Israel/Palestine thread
Think this merits its own thread...
Discuss my fellow 2+2ers..
AM YISRAEL CHAI.
[QUOTE=Crossnerd]
Where did I justify anything? I just take issue with his claim that the people waving Israel flags don't support mass violence.
I guess a lot of Hamas has kidney disease.
after releasing video and bragging about blowing up a special needs man stumbling around, the IDF followed it up by releasing video of drone bombing 2 children carrying water barrels.
I guess a lot of Hamas has kidney disease.
Not anymore.
Where did I justify anything? I just take issue with his claim that the people waving Israel flags don't support mass violence.
You are now literally on team burn the Jews. I doubt anyone is interested in debating semantics with the likes of you at this point.
after releasing video and bragging about blowing up a special needs man stumbling around, the IDF followed it up by releasing video of drone bombing 2 children carrying water barrels.
1197 more people and they'll be even.
You are now literally on team burn the Jews. I doubt anyone is interested in debating semantics with the likes of you at this point.
His position has been known for a long time. I suspect he won't be able to help himself and will go over board with the Jew hate and get banned even in this more accepting moderation atmosphere. His friend Jalfrezzi will be left alone.
You are now literally on team burn the Jews. I doubt anyone is interested in debating semantics with the likes of you at this point.
nah man, I dont support burning people alive. most people in this thread however do. and the people that got burned yesterday certainly do as well.
There can't be war crimes on Israel side definitionally because this is not a war. "Palestine" isnt a state. You can only have wars among states.
No, that is not the case.
The word war is no longer used in international law. The term international armed conflict is used when referring to a war between two or more States and non-international armed conflict when referring to a civil war. A certain level and intensity of violence must be reached before a situation is qualified as one of “armed conflict.” Beneath that threshold, violent situations are called “internal disturbances” or “tensions.” Riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature are not considered armed conflicts (APII Art. 1.2).
Humanitarian law only applies to situations of armed conflict. Nonetheless, in cases of internal disturbances and tensions, both human rights and humanitarian law establish certain fundamental guarantees that must be respected.
https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/conte...
Under international humanitarian law
In noninternational armed conflicts
Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Additional Protocol II) defines non-state armed groups in its Article 1.1 as “ dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups ”, who fight regular armed forces or against each other on the territory of one or several States. In order to be considered as parties to the conflict, these entities have to fulfil some conditions, namely be i) under a responsible command, ii) exercise such control over a part of its territory as to iii) enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol (Article 1.1).
Those criteria aim at distinguishing armed conflicts from situations of internal disturbances or tensions in which confrontations are not organized, structured or planned by one or several identifiable commands.
The objective of those criteria is also to recall that a non-state armed group that carries out military operations has obligations of organization, which include rules of conduct and respect for humanitarian law (IHL) in its own actions in combat. Indeed in this type of conflict, Additional Protocol II compels all the parties to the conflict, whether State or non-State parties, to comply with the rules of IHL. Nonetheless, States and non-state armed groups do not have the same capacities and thus the same degree of responsibilities in terms of respect for IHL. For example, the rules relative to detention depend on the territorial control capacities of the non-state armed groups. The criteria set out by Additional Protocol II provide that a non-state armed group must respect a certain level of organization. The criminal responsibility of commanders will be evaluated with respect to the level of organization and control of such groups and their territorial control capacities. Those criteria, however, do not modify the qualification of non-international armed conflict and the obligations attached hereto for the concerned State. If the level of organization of the non-state armed group is challenged, the State party will not be relieved from its obligations of respecting Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II in its own military activities.
In its Manual on Humanitarian Negotiations with Armed Groups (2006), the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) clarified the following elements of evaluation: non-state armed group shall have i) the potential to employ arms in the use of force to achieve political, ideological or economic objectives, ii) are not within the formal military structures of States, State alliances or intergovernmental organizations, iii) are not under the control of the State(s) in which they operate, iv) have a group identity and v) are subjected to a chain of command. This definition adds the ideas that armed groups are primarily motivated by political goals and operate outside effective State control.
campfire said the people at the Israel rally dont support violence. my point is that people who support Israel support mass violence against children especially bc that is what Israel does. Israel kills children and does genocide.
but I dunno man, I cant make you understand words. seems like the people tasked with that failed you.
No, that is not the case.
I do not give any validity to any determination about anything in life made by anyone who is leftwing.
What leftists decided "was" means, is irrelevant for me. Anything decided by any body where leftist had a voice, is not binding for me. Leftism is cancer, has no validity nor justification to exist, nothing it produces ever generates anything that binds me.
I just really, deeply, don't care about anything leftism produced.
campfire said the people at the Israel rally dont support violence. my point is that people who support Israel support mass violence against children especially bc that is what Israel does. Israel kills children and does genocide.
but I dunno man, I cant make you understand words. seems like the people tasked with that failed you.
That children die in wars, even just wars, doesn’t mean that the people that support those wars support those children dying. That’s one point.
The second point is that it’s really clear you are trying to juxtapose them being burned alive with their support of Israel. You’re a disgusting subhuman person for making that connection. And you’re even more slimy for not just coming out and saying it. Why not just say you like seeing Jews burned alive?
The third point is that I guess I should say every time a Palestinian civilian dies or their family member dies that they support October 7th or their family supports October 7th. Those kids’ parents supported kids dying on October 7th. Not justifying it just saying. Their parents supported dead babies. And now their babies are dead.
That’s the type of juxtapositions we should be making according to victor. So every time he makes some kind of indication that there was a massacre that happened, let’s all remember to say that the people allegedly being massacred support October 7th.
Those children aren't dying by accident as you want to imply because you think it excuses the genocide, but by design.
That children die in wars, even just wars, doesn’t mean that the people that support those wars support those children dying.
this is a war against children. the children are the main target. they kill the children on purpose.
The second point is that it’s really clear you are trying to juxtapose them being burned alive with their support of Israel. You’re a disgusting subhuman person for making that connection. And you’re even more slimy for not just coming out and saying it. Why not just say you like seeing Jews burned alive?
no I took issue with a specific point that campfire tried to make. those people were not peaceniks and in fact by supporting Israel they do support some of the worst violence in the modern era. and no I dont support attacking them regardless.
The third point is that I guess I should say every time a Palestinian civilian dies or their family member dies that they support October 7th or their family supports October 7th. Those kids’ parents supported kids dying on October 7th. Not justifying it just saying. Their parents supported dead babies. And now their babies are dead.
Oct 7th wasnt an attack on children. every day Israel intentionally kills children as a primary objective.
and even if some of the people in Gaza support killing babies, your point would only be pertinent if someone came in an said that no, those people dont support violence.
this is a war against children. the children are the main target. they kill the children on purpose.
Ok good faith check Victor: do children die in wars, even wars you would consider just?
if the answer to this is yes then no, it is not necessarily true that people that support the war support children dying.
no I took issue with a specific point that campfire tried to make. those people were not peaceniks and in fact by supporting Israel they do support some of the worst violence in the modern era. and no I dont support attacking them regardless.
Literally the only thing you can know based on the attendance of the rally was that they support the release of the hostages. And they are waving Israeli flags because they are meant to carry flags representing the countries of the hostages. Of course you are so quick to say they are bloodthirsty jews so you jump to conclusions.
Oct 7th wasnt an attack on children. every day Israel intentionally kills children as a primary objective.
and even if some of the people in Gaza support killing babies, your point would only be pertinent if someone came in an said that no, those people dont support violence.
You quite frequently call them innocent, and use people’s support of Israel to call them guilty. So I’m just creating this same us vs them narrative and throwing it up back at you.
And Hamas was trying to kill anyone they could get their hands on, they just got unlucky there weren’t enough children around. I’m sure they were disappointed they couldn’t take war spoils in accordance to their psychopathic interpretation of their religion.
