforcement is uneven. Having established that we need rules in these matters and then having created the rules, there's no reason why they cannot be tightened and loopholes closed. Had people been swayed by such arguments such as those you have presented, there would be no rules governing the conduct of war in the first place. Was that the fourth or fifth time we had to retake Fallujah? You seem to forget that the man in charge at My Lai is still in prison. If he had been South Korean ( they fought there) he would have gotten a commendation, if not a promotion.

tweakabelle -> RE: Rethinking the rules of war (11/24/2012 11:34:58 PM)
quote: Was that the fourth or fifth time we had to retake Fallujah? I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. What difference does it make whether it's the first, second or umpteenth time? quote: You seem to forget that the man in charge at My Lai is still in prison. Lt. W Calley was the only officer convicted for his role in the massacre. According to wiki: "The My Lai Massacre (Vietnamese: thảm sát Mỹ Lai [tʰɐ̃ːm ʂɐ̌ːt mǐˀ lɐːj], [mǐˀlɐːj] ( listen); /ˌmiːˈlaɪ/, /ˌmiːˈleɪ/, or /ˌmaɪˈlaɪ/)[1] was the Vietnam War mass murder of between 347 and 504 unarmed civilians in South Vietnam on March 16, 1968, by United States Army soldiers of "Charlie" Company of 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 11th Brigade of the Americal Division. Most of the victims were women, children, infants, and elderly people. Some of the women were gang-raped and their bodies were later found to be mutilated[2] and many women were allegedly raped prior to the killings.[3] While 26 U.S. soldiers were initially charged with criminal offenses for their actions at Mỹ Lai, only Second Lieutenant William Calley, a platoon leader in Charlie Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but only served three and a half years under house arrest." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre emphasis added wiki discusses Calley's sentence in more detail here, including his first apology for his role in the massacre, given in a public speech in 2009, which includes a claim that he was "only following orders". Calley's superior officer, Medina was acquitted of charges relating to the masscare: "In a separate trial, Captain Medina denied giving the orders that led to the massacre, and was acquitted of all charges, effectively negating the prosecution's theory of "command responsibility", now referred to as the "Medina standard". Several months after his acquittal, however, Medina admitted that he had suppressed evidence and had lied to Colonel Henderson about the number of civilian deaths." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley As far as I can establish in wiki, there is no one currently serving a sentence in relation to the My Lai massacre

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625