Meanwhile in Israel

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

1 hour ago, Dimron said:

I can't get my head around the hypocrisy.

Western weaponry used against Palestine hospitals and schools... that's okay, carry on

Russian weaponry used against Ukrainian hospitals and schools... crime against humanity

Can someone explain please?

Two reasons:

1. It's more the fact the attack on the Ukrainian children's hospital was an indisputable war crime

It was hundreds of miles from any war zone and there can be no doubt there wasn't any military infrastructure within the building

The same clarity doesn't exist in Gaza, although that, of course, doesn't mean war crimes have been committed

2. The morally bankrupt world of realpolitik - Russia is an enemy state and so it's easier to be critical because there's no risk of jeopardising any positive relationship (and, to be fair, also because the West has practically no influence over Russia)

Israel, although not an ally of the UK, has the support of the US, which is, of course, our biggest ally, so we and other European nations are much more reticent to stand in opposition

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

The same clarity doesn't exist in Gaza, although that, of course, doesn't mean war crimes have been committed

The above should obviously read "haven't been committed"

[Dimron]

It appears to me Russia and Israel are following the "old" rules of war although I'm not sure what the actual rules are these days.

I have all my WW2 history books spread out on the dining table and I am following the events of 80 years ago in Normandy day by day... on 9th July we carpet bombed Caen because it was in the way of our advance killing over 3,000 French civilians... that would certainly be a war crime by today's standards.

Doesn't justify what is happening but food for thought.

PS... on 11th July a squadron of the Lancashire Loyals (148th RAC) lost 10 out of 11 tanks in action in the ruins of Caen, their progress was impeded by the rubble.

[Not in Crawley]

1 minute ago, Dimron said:

It appears to me Russia and Israel are following the "old" rules of war although I'm not sure what the actual rules are these days.

I have all my WW2 history books spread out on the dining table and I am following the events of 80 years ago in Normandy day by day... on 9th July we carpet bombed Caen because it was in the way of our advance killing over 3,000 French civilians... that would certainly be a war crime by today's standards.

Doesn't justify what is happening but food for thought.

PS... on 11th July a squadron of the Lancashire Loyals (148th RAC) lost 10 out of 11 tanks in action in the ruins of Caen, their progress was impeded by the rubble.

Have a read of the definition of a Just War based upon old Thomas Aquinas which still forms the basis of moral philospohy on this (or Bellum Justum if you want to be all la di da as it appeared in Rome thoughts on the matter) justification of conflicts being probably one of the most difficult of humanities moral conumdrums.

In Medieval times there were sort of three conditions which still remain there or therabouts - and don't quote me on this as this was from a book I read over a year ago. Anyway its something like it must be declared by a legitimate authority as a last resort, it must have just cause ie self-defense and have a reasonable prospect of success.

Some of that has changed post WW2 and how it is written in Just Ad Bellum Convention by the UN and to those three tenets was added that 'the end being is proportional to the means' ie you can't just obliterate a state because you were initally attacked if you have the means to do so.

So Russia isn't following the 'old' rules of war - they are the agressor and on no moral and ethical grounds going back a thousand years would their conflict deemed to be Just. Similarly, now, the issue people have with Israel is that they are contravening the last article that the end is not propotional to the means and they are using the first three articles as a cover for expansionism. which is why politicians are saying, yes they have the complete right to defense themselves against agressors, but they have moved on from this now being a Just War.

Now, whether you think any war is actually Just - that's a whole other ball game.

 

[Dimron]

So Putin has broken the rules as war was not his last resort and although Netanyahu initially claimed self defence, really did not have a reasonable prospect of success as he was declaring war on an embedded culture (like Bush's War on Terror) and his acts are now disproportional. Both are guilty of expansionism as you say.

What still bothers me is what constitutes a crime in the actual theatre as we seem to be asking a lot of the military, remember Bloody Sunday?

 

[Not in Crawley]

2 minutes ago, Dimron said:

So Putin has broken the rules as war was not his last resort and although Netanyahu initially claimed self defence, really did not have a reasonable prospect of success as he was declaring war on an embedded culture (like Bush's War on Terror) and his acts are now disproportional. Both are guilty of expansionism as you say.

What still bothers me is what constitutes a crime in the actual theatre as we seem to be asking a lot of the military, remember Bloody Sunday?

 

The war in the Ukraine isn't a Just war not because it wasn't a last resort, it wasn't any resort. Russia invaded a self-governing country for which they had no justification for other than conquest.

Israel had moral and legal rights to defend themselves against agression as a recognised and legal state. Where it gets knotty is where you stand on Israel's stance on Palestine overall and if you believe Irsael themselves are the historical agressors and therefore Hamas were attacking Israel as a defense of their own country. But legally Hamas is recongised as a terrorist organisation and therefore leaglly don't have any rights to attack anyone in defense - and there lies the moral issues.

with bloody sunday - again the IRA, like Hamas, were recognised as a terrorist organisation, where you stand on the matter of Birtish 'occupation' of Northern Ireland will define whether you believe it was justified or not. But also the bloody sunday march was by the NICR - grey areas between that and the IRA obviously existed. Legally (and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me) whilst the protests were peaceful, they were also illegal, and whilst the British Army had the legal right to close it down morally its very difficult to defend unarmed cvillians being killed with the first bullet fired was from a British rifle - which is why belatedly the British Government apologised.

 

[Traf]

4 hours ago, Dimron said:

It appears to me Russia and Israel are following the "old" rules of war although I'm not sure what the actual rules are these days.

I have all my WW2 history books spread out on the dining table and I am following the events of 80 years ago in Normandy day by day... on 9th July we carpet bombed Caen because it was in the way of our advance killing over 3,000 French civilians... that would certainly be a war crime by today's standards.

Doesn't justify what is happening but food for thought.

PS... on 11th July a squadron of the Lancashire Loyals (148th RAC) lost 10 out of 11 tanks in action in the ruins of Caen, their progress was impeded by the rubble.

If you don't want to know the final result, look away now.

[Dimron]

4 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

The war in the Ukraine isn't a Just war not because it wasn't a last resort, it wasn't any resort. Russia invaded a self-governing country for which they had no justification for other than conquest.

Israel had moral and legal rights to defend themselves against agression as a recognised and legal state. Where it gets knotty is where you stand on Israel's stance on Palestine overall and if you believe Irsael themselves are the historical agressors and therefore Hamas were attacking Israel as a defense of their own country. But legally Hamas is recongised as a terrorist organisation and therefore leaglly don't have any rights to attack anyone in defense - and there lies the moral issues.

with bloody sunday - again the IRA, like Hamas, were recognised as a terrorist organisation, where you stand on the matter of Birtish 'occupation' of Northern Ireland will define whether you believe it was justified or not. But also the bloody sunday march was by the NICR - grey areas between that and the IRA obviously existed. Legally (and I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me) whilst the protests were peaceful, they were also illegal, and whilst the British Army had the legal right to close it down morally its very difficult to defend unarmed cvillians being killed with the first bullet fired was from a British rifle - which is why belatedly the British Government apologised.

 

But was it right to prosecute individual soldiers? We are expecting a lot of our servicemen and the ground rules, especially today are too vague. 

Seems to me the politicians get Knighthoods and the actual doers end up sleeping rough on park benches

[Dimron]

1 hour ago, Traf said:

If you don't want to know the final result, look away now.

That's the problem with my war history books... I know how they end 

[bolty58]

For all the words, bleeding heart liberalism, sympathy for those slaughtered whilst acting as human shields for the bad guys etc. this is only ending one way. When Hamas is ended.

We have all known this all along.

[Not in Crawley]

2 hours ago, Dimron said:

But was it right to prosecute individual soldiers? We are expecting a lot of our servicemen and the ground rules, especially today are too vague. 

Seems to me the politicians get Knighthoods and the actual doers end up sleeping rough on park benches

That's depends on your view and I don't know enough about the details - I was just talking about where justification in conflicts rests.

And servicemen not being treated correctly is a totally different discussion.

[Dimron]

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

For all the words, bleeding heart liberalism, sympathy for those slaughtered whilst acting as human shields for the bad guys etc. this is only ending one way. When Hamas is ended.

We have all known this all along.

The civilians support Hamas either because they agree or are scared of retribution.

Problem is the Israelis will only create Hamas Mark 2 by their actions... The young lads at the receiving end of all this will hate the Israelis forever... I know I would

[Zico]

28 minutes ago, Dimron said:

 

Problem is the Israelis will only create Hamas Mark 2 by their actions... The young lads at the receiving end of all this will hate the Israelis forever... I know I would

 

 

[bolty58]

8 hours ago, Dimron said:

The civilians support Hamas either because they agree or are scared of retribution.

Problem is the Israelis will only create Hamas Mark 2 by their actions... The young lads at the receiving end of all this will hate the Israelis forever... I know I would

Agree on all counts.

If, however, you had a serious tumour, would you have it cut out to minimise the risk of spreading or say 'fuck it' and leave it be hoping for a lengthy survival time but knowing all the time the fucker will get you sooner or later?

Tumour destroyed every time for me.

[Dimron]

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Agree on all counts.

If, however, you had a serious tumour, would you have it cut out to minimise the risk of spreading or say 'fuck it' and leave it be hoping for a lengthy survival time but knowing all the time the fucker will get you sooner or later?

Tumour destroyed every time for me.

I get your point but they are splattering the tumour making the risk of infection spreading by means of lots of new little tumours,,, the Israelis haven't been clinical enough

[kent_white]

2 hours ago, Dimron said:

I get your point but they are splattering the tumour making the risk of infection spreading by means of lots of new little tumours,,, the Israelis haven't been clinical enough

I was just about to say exactly the same thing. 

Plus - blasting my tumour wouldn't mean thousands of dead children.

[bolty58]

40 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I was just about to say exactly the same thing. 

Plus - blasting my tumour wouldn't mean thousands of dead children.

Your tumour wouldn't hide behind them.

 

[kent_white]

40 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Your tumour wouldn't hide behind them.

 

Which is why it's a bad analogy in the first place. 

Anyway - looks like this strike was on an area that Israel had declared a 'safe zone'. Are you alright with that? 

[Dimron]

We had a discussion in the office t'other day which went along the lines of 

I'm fed up with Israel

Who would miss them if we shut them down?

What do they contribute to world economy?

Price of avocados would go up

They are the worlds biggest expert in advanced intelligence equipment

So why didn't they predict the October attack?

How come they can't detect Hamas?

And so on... food for thought... I look forward to our breakfast chats

 

[bolty58]

2 hours ago, kent_white said:

Which is why it's a bad analogy in the first place. 

Anyway - looks like this strike was on an area that Israel had declared a 'safe zone'. Are you alright with that? 

Yes.

[London Wanderer]

59 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Yes.

Ooft

[London Wanderer]

Did they get the guy or not? That’s a shit load of dead innocents for one terrorist (that hasn’t even been confirmed yet) ….

All from the experts in advanced warfare technology . 

[DazBob]

So Bolty is fine with innocent kids being killed, but loses his shit when anyone makes a comment about a vile, sexist, racist, corrupt fucker like Trump being killed.

Wowsers.

[Jol_BWFC]

53 minutes ago, DazBob said:

So Bolty is fine with innocent kids being killed, but loses his shit when anyone makes a comment about a vile, sexist, racist, corrupt fucker like Trump being killed.

Wowsers.

He also posted on here about his fantasy of an assassination attempt accidentally killing Pelosi. He’s not wired up right.

I suspect no.1 on his bucket list is a lemon party with him, Trump and Farage, in a villa in Gibraltar, which has Maggie paintings hanging on the wall. The national anthem will be playing on repeat in the background.

[bolty58]

16 hours ago, DazBob said:

So Bolty is fine with innocent kids being killed, but loses his shit when anyone makes a comment about a vile, sexist, racist, corrupt fucker like Trump being killed.

Wowsers.

Keep trying Spazzy.

Bolty is fine with the elimination of Hamas fighters wherever they hide. The shithouses intentionally put innocents in the line of fire. Put the blame where it actually lies for once.

"Loses his shit"  You take hallucinogens don't you? To treat another ailment?

'Wowsers'. Fucking hell, you have a subscription to 'Storytime' don't you?