What's new

New Bomb For Iran-The mob (usa bomb)

That is a double-edged sword argument. If you casually broaden the scope of who is a legal combatant, the other side can do the same. That is what Osama bin Laden did when issued a fatwa that declared that by virtue of being an American citizen, all Americans are to be considered legal combatants under Islamic laws. Whether you agree with him or not is besides the point, which is that if the legal combatant definition is casually enlarged as you have done, some will disagree and some will agree. Those who agree will end up doing things like 9/11.

Well the other side already does it. According to them the majority of dead in both Lebanon and Gaza are militants. They even assassinate non-military targets, like politicians, intellectuals and scientists so what is your response?
I really don't care about bin laden, what ever floats his boat.
ALL fit Israelis must serve in the army, and become reserves afterwards. Therefore the only civilians I can see are Israelis below the age of 18, Israelis that have not served in the army, and israelis that are pensioned. The majority of americans never serve in the army, contrary to Israel and hence must be classified as civilians. Israel is an army with a country, not a country with an army. That's why I consider the majority of Israelis non-civilians. Nevertheless, I don't think you should engage people who are not physically armed. You can't really say the same about the israeli actions.
Apart from that, I recall the US using the term enemy combatants to creep around the geneva convention. Have you departed from that ?
 
.
Well the other side already does it. According to them the majority of dead in both Lebanon and Gaza are militants.
There are two separate issues here: who is a militant and is it illegal to kill a militant.

They even assassinate non-military targets, like politicians, intellectuals and scientists so what is your response?
Each kill must be examined and judge individually.

I really don't care about bin laden, what ever floats his boat.
Did not ask about your feelings for bin Laden. This is about the acceptance of his interpretation of what is a 'legal combatant' and under which legal system that support said interpretation.

ALL fit Israelis must serve in the army, and become reserves afterwards. Therefore the only civilians I can see are Israelis below the age of 18, Israelis that have not served in the army, and israelis that are pensioned.
Fair enough. That would place Swiss citizens in the same boat.

The majority of americans never serve in the army, contrary to Israel and hence must be classified as civilians. Israel is an army with a country, not a country with an army. That's why I consider the majority of Israelis non-civilians. Nevertheless, I don't think you should engage people who are not physically armed.
Too broad. The only time it is illegal to kill a legal combatant is when he offers his surrender. Else even though he is unarmed, it is legal to kill him.

Apart from that, I recall the US using the term enemy combatants to creep around the geneva convention. Have you departed from that ?
There is nothing wrong with the phrase 'enemy combatant'. The issue is who is a 'legal combatant'. A 'legal combatant' is one who conforms to the criteria outlined in the Geneva Convention, which I doubt you know where so I will provide it for you...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e63bb/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

Article IV of GC III demands that a 'legal combatant' must:

Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

* 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces

* 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
o that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
o that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
o that of carrying arms openly;
o that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


* 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

* 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.

* 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

* 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

* 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
Basically, qualifications for PoW status makes one a 'legal combatant' and those qualifications are highlighted. Who we called 'enemy combatants' did not conformed to the highlighted criteria hence they do not qualify for PoW status.

An armed combatant can be an 'illegal combatant', a mercenary is an 'illegal combatant'. A civilian can be a 'legal combatant' hence a legal target. Militias are civilian corps of armed combatants and as long as they conform to the highlighted criteria, if captured, they will earn PoW status. There is an additional demand for militias in that because they do not wear formal uniforms, once they organized themselves into a semblance of a military unit and distinguish themselves from other civilians, they must remove themselves from civilian enclaves. How they distinguish themselves from other civilians is up to them but the distinction must be visible. Even a colorful coat or headband will be acceptable. All members of this civilian combatant corps must be so distinct. All will earn PoW status if captured.
 
Last edited:
.
There are two separate issues here: who is a militant and is it illegal to kill a militant.

In your opinion what constitutes a militant? or let's say someone you are allowed to kill. Do you follow the GC definition?
Each kill must be examined and judge individually.

I will give you more specific examples. Some of the scientists and intellectuals that were assassinated by Mossad.

Yehya El-Mashad, Egyptian scientist assassinated in Paris in 1980
Sameera Mousa,Egyptian scientist assassinated in the US in 1952
Sayed Bdeer, Egyptian scientist assassinated in Alexandria in 1989
Sameer Najeeb, Egyptian scientist, assassinated in Detroit in 1967
Professor Mustafa Mashrefah, Scientists (one of Einstein's assistants) assassinated by Mossad
Dr. Nabil Al Laqeeni, disappeared under mysterious circumstances, Mossad assumed behind his disappearance
Dr. Jamal Hamdan, assassinated by Mossad
Dr. Salwa Habib, assassinated by Mossad in Cairo
Nabil Ahmed Fleifel, Palestinian nuclear scientist, assassinated by Mossad
Ramal Hassan Ramal who was one of the 100 best Physics scientists in the world, Lebanese, assassinated by Mossad
Masoud Ali Mohamadi, Iranian scientist assasinated in Iran 2009, Mossad assumed behind his death
Some 350 Iraqi nuclear scientists and more than 200 University professors, are assumed assassinated by Mossad
Ghassan Kanafani, Palestinian intellectual assassinated by Mossad in beirut along with his 16 year old niece
Etc etc etc

So my big question is... do you consider academics legitimate targets, just because they oppose you?

Did not ask about your feelings for bin Laden. This is about the acceptance of his interpretation of what is a 'legal combatant' and under which legal system that support said interpretation.

I don't accept his interpretation.

Fair enough. That would place Swiss citizens in the same boat.

Of course, I am not singling out Israel here, only the concept.

Too broad. The only time it is illegal to kill a legal combatant is when he offers his surrender. Else even though he is unarmed, it is legal to kill him.

So you do accept killing someone who is not armed or constitutes a threat to you?
Does it go the other way around when the target is let's say American or Israeli?

There is nothing wrong with the phrase 'enemy combatant'. The issue is who is a 'legal combatant'. A 'legal combatant' is one who conforms to the criteria outlined in the Geneva Convention, which I doubt you know where so I will provide it for you...

Sir, I am an academic besides having served in the Danish Army. I am fully aware of the Geneva convention and where to look it up.

Anyway thanks for refreshing my memory on the subject.
 
.
Very unlikely for the MOAB to be used against Iran. First of all, the attack on Iran seems more like a gasbag but really---the issue is again responsibility of both Iranian clerical government and Israeli government. The MOAB had not been used even during Afghanistan war or Iraq war which directly affected the Americans.

Why would they use it on Iran? Both the countries need to hold onto their horses. There would be no need for Israel to consider striking Iran or Iran to retaliate with ballistic missiles if Iran can control its loose cannon of a leader and Israel can stop worrying puppies over wargames after wargames for an air-strike against Iran.

Both need to reign in. United States has no direct threat from Iran onto its mainland yet unless of course its middle eastern assets are involved into the scenario.
 
. .
Very unlikely for the MOAB to be used against Iran. First of all, the attack on Iran seems more like a gasbag but really---the issue is again responsibility of both Iranian clerical government and Israeli government. The MOAB had not been used even during Afghanistan war or Iraq war which directly affected the Americans.

Why would they use it on Iran? Both the countries need to hold onto their horses. There would be no need for Israel to consider striking Iran or Iran to retaliate with ballistic missiles if Iran can control its loose cannon of a leader and Israel can stop worrying puppies over wargames after wargames for an air-strike against Iran.

Both need to reign in. United States has no direct threat from Iran onto its mainland yet unless of course its middle eastern assets are involved into the scenario.

lol you're so simple minded!
what are you talking about man?!

Do you actually think this whole thing is about Ahmadinejad and what he says???
It's about Iran not becoming a major player in the region. Israel isn't worried about being nuked. Israel is worried b/c when Iran gets a nuke it will get a million times more bold. If Iran captures the Iraqi oil fields, which are only a few kilometers away from the Iran-Iraq border, and also reoccupy Bahrain then Iran will have the world largest oil reserves and second largest gas reserves. That is a heck of a lot of more $ for weapons. A bolder Iran with nukes is a night mare scenario not only for Israel, but for all of the arab world. If Iran is funding hamas and hezbollah, imagine what we will do when we get a nuke.


This isn't about Ahmadinejad or certain people. ISrael doesn't want to see Iran ANYWHERE NEAR a nuke. Even a peaceful program is dangerous to Israel b/c Iran can one day restart the weapons program. They want a war at all costs.
 
.
dude come on that's utter BS, and you know it... Hasbara at its best. First of all you bring war to out cities where do you expect people to fight you then? second, have you heard about guerrilla warfare? you expect someone who is hopelessly outnumbered and out gunned to meet you on an open battlefield?


Are you seriously disputing Hezbollah's attempt to embed themselves among civilian populations to deter Israeli attack?

Taliban and Al-qaeda are peanuts compared to the Pakistani/American media. They are "hopelessly" outnumbered.

It doesn't change the fact that they deliberately hide behind civilians and protected targets.

But, what separates IDF and Pakistani is that Pakistani doesn't give two shits about what Al-qaeda/Taliban do, and make very, very little attempt to protect civilians lives.

Which is why they have killed tens of thousands of civilians since 2004.



Well, the idea is great, but we saw how useless it was in Gaza and Lebanon where the civilian casualties reached some 80%
Especially Gaza, were people had no where to go as there was bombing everywhere and hence we saw people who fled their home only to be bombed again somewhere else

Oh please. Civilian casualties were 30%.

89% of all casualties were combat-age males. Males outnumbered females by a factor of 9.

Even if we assume 80% of the casualties were civilian, it doesn't matter because Hamas deliberately hide behind civilian centers to avoid casualties.

HAMAS LEADERSHIP HIDE UNDER A HOSPITAL DURING THE WAR!

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? Tell me Palestinian??

The israeli society can't really be defined as civilians though as the greater majority are either active or army reserves.

That's a load of Hamas propaganda and you know it. Conscription does not mean everyone is a civilian.



Yes? muslim countries suck and your point is?




I think Israel gives more headache than the two combined, so we might try your solution then.

Do you honestly believe be removing Hamas and Hezbollah everything would be all swell? the root of the problem is Israel. Both of these groups emerged as a direct consequence of the Israeli occupation, you would know that if you read a bit more about it. As long as Israel is the way it is, more of these groups would pop up.

Actually it was a stalemate, but since you guys had objectives which none were ever reached, and you had way more soldiers and equipment on the ground with complete air and sea superiority
I would say that you guys lost. For each militant on the ground you had 5-10 soldiers backed up with armor and jets.
The casualties:
The lebanese casualties were as follows;
1,191 Lebanese civilians
53 Foreign civilians
5 UN employees
250 (Hezbollah est.) 500 Hezbollah (UN officials' est.) mean 375
Amal militia: 17 dead
LCP militia: 12 dead
PFLP-GC militia: 2 dead
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp: ~6-9
Lebanese Army: 28 dead
----------------------------
total 1691
76% civilians
24% militants

Israeli casualties:
121 soldiers
44 Israeli civilians
-------------
total 165
36% civilians
64% army


You are detached from reality. Hezbollah's entire military infrastructural was destroyed. Lebanon lost 3,000 KIA plus wounded. Israel incurred significant casualties but because its civil defense program is the most advanced in the world it did pretty world in comparison.

Plus, Israel was on the clock. Every time it goes to war it has to deal with the UN demanding a cease-fire. Thus their entire policy revolves around quick and decisive war.

Even Hezbollah's leaders admitted they wouldn't have kidnapped the IDF soldiers if they knew Israel would respond in such away.

Remember when a few rockets came out of Lebanon and hit the north 6 months ago?

Usually Hezbollah is proud to accept responsibility, but IMMEDIATELY they basically apologized and said it wasn't them.

Why the sudden change?



not true, as far north as Nahr el Bared refugee camp and Tripoli were hit. Saida/Sidon and bridges in Jouneh and the damascus freeway were hit. So it wasn't shia areas exclusively

It was shia exclusively, cept for when Hezbollah moves in different neighborhoods. The IDF saw this as a war with Hezbollah, not the Lebanese people.

Next war, it won't differentiate because Hezbollah is now a legitimate part of Lebanon.

Any rocket attack coming from Lebanon will be considered an act of war and the IDF can hit any part it chooses.

Hezbollah and their allies, with their voters comprise roughly half of the Lebanese people.

Hezbollah is a Syrian puppet. Syria occupied north lebanon for 30 years, assassinated hundreds of people who hated Hezbollah. the UN demanded hezbollah be disarmed in violation of the 2000 israeli-pullout which stipulated all terror groups disband and in exchange they would receive immunity.

Everyone disarmed except Hezbollah.

As far as I'm concerned, it is silly to punish Lebanon for what is Syria's business.

Next time there is a war, just bomb Assad's palace. Take out the source. Hezbollah would cease to exist without Syria's help.

I am not a big fan of the Syrian leadership so do that if you want, but realistically it is not a walk in the park I do think they have their preparations.

Yeah, Israel has defeated Syria in a humiliating fashion every war.

This is why it uses Hezbollah to fight Israel, because it is scarred shitless of a direct confrontation.

So my big question is... do you consider academics legitimate targets, just because they oppose you?

Academics that support terrorism, yeah definitely.

OBL is an "academic" technically.

Obama believes the man-hunts in Afghanistan qualify as "self-defense."

Israel should just follow what Obama and Company do.

Hell, Israel should just adopt the combat policies of Syria, Pakistan, India, China, and the USA.

No more double standard.

When the PLO turned against Jordan it killed 20,000 over a weekend. Muslim and Arab states know how to deal with terrorism. Coddling, peace process, negotiations...that doesn't work.
 
.
I think if the US had wanted to attack Iran, It wouldnt have let it come to a Position where it is now In the first place. They could have blocked these Iranian designs quite earlier.
Frankly Iran is being allowed to pursue nuclear technology both for peacefull and military purposes. I guess ground is being set to test latest weapons which could result in complete global domination of US with Arabs and Iranians and Israelis fighting each-other till the end.
 
.
Fox news, seriously? Learn how to educate yourself besides listening to the most biased Right Wing Conservative Media outlet in the world. Honestly though, what do you have to fear from Iran their military armed forces are from the 1970's. There is a Red Scare going that Iran is procuring Nuclear Weapons it will be awhile before they even achieve N-Bomb, also why isn't anyone talking about Israel Nuclear Weapons program you might as well have over 300-600 Nuclear Warheads, ranging from Intermediate to Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with MIRV capability, the Jericho III missile you have in your inventory has a range of over 7200 km, is your enemy in Europe? or possibly in Africa? I love how their is a double standard here, I'm not defending any country here. If you want to attack Iran go ahead but don't drag your Zionist Lobby into my government, having meetings that the U.S should take the first strike on the country Iran. There is no real solution to Iran Nuclear Program, as much pressure our government is putting on China and Russia, well China for the most part. Russia can be easily bought out because their economy has still not stabilized from the Cold War. China will never give into anymore Sanctions especially an attack on Iran, because their Interests would be in danger. That's why the U.S is asking the Saudi Arabia to offer Oil/Gas for a much less price than what Iran is giving them..

Oh and CNN and NBC are better???
 
.
Are you seriously disputing Hezbollah's attempt to embed themselves among civilian populations to deter Israeli attack?

No, but to hint that it is their main strategy is evidence of short-sight, Israel i.e camped and operated their troops from the vicinity of Arab towns and cities in the Galilee, so if you want to criticize Hezbollah, you should at least start to criticize your own leadership.


Taliban and Al-qaeda are peanuts compared to the Pakistani/American media. They are "hopelessly" outnumbered.

We are not discussing Taliban and AQ, I neither like them or support them, I am discussing Hezbollah, which faced you with a ratio of 1:5-1:10, and lacking jets and armor.

It doesn't change the fact that they deliberately hide behind civilians and protected targets.

Apart from a couple of cases, you don't have the evident to support such a claim.



Oh please. Civilian casualties were 30%.

89% of all casualties were combat-age males. Males outnumbered females by a factor of 9.

Even if we assume 80% of the casualties were civilian, it doesn't matter because Hamas deliberately hide behind civilian centers to avoid casualties.

I refer you to UN statistics, B'Tselem and the Goldstone rapport. There you will find the exact number and division of casualties.

HAMAS LEADERSHIP HIDE UNDER A HOSPITAL DURING THE WAR!

WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? Tell me Palestinian??

Palestinian? heh, normally we use names in here but ok Israeli.

They didn't, they were cowards, they were hiding behind or shall I say below civilians, I don't know and don't really care. This war killed too many civilians to justify any crying about such an issue. Take it to the international justice system. Oh wait, you didn't because you fear the outcome.


That's a load of Hamas propaganda and you know it. Conscription does not mean everyone is a civilian.

Not really, I haven't heard this from Hamas, nor am I a supporter of them. In my eyes, when you are a reservist, that routinely train your combat capability and is ready to be called in to fight, you are not a true civilian, but a spare-time civilian. Nevertheless, I am of the view that in decent warfare you only kill someone who is in combat fatigues and or armed. But in reality things are different.



You are detached from reality. Hezbollah's entire military infrastructural was destroyed. Lebanon lost 3,000 KIA plus wounded. Israel incurred significant casualties but because its civil defense program is the most advanced in the world it did pretty world in comparison.

Not really, I react on information provided by numerous trusted sources and conclude on my own. Yes Lebanon including the wounded suffered over 3000 casualties, more like 7000. I am solely talking about deaths.
Hezbollah's infrastructure was damaged, but not completely destroyed, or why else would there be a Winograd commission. Your leadership took Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah’s admission that he would not have authorized the July 12 action if he had known how strongly Israel would react as confirmation that the group had been weakened and that Israel’s deterrence had been strengthened. That's a rather lame reasoning. And most international defence analysts seem to disagree with the official Israeli account. Well at least Hezbollah seems to be even stronger today than it was in 2006 so I would say mission failed.


Even Hezbollah's leaders admitted they wouldn't have kidnapped the IDF soldiers if they knew Israel would respond in such away.

Yes they did, but as response to the internal pressure on Hezbollah due to the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure and many civilian deaths. Smart playing from Israel.

Remember when a few rockets came out of Lebanon and hit the north 6 months ago?

Usually Hezbollah is proud to accept responsibility, but IMMEDIATELY they basically apologized and said it wasn't them.

Why the sudden change?

Because it wasn't them but most likely a Palestinian faction or group or one of the many emerging islamists movement that took a shoot on Israel.



It was shia exclusively, cept for when Hezbollah moves in different neighborhoods. The IDF saw this as a war with Hezbollah, not the Lebanese people.

Nope, several targets, including bridges, the International Airport, power plants, highways etc were targeted, these belong to the Lebanese people and not Hezbollah.

You did actually engage the lebanese people, just look on the casualties, again only a small portion of these were Hezbollah.

Next war, it won't differentiate because Hezbollah is now a legitimate part of Lebanon.

So you are inciting to war crime here? did I understand this correctly?

Any rocket attack coming from Lebanon will be considered an act of war and the IDF can hit any part it chooses.

You already do that, nothing new. Collective punishment is a war crime you know?


Hezbollah is a Syrian puppet. Syria occupied north lebanon for 30 years, assassinated hundreds of people who hated Hezbollah. the UN demanded hezbollah be disarmed in violation of the 2000 israeli-pullout which stipulated all terror groups disband and in exchange they would receive immunity.

Hezbollah only in the 1990s came under Syrian influence. Before that it was assumed trained and armed by Iran.
Actually the Taif agreement of 1990 asked all armed factions to be disarmed, but as you said, Hezbollah didn't as a result of Syrian interference that allowed Hezbollah to continue its operation against Israel from the south.

As far as I'm concerned, it is silly to punish Lebanon for what is Syria's business
.

Exactly why bomb the hell out of Lebanon, when your beef is with Syria?

Next time there is a war, just bomb Assad's palace. Take out the source. Hezbollah would cease to exist without Syria's help.

Come on, have some common sense, Syria actually has very little control if any over Hezbollah. That won't solve your problem. At the same time, Assad is not in control of Syria, the military and intelligence is.



Yeah, Israel has defeated Syria in a humiliating fashion every war.

They have had more than 20 years to re-adopt their strategy.
Hint, it wouldn't be a classic warfare scenario.


This is why it uses Hezbollah to fight Israel, because it is scarred shitless of a direct confrontation.

And it's working.


Academics that support terrorism, yeah definitely.

None of the mentioned academics supported terrorism, plz try again. They were assassinated because Israel wants these countries to stay backwards and not become a real adversary. War crime.


OBL is an "academic" technically.

What are you talking about? OBL can't be classified an academic.

Obama believes the man-hunts in Afghanistan qualify as "self-defense."

They are hunting people who are involved in terrorism, not academics.

Israel should just follow what Obama and Company do.

They already did.


When the PLO turned against Jordan it killed 20,000 over a weekend. Muslim and Arab states know how to deal with terrorism. Coddling, peace process, negotiations...that doesn't work.

Yes that's good, show your real face :taz:
 
. .
And also the second largest natural gas reserves in the world.
But we will get our nukes sooner or later.

One thing I never understand is why would a Pakistani be worried??? The only thing we have in common with Pakistan is the Baluchistan region and we're dying to get rid of those backward creatures. Even if we would get bold after acquiring nukes Pakistan would be the last place on this round planet that we would invade. There is a million better places like Bahrain, Iraqi oil fields, a Persian speaking country etc...
what are you worried about exactly????

lol, we are too.
 
.
In your opinion what constitutes a militant? or let's say someone you are allowed to kill. Do you follow the GC definition?
A militant is someone who is passionate about a cause and is in the service of that cause. Said service can take any form but if it involves weapons then the GC does allow a militant 'legal combatant' status and PoW protection as long as he and others like him conform to Article IV of GC III.

I will give you more specific examples. Some of the scientists and intellectuals that were assassinated by Mossad.

Yehya El-Mashad, Egyptian scientist assassinated in Paris in 1980
Sameera Mousa,Egyptian scientist assassinated in the US in 1952
Sayed Bdeer, Egyptian scientist assassinated in Alexandria in 1989
Sameer Najeeb, Egyptian scientist, assassinated in Detroit in 1967
Professor Mustafa Mashrefah, Scientists (one of Einstein's assistants) assassinated by Mossad
Dr. Nabil Al Laqeeni, disappeared under mysterious circumstances, Mossad assumed behind his disappearance
Dr. Jamal Hamdan, assassinated by Mossad
Dr. Salwa Habib, assassinated by Mossad in Cairo
Nabil Ahmed Fleifel, Palestinian nuclear scientist, assassinated by Mossad
Ramal Hassan Ramal who was one of the 100 best Physics scientists in the world, Lebanese, assassinated by Mossad
Masoud Ali Mohamadi, Iranian scientist assasinated in Iran 2009, Mossad assumed behind his death
Some 350 Iraqi nuclear scientists and more than 200 University professors, are assumed assassinated by Mossad
Ghassan Kanafani, Palestinian intellectual assassinated by Mossad in beirut along with his 16 year old niece
Etc etc etc

So my big question is... do you consider academics legitimate targets, just because they oppose you?
No...Ideological and political opposition alone does not make a person a 'legal target', however, there is the participation clause that could place a civilian into that 'legal target' category. For direct participation, it would mean the civilian is engaged in an immediate activity or a long term endeavor that does have a causal relationship between action/product and harm. Nuclear weapons are intended for enemy civilian population centers. A civilian nuclear scientist, would not be so intellectual dishonest as to say he is clueless as to the nature and purpose of his work, and because of the high importance of nuclear technology, his indirect participation make him a 'legal target'.

The scope of participation covers not only the act of immediate assault but also that of setting fusing mechanisms on aerial delivery bombs by weapons technicians, or an avionics repairman working on the flightline, or a rear stationed commander giving out orders over the radio. These acts are aimed at inflicting physical harm or deaths or some form of destruction to the enemy. For a civilian nuclear technology and weapons scientist, his work would be considered indirect participation but because of the scale of destruction and target type -- civilians -- his work is no less significant at inflicting the same. For a non-technical academic who devote his time in indoctrination and training of suicide bombers, the target type -- civilians -- also make him a 'legal target'. The participation clause expect that the civilian forsee that his action, be it firing a rifle or designing nuclear triggers, will harm the enemy but not necessarily that he see the actual harm itself.

I don't accept his interpretation.
My point is that Osama bin Laden based his fatwa upon a set of principles, not of raw emotion, and that implies forethought. He argued that by virtue of being a US citizen and paying taxes -- membership and dues -- make any US citizen a legitimate target in an Islamic jihad. Basically, he broaden scope that the GC limited.

Of course, I am not singling out Israel here, only the concept.
Convenient.

Article 50.1 of Additional Protocol I states: '...in case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.'

Let us take at your previous argument...

The israeli society can't really be defined as civilians though as the greater majority are either active or army reserves.
ALL fit Israelis must serve in the army, and become reserves afterwards. Therefore the only civilians I can see are Israelis below the age of 18, Israelis that have not served in the army, and israelis that are pensioned.

How can you tell if someone is under 18? The Geneva Conventions allow civilian casualties, aka 'collater damages', as long as the civilian casualties are not excessive to the military advantage. So in order for Hezbollah et al to justify an attack on an Israeli marketplace filled with people in a mix of civilian garb and military uniforms based upon the knowledge that all Israelis over the age of 18 are either active duty or members of a reserve component, we need to know what is the military advantage of that marketplace. Or you will have to consider a gathering of these people as a troop formation whose destruction constitute said military advantage and that under-18 civilians are part of that 'collateral damages' calculus. Which inevitably lead to the question: Is membership in -- or even affiliation to -- the armed forces the same as participation in an armed conflict where active and direct participation are primary concerns to be considered a 'legal combatant' hence a 'legal target'? Your argument says 'Yes' regardless of status or type of participation, in other words, an unarmed reservist on vacation is as equally valid a target as an armed active duty trooper on the front line. Do you agree with my elaboration of your argument?

So you do accept killing someone who is not armed or constitutes a threat to you?
Does it go the other way around when the target is let's say American or Israeli?
Being unarmed does not mean the person is not a threat. A weapon equal an immediate threat. An unarmed soldier is not an immediate threat but he is rendered protection only if he display the universal sign of surrender, which is to raise both hands to indicate he is unarmed and willing to submit to the enemy's authority.

Sir, I am an academic besides having served in the Danish Army. I am fully aware of the Geneva convention and where to look it up.

Anyway thanks for refreshing my memory on the subject.
Then you should have no problems with the phrase 'enemy combatant'.
 
.
A militant is someone who is passionate about a cause and is in the service of that cause. Said service can take any form but if it involves weapons then the GC does allow a militant 'legal combatant' status and PoW protection as long as he and others like him conform to Article IV of GC III.


No...Ideological and political opposition alone does not make a person a 'legal target', however, there is the participation clause that could place a civilian into that 'legal target' category. For direct participation, it would mean the civilian is engaged in an immediate activity or a long term endeavor that does have a causal relationship between action/product and harm. Nuclear weapons are intended for enemy civilian population centers. A civilian nuclear scientist, would not be so intellectual dishonest as to say he is clueless as to the nature and purpose of his work, and because of the high importance of nuclear technology, his indirect participation make him a 'legal target'.

The scope of participation covers not only the act of immediate assault but also that of setting fusing mechanisms on aerial delivery bombs by weapons technicians, or an avionics repairman working on the flightline, or a rear stationed commander giving out orders over the radio. These acts are aimed at inflicting physical harm or deaths or some form of destruction to the enemy. For a civilian nuclear technology and weapons scientist, his work would be considered indirect participation but because of the scale of destruction and target type -- civilians -- his work is no less significant at inflicting the same. For a non-technical academic who devote his time in indoctrination and training of suicide bombers, the target type -- civilians -- also make him a 'legal target'. The participation clause expect that the civilian forsee that his action, be it firing a rifle or designing nuclear triggers, will harm the enemy but not necessarily that he see the actual harm itself.


Good, as long as what you say applies to all I don't mind the definition. Meaning that i.e. Israeli scientists and technicians are on the target list.

My point is that Osama bin Laden based his fatwa upon a set of principles, not of raw emotion, and that implies forethought. He argued that by virtue of being a US citizen and paying taxes -- membership and dues -- make any US citizen a legitimate target in an Islamic jihad. Basically, he broaden scope that the GC limited.

I still don't neither recognize or accept his wicked definition.


Let us take at your previous argument...

How can you tell if someone is under 18?
You can't. I think I had an emotional reaction to Israel's carelessness towards civilians that aren't its own.

The Geneva Conventions allow civilian casualties, aka 'collater damages', as long as the civilian casualties are not excessive to the military advantage.
So the roughly 80% civilian casualties of Gaza and Lebanon are a severe breach of the GC. Would you say that Israel then committed war crimes in both Lebanon and Gaza?


So in order for Hezbollah et al to justify an attack on an Israeli marketplace
I don't condone attacks on market places unless ALL there are military targets, and what are the odds of that, very slim.
filled with people in a mix of civilian garb and military uniforms based upon the knowledge that all Israelis over the age of 18 are either active duty or members of a reserve component, we need to know what is the military advantage of that marketplace. Or you will have to consider a gathering of these people as a troop formation whose destruction constitute said military advantage and that under-18 civilians are part of that 'collateral damages' calculus. Which inevitably lead to the question: Is membership in -- or even affiliation to -- the armed forces the same as participation in an armed conflict where active and direct participation are primary concerns to be considered a 'legal combatant' hence a 'legal target'? Your argument says 'Yes' regardless of status or type of participation, in other words, an unarmed reservist on vacation is as equally valid a target as an armed active duty trooper on the front line. Do you agree with my elaboration of your argument?

I am a firm believer in justice and human rights, if the GC allows it then Yes, if not, then of course no.

an unarmed reservist on vacation is as equally valid a target as an armed active duty trooper on the front line

Look, I hate the Israeli army for what it has done and does to others. But I would never target anyone who is not in connection with a conflict and battlefield, my religion simply prohibits that. Unless I know that this individual had been killing Palestinians or any other which I sympathize with.
I had a class mate who was an Israeli F16 pilot, did I ever hurt him, physically or mentally? absolutely not

Being unarmed does not mean the person is not a threat. A weapon equal an immediate threat. An unarmed soldier is not an immediate threat but he is rendered protection only if he display the universal sign of surrender, which is to raise both hands to indicate he is unarmed and willing to submit to the enemy's authority.

Well I know of many incidents where people were shoot because they were "labeled" militants or supporters of militants, i.e. a 60 year old man who returned to his home to get supplies not knowing the IDF had occupied it in the mean while, and was riddled with bullets because they labeled him a Hamas "spotter". He never got the chance to raise both his hands. What I am saying is that it is very convenient to kill civilians under the excuse of them being militants, and a dead body can't speak.

A big thank you for a rational and well written reply
 
.
I didn't like Benazir Bhutto but the one good thing she did was to use all of Pakistan's resources to fast track Pakistan's nuclear program. This was a great thing she did. Nuclear bombs have ensured the survival of Pakistan.

Benazir Bhutto said something to this effect:

"If we have to eat grass we will, but we are going to build a nuclear bomb."

:pakistan:

lol do u even know what ur are saying ? It wasnt Benzair but her father Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto . He was killed by CIA agent ZIA.:hitwall:
 
.
Back
Top Bottom