If you think civilians should die to spare soldiers lives.

[Eko]

Then you don't know what things mean.

[NoRethugFriends]

1. Very simplistic

[Eko]

2. Some things are.

[Eko]

4. Its all good though.

This is just an opinion. You are welcome to think that we should kill a lot of civilians to stop from losing some soldiers. Is it right or wrong? I can have an opinion that it is wrong. For you it's ok. Killing a lot if civilians is ok vs losing some soldiers. Personally I cant imagine that mindset but like I say people do have that.

[rampartc]

45. decisions made in very real time while lead is in the air

are difficult to second guess. the cold blooded strategy of civilian leadership to target and terrorize civilians (or to hide behind them) is a war crime.

[Abolishinist]

5. You're being kind.

[Eko]

11. Then by all means, be unkind.

[Abolishinist]

31. Sure. Let's start with this extremely profound statement...

"Then you don't know what things mean."

Surprise me, WTF does "you don't know what things mean" actually, well, mean?

If this were a debate, and one party put forth "you don't know what things mean", can you imagine the response of those judging the debate to this completely non-defensible statement? Things? Really?

[Eko]

33. Yeah,

Soldiers fight and die for causes. Civilians dont. Seems pretty easy.

[Abolishinist]

36. Of course. The Russian soldiers in Ukraine are dying for

a cause they believe in. The 58,000 U.S. soldiers who died in Vietnam died for a cause they believed in. As did the 36,000 U.S. soldiers who died in Korea.

Go with that.

[Eko]

39. As opposed to killing a lot of civilians?

Its almost as if you forgot that part.

[Abolishinist]

41. How is a conscripted soldier any different than a civilian when it comes to war?

It's not like they have a choice. And the odds of a soldier dying are FAR greater than a civilian.

[Arazi]

47. All Israelis are conscripts

You know that right? They have mandatory service

[Lunabell]

132. They should refuse to obey unlawful orders.

[EX500rider]

82. And which recent war didn't kill a lot of civilians?

[DemocraticPatriot]

105. But of course, most of the Russian soldiers in Ukraine DON'T believe

in Putin's cause.....

Quite right.

However, soldiers mostly just go where they are sent and do what they are ordered to do,
other than the exception who refuse to do so......

[CoopersDad]

145. If you're going to challenge the form but not answer the question, then...

...you might be missing the point of the post and the question.

Yeah, it could have been stated without that closing remark, but I'm more interested in answers to the question, the one that's going to go unanswered by many in this thread.

It's a hard question, I wish humankind had not lost its way, but we no longer care about civilians, but neither do we kill them to protect soldiers so much as to protect economic interests and ideologies.

It's very sad.

[bottomofthehill]

3. I don't know, do you think should have dropped the atomic bombs

That ended world war 2

[Eko]

7. I dont think so. At the least we could have dropped them outside of cities to show our strength.

The military in Japan was already talking about surrendering. Was it necessary? We will never know. Maybe so, maybe not.

[Arazi]

14. Wars are like that. Full of messy decisions

Weird how some countries get a pass for their decisions and ONE country gets unrelenting global condemnation.

Why is it that the only Jewish state in the world gets singled out for this kind of lashing? 🤔

[Eko]

16. Maybe because its not 1945?

[Arazi]

18. I don't hear any global condemnation for other wars happening now

There hasn’t been multiple UN resolutions on Saudi Arabia’s actual genocide in Yemen for example. Or Turkey’s attempted genocide against the Kurds.

Just Israel… again and again.

Even here.

How odd eh?

[Eko]

21. So your question is a what about?

Just for the record Saudi Arabia sucks, Turkey sucks. And Israel sucks. Happy?

[Eko]

32. You are still doing a whataboutism.

Personally i think that the influence we have over Saudi Arabia and Turkey is just about fucking nill. You may think differently but history shows you would be wrong. So if I put my thoughts towards something that has more of a possibility of changing please excuse me for doing so. And dont accuse me of excusing genocide of other assholes.

[Arazi]

35. We provide KSA almost all of their weapons

Last edited Wed Dec 27, 2023, 03:35 AM - Edit history (1)

If we stopped supplying them today, their wars would end today.

We supply maybe 10% of Israel’s military weapons. If we stopped supplying them today, they would continue , except slower and with more brute force since they’d stop listening to us at all.

You’d have far more success saving innocent civilian lives having a campaign against the Saudis.

Yet here you are, like everyone else, singling out Israel.

This isn’t a whataboutism. It’s a fucking point about this entire shitstorm of propaganda that people are getting suckered into about Israel alone - a topic that’s dividing Dems and turning them against voting for “Genocide Joe”.

[Eko]

40. We supply Israel with 92% of their arms.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+much+of+arms+do+we+supply+to+israel
Try again.

[Arazi]

44. We supply 92% of their weapons IMPORTS only

They manufacture the bulk of their own weapons now or repurpose Russian arms captured from their adversaries.

The Uzi, Merkava tanks, rocket propulsion systems etc are all Israeli.

[Bettie]

78. Then, they don't need billions from the US

Perhaps they could fund their own military.

[Arazi]

79. They do fund their own military

In fact, Israel is now a weapon exporter.

If we never sent them another piece of equipment, they would continue this war however. It wouldn’t stop anything.

To make an impact, we need to cut off the money, but nobody seems to focus on that, just weapons. Which leads me to believe that most people commenting on this are ignorant and propagandized.

[Bettie]

98. Ultimately, they

don't need money from the US. We should indeed stop sending it.

I wasn't really sure what they do with the billions the US sends them and didn't have time to look it up. Sorry to have been unclear!

[RandomNumbers]

74. To your last point:

"a topic that’s dividing Dems and turning them against voting for" Biden.

There are bad actors on ALL sides of this conflict. The place to look for the real bad actors is "who benefits most?"

* the mid-East conflict escalation from Oct 7th on, has taken attention and efforts from supporting Ukraine / Europe against Russian invasion. Hmm ...
* the mid-East conflict escalation from Oct 7th on, has aggravated existing fault lines of division within the Democratic party; conveniently (and one might say strategically) timed to impact the 2024 presidential election in the U.S. Hmmm ....

[Arazi]

75. Exactly. Cui bono? 🎯

[Redleg]

70. Perhaps you have forgotten about the Balkans wars in the 90s

The international community did hold some of the leaders accountable for warcrimes and other atrocities. Israel was the victim of Oct. 7 atrocities. They should be careful not to become the villain in their execution of the war against Hamas.

[Arazi]

71. Thank you. Good points and agreed

I’m hopeful a truth and reconciliation commission might occur someday (far) in the future for the I/P conflict. Similar to Rwanda.

I don’t see the US allowing Israeli leaders to go up to The Hague but accountability is crucial

[AloeVera]

94. Thank you for mentioning a truth and reconciliation commission.

I fervently hope so. But the longer this war drags on, the more people killed, the less that seems likely, at least to me.

[TheKentuckian]

80. Whataboutism was never intended as an all purpose

force field to ignore all context.

Abuse of a rhetorical device to avoid uncomfortable questions.

[Hekate]

101. Don't forget Russia. This is their second attempt at wiping Ukrainians off the face of the Earth

It’s amazing how Ukraine has dropped out of the news, and still the Russians proceed…

[Happy Hoosier]

125. Nope it's not... but...

Hindsight is still hindsight.

It’s very easy to say soldiers should be sacrificed to protect civilians when you aren’t ordering the soldier to sacrifice themselves, or if that soldier isn’t your kid.

[EX500rider]

83. Apparently Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Myanmar, Sudan, Ethiopia etc aren't a problem

Just Israel, strange that...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts

[Arazi]

86. Yes, exactly. Why single out Israel?

Pro-Pal DUers and other pro-Pal supporters nationwide need to cultivate some more critical thinking skills about why anger about this particular conflict is being stoked globally.

I’m not doing “whataboutism” when I bring up other conflicts and the lack of protests/outrage about those conflicts It’s simply to demonstrate my point and my growing concern people are being played. Dems especially

[ecstatic]

99. Probably because those other situations aren't on the news day in and out

And most people aren't even aware of those issues. Unfortunately.

But are you suggesting that we should ignore the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza because other countries are committing atrocities in other places around the world?

It's going to be hard to convince people to do that.

Again, over 20,000 people, mostly women and children have been killed for what Hamas soldiers have done. They are homeless, starving, living in filth and exposed to infectious diseases. That is not right or fair. It's inhumane and President Biden really needs to put an end to this.

It's time to stop this hateful "human shields" bullshit and hold Israel/bibi accountable. The US is accountable as well at this point. SMH.

[AloeVera]

102. + A Million!!!

Lots of truth here.

"Hateful 'human shields' bullshit" - that's the most truth I've seen in a while.

IMO it's a clever pretext invented to justify and cover-up intentional and unnecessary destruction and vengeance. Useful also in salving consciences of good people who would not otherwise support such destruction.

There are no "human shield" categories in international law, only combatants, non-combatants/civilians. In essence the human shield argument boils down to taking away all protections from civilians by virtue of their supposed close proximity to Hamas fighters. It's clever in that it puts the blame on the opponent while allowing oneself to break all laws of war and morality.

Bullshit is the best description of it.

[EX500rider]

111. " taking away all protections from civilians by virtue of their supposed close proximity to Hamas fighters."

And how else would that work?
So Hamas can kill all the Israeli's they can, then back across the border amoung civilians and now the IDF can't touch them?
Zero militaries would let that work.
The US certainly wouldn't.

The U.S. post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Pakistan have taken a tremendous human toll on those countries. As of September 2021, an estimated 432,093 civilians in these countries have died violent deaths as a result of the wars.
Yet where are the calls of genocide in those cases?

[TheKentuckian]

116. What part of Hamas using human shields is bullshit?

They are exactly doing so.

How else could one even describe the situation?

[Eko]

138. Pretty sure I had a lot of condemnation on my own country when we attacked Iraq.

[yagotme]

136. Not correct:

The military in Japan was already talking about surrendering.

Tojo was trying to unseat the Emperor after the first bomb, as the Emperor was willing to end the war then. Tojo wanted to continue the war, and the 2d bomb pretty much changed all the war hawks minds. An actual land invasion would have probably caused millions of Japanese casualties, military and civilian alike, as women and older children were being trained to fight. Our troops would have had to shoot thousands and thousands of women and children, most likely for nearly a year, if not for the A-bomb.

[Eko]

137. I will revise that to say that some in the military were already talking about surrendering.

One of them even wrote a book about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416?crid=L9TH209B8FXW&qid=1651353080&sr=8-1&linkCode=ll1&tag=000000123-20&linkId=3ac43ce2aa413a2bfacdceadc02cf5cb&language=en_US&ref_=as_li_ss_tl

[yagotme]

149. But most of the top leaders weren't.

Japan had a strict military hierarchy.

[obamanut2012]

150. No, I don't

I very reluctantly can understand the first bomb, but not the second. I also believe Dresden and Tokyo were war crimes as much as the Blitz was. There is a reason why instances of slaughtering civilians during WWII created international laws protecting civilians, etc.

[dgauss]

6. The Hamas soldiers who killed Israeli civilians would probably agree.

It's not that simple.

[Eko]

8. And they are the standard that we should use?

[TheKentuckian]

81. No, but what standard should be used?

What is the gold standard of conducting similar urban campaigns when the enemy uses human shields that we are comparing to here?

[Happy Hoosier]

126. The standard should be...

To avoid civilian casualties insofar as reasonably practical without incurring unreasonable risks.

That doesn’t mean that soldiers should be routinely sacrificed to avoid civilian casualties.

[RockRaven]

9. There is also the issue of why anyone should believe an institution whose

basic function is killing and maiming people when they say "oh, well, we had to kill these people to kill these other people without killing yet some other people, you see..."

Any American who bothered to pay attention knows that the DOD shoveled a fuckton of that bullshit in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam, just to name three examples. Now we're supposed to believe the same line from some other government/military... why, exactly?

[Eko]

12. Bam.

[BannonsLiver]

68. Maybe if you locked arms and sang "Give Peace A Chance" we could have it.

[onecaliberal]

76. Thank you, RockRaven! X1000000000

[Kaleva]

10. What is your opinion on the bombing of German & Japanese cities?

Where hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in an effort to shorten the war and save our soldiers lives?

[Eko]

15. That's a good question.

Best yet. The ability of our bombers to do anything even remotely precise was a pipe dream for the most part during that time. If you look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq you can see how our precise bombing minimized that. Bringing up an 80 or so year old military tactic and applying it to now is just,,,,,, wrong.

[Kaleva]

20. Cities were specifically targeted

In an effort to demoralize the Germans and Japanese populations.

It's one thing to target industrial centers and railroad hubs and end up killing civilians because of the inherent inaccuracies of the weapons used at the time and quite another to target civilians.

[Eko]

22. Because our bombers sucked.

[Kaleva]

30. Would you have opposed the bombing of cities?

Or would you have supported the killing of civilians in an effort to shorten the war and save our soldiers lives?

[Eko]

34. Then? Yes.

Now? no.

[tazkcmo]

49. Dresden was not destroyed due to inaccuracies.

It was purposely leveled despite having no military significance.

[sir pball]

72. The targeting of entire cities is expected in a total war.

Total war is a different animal than any kind of "regular" warfare. Quoth the Wiki:

Total war is a type of warfare that includes any and all civilian-associated resources and infrastructure as legitimate military targets, mobilises all of the resources of society to fight the war, and gives priority to warfare over non-combatant needs.
The term has been defined as "A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded."

All I will say beyond that is that it does seem to me that Hamas declared a "total war" on 10/7.

[AloeVera]

100. You disregard the insane asymmetry of military capabilities.

Hamas' total war resulted in 1200 deaths. Israel's will result in tens of thousands, if not more by the time they are done. That's not proportionality or humanity.

Also a "total war" is now considered illegal and barbaric. See Geneva and Protocols and other international and humanitarian laws

Interesting that in the same Wiki article, only 4 post-WWII conflicts are characterized as "total war".

1948 Arab–Israeli War (1948–1949)
Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988)
Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022–present)
2023 Israel–Hamas war (2023–present)

That's not the company we want to keep, is it?

I'm sure you are not OK with Israel or any "civilized" and progressive Western nation conducting such a war.

[CincyDem]

157. Those asymmetries are real and were known to Hamas before 10/7 attack.

Hamas attacked with this knowledge baked into their strategy. To me, if Hamas wasn’t concerned about it then, it’s unimportant now.

[AloeVera]

159. True enough.

They knew. Who can figure the minds of desperate, fanatical men with not much to lose and only caring for their cause? It's the story of how terrorists are made.

I raised the asymmetry to point out the difference in the amout of damage and deaths each side is capable of inflicting in a "total war" situation. Palestinians always lose out, total war or not.

[CincyDem]

162. Yep...

...and it didn't influence their decision.

Respectfully, as always (cuz I'm never disrespectful to a "toddler-herder" ), I'm not sure Palestinians always lose out. I think there are 1.6 million Palestinians living in Israel proper as citizens with all the travel freedoms of Jewish Israeli citizens. That's 20% of the population. For perspective, the odds of crossing paths with a Palestinian Israeli in Tel Avi or Jerusalem are kinda like the odds of crossing paths with a black guy in Philly or Detroit. Meeting a Palestinian Israeli in a bank, a restaurant, a corporate job...no big deal.

There are Palestinian Knesset members, judiciary members, educational leaders. Not like I've talked to all 1.6 million but I've spent time with many Palestinian Israelis in their homes during my travels there and I'd guess, just like any population group you look at in any country...their experience runs the gamut and, on average, they're doing about the same as many (maybe most) Israeli secular Jews. Palestinians vs. the Orthodox Israeli communities...oy...anyone vs. the orthodox is a whole different story in Israel so let's move on.

I think the Palestinians who always lose out are the ones who consistently spend their every waking moment trying to destroy Israel in any way possible. That's not an economic growth engine and it's proving to not be a sustainable business model on which to base a country. One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for a different outcome. Hamas (and the PLO before them) along with a variety of splinter terrorist groups in Gaza continue to start the same fight over and over again with the same enemy who has had an asymmetric advantage for generations.

At some point, maybe they try something different...like...say...giving up on the "kill all Jews" thing because that's not doing the any favors it would seem. In the long run, that would probably go a long way toward getting to some kind of peaceful two state solution. Not tomorrow but someday.

In the short run, I.m gonna pull out my broken record...if Hamas releases all the hostages from 10/7...this shit will stop within 12 hours. It would literally pull the global rug out from under their military campaign. Bibi will crawl back into his rhetoric about destroying Hamas but at that point, he'd have virtually no support inside or outside Israel for continuation. At the same time, Gaza can start picking up the pieces.

Combine the two, jettison the kill all Jews thing AND return the hostages...my guess is that you'd see international aid/investment pouring into Gaza the likes of which we haven't seen since the Marshall Plan to rebuild Germany.

Anyway - we'll see. With no change in strategy from Hamas in either the short or the long term, Gaza will continue as the anvil while Israel continues as the hammer.

Have a good one.

[AloeVera]

164. Well, I've been called a few things... but LOL "toddler-herder"? I like it!

That's it for now but... to be continued.
Have a good one too.

[CincyDem]

165. May that be the worst thing you're called for a while. Later... n/t

[Swede]

73. Our bombers deliberately dropped incendaries on Tokyo, Dresen, Hamburg etc etc

The purpose was to kill as many civilians as possible.

[ProfessorGAC]

139. On Many Japanese Cities

On a nightly basis. And yet, at that point, Japan wasn't remotely close to suing for peace.
Civilian casualties were ok by them.

[Happy Hoosier]

127. You assume... wrongly...

That civilians weren’t targeted in WWII. They were. The fire bombing of Dresden was deliberate.

Fun story… my mom lived in Berlin in WWII. A bomb fell in to her apartment while she was in it, bit did not explode.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

128. That is one very lucky mom,

its the reason you're here now.

[Eko]

134. I never said the civilians wern't targeted in WW2.

I said that our bombers were inaccurate and they were. We don't have to resort to tactics like that because our artillery and bombs are much more precise.

[claudette]

48. Me?

I think it is ALWAYS wrong to target civilians. Period. The atom bomb was the worst mass murder in any war. Its effects continue to this day

[Kaleva]

55. The Mongols killed about 40 million

Vast majority were civilians

[claudette]

57. And?

All at once like the atom bomb? With such a horrible way to die? Leaving after effects that still disable people? ALL killing of civilians is wrong. As I said. To say at least America wasn’t as bad as the Mongols is no comfort to me.

[Chainfire]

64. The bombing of city centers was wrong in WWII, and it does not excuse the process going on in Gaza today.

In WWII terror bombing failed miserably. Terror bombing brought the people together, it didn't make them turn out against their own government as was hoped. The Allies should have learned that lesson from London. Even the bombing of military targets did not attain the goals that the military sought. Through all of the mass bombings, production in Germany continually increased until the final few months of the war.

In the long run, Israel's campaign in Gaza will not work to the advantage Israel either.

[TheKentuckian]

117. Until the final months of the war...Correct.

Attrition is a thing.

I'm unsure what lessons you believe should have been learned.

[obamanut2012]

151. War crimes, as was the Blitz

Which is why we now have laws against this.

[Kaleva]

158. Winners decide what constitutes a crime

"Six years before his death, McNamara took part in the documentary “The Fog of War.” When asked about U.S. actions in Japan during World War II, McNamara responded, “LeMay said if we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals. And I think he’s right. . . . LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose, and not immoral if you win?”"

https://medium.com/retro-report/the-u-s-general-who-called-himself-a-war-criminal-8789703305f5

[Arazi]

13. Hamas thinks that. They're using human shields to protect themselves

I absolutely know what that means and believe Israel should destroy this group.

[Eko]

17. Good for you.

Kill all the civilians around them right?

[Arazi]

19. It's your point dude. Not mine

[Eko]

24. So you are saying not to kill the civilians around them?

Im glad you are against this.

[Arazi]

28. Pretty sure everyone on DU is against that

But it’s a fucking war.

Hamas actually wants civilians in the way, maimed and killed…

[Eko]

37. Yes they do.

And Israel keeps doing that. Isnt that enough to make you take a step back and say what is happening here? Let me ask you this, what amount of civilians is this worth? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? A million? Is there a point where you are like whoa man, thats too much and if so what is it?

[Arazi]

42. Weird how nobody's asking how many dead civilians is too many

in Yemen. 377,000 killed there and obviously that never triggered you. So if 377,000 dead civilians never provoked any outrage on your part that’s probably a fair number for Israel right? 🤔

(Pssst, it’s a war. All civilian deaths are a horror and every single one is bad)

[Eko]

43. how do you know it never triggered me?

[Arazi]

46. Did a search and didn't see any posts from you about it

Feel free to correct me

[betsuni]

53. Thank you for all your comments.

[2naSalit]

56. So...

When triggered, one must post about it?

There's yer proof right there.

[Beastly Boy]

58. No, one must keep silent about it. Unless it's Israel.

Last edited Wed Dec 27, 2023, 11:41 AM - Edit history (1)

That was the point, wasn't it? The particular response to being triggered which conspicuously stands out.

[Arazi]

62. Yes that's the point. Only Israel gets this outrage

Virtually every other conflict within DUs history has gone by with hardly a mention. Same at the UN. Same in the US.

Those conflicts had FAR more civilian casualties and outright brutality than what’s happening in Gaza.

It’s either antisemitism and/or it’s part of a wider operation to destabilize western democracy-loving coalitions. My guess is the Kremlin is orchestrating this global hate-fest since it literally started within hours of Hamas’ attack and felt prepared. I was awake that night and posted about the attack in real time then watched the celebrations start…

Nobody thinks Israel’s response is ok - they should have gone in far more surgically and frankly it feels as though they HAVE fallen for an orchestrated trap. I hate the destruction and loss of lives however anyone who believes a different Israeli PM would have done it differently is smoking crack. Israel IS going to destroy Hamas.

So unless you were crying about 377,000 dead civilian Yemenis (as one example) it really looks suspect that you’re now howling about 20,000 dead in Gaza…

[TheKentuckian]

66. "This" being destroying the capacity for more attacks?

There is no such math.

What population on Earth would be like "lets absorb massacres, rape gangs, mutilations, and hostage taking of our citizens to minimize civilian deaths because the same enemy employs the use of human shields"?

It is only somewhat more absurd than "Let us spend the blood of our sons and daughters like water to protect the enemy civilians, our children are just expendable resources".

[Jedi Guy]

23. No military is obligated to sacrifice the lives of its own troops to protect civilians.

From a purely objective standpoint, soldiers are resources. Any good commander knows (and hates) that some will die in accomplishing a given objective, but because they're a finite resource they must be carefully spent. That being the case, military commanders aren't going to put their own troops in harm's way to protect civilians on the other side. They put them in harm's way to achieve the objective.

The IDF wasn't about to just throw its troops into the meat grinder of urban combat right out of the gate and expecting that they would is frankly silly. That's not how war works in the 21st century.

[Eko]

25. Countries are though.

[Jedi Guy]

27. Yeah, Russia is known for not giving a shit about their own troops.

IDF has no obligation to be the same way. And I might suggest that wishing for the IDF to behave like the Russian military might not be a great thing to wish for.

[Eko]

38. As if Russia is the only military to

minimize civilian losses in war. Give me a break.

[edhopper]

52. Then who does?

We didn't in most of our wars.

[EX500rider]

113. When did Russia ever try and do that?

Do they call the Ukr civilians and ask them to move for their safety? No, wait, that's the IDF who does that.

[OAITW r.2.0]

29. WTF are you talking about? Which theater?

[SarahD]

50. That was our approach in Iraq

We bombed many civilian areas to make sure we knocked out anything that might be useful to the Iraq military. Most Americans seemed OK with it. I think it was wrong, but then I thought the whole Iraq war was wrong.

[Patton French]

51. Nice straw man. NT

[BannonsLiver]

67. It's not even that nice.

It’s child like logic one might expect from a 5 year old.

[lostnfound]

54. Serious question. Do you view the fire bombing of Tokyo or the atomic bombs consistently with that?

It is rate for me to hear such comments when US history is discussed.

[Beastly Boy]

59. Speaking of not knowing what things mean:

Articles 28 and 29 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

ART. 28. — The presence of a protected person may not be used
to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

ART. 29. — The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected
persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them
by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may
be incurred.

Notwithstanding what you think, and in the particular conflict you are eluding to, you do know in whose hands the civilians were at the time of military operations, don't you?

[AloeVera]

104. Can you clarify please?

Last edited Wed Dec 27, 2023, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you highlighting these two articles in defense of Israel's conduct of the war or to point out Hamas' obligations in the treatment of the hostages and perhaps protection of its civilians?

Because if the former, you have misinterpreted the intent of both articles.

If the latter, Article 29 lays out that both the State and the individual are responsible for the lawful treatment of protected persons in their control - that applies to both sides, whether in control of hostages or civilians. Article 28 prohibits us of "human shields" in areas of strategic importance that may be subject to military operations.

So a statement like "you do know in whose hands the civilians were at the time of the military operations" makes no sense in light of these two articles - unless you are referring to the hostages, and not Palestinian civilians.

Thanks.

[Beastly Boy]

112. I can only clarify what I understand from your post.

Article 28 is fairly self-explanatory: Hamas may not use the presence of civilians to render their military resources, wherever Hamas chooses to deploy them, be it hospitals, apartment houses or schools, immune from being targeted by Israel.

Article 29, having additional more general applications, assigns the responsibility for the consequences described in Article 28 in particular: Hamas, being the party to the conflict in whose hands Gazan civilians referred to in Article 28 are, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by any Hamas militant, operative, terrorist or official, etc., and that treatment includes being subjected to enemy fire.

Given the two choices you describe in your post, I am guessing it would more closely, but not entirely, resemble the latter. But this doesn't preclude the relevance of the former. While Hamas, as per Article 29, is responsible for permitting and facilitating civilian losses, they are not immune, as per Article 28, from being targeted by Israel in addition to them taking on the responsibility for subjecting civilians to enemy fire.

I am not exactly clear which part of the above makes no sense to you, or why.

[AloeVera]

115. You are unclear because your understanding of the articles is not correct.

Article 28 does NOT give the right to attack those areas where civilians are unlawfully being used as "human shields" in order to try to prevent those attacks from occurring. Instead, it simply prohibits the use of civilians as human shields in order to, or with the intention of, rendering them immune to military attack. If you doubt me, you can read the Commentary of 1958 attached to the Article. It's really dense reading but here is the relevant passage that makes it a bit clearer.

The lawfulness of ruses of war depends on the observance of the laws and customs of war, which are themselves based on the principle of respect for the civilian population. Consequently, the presence of civilians must never be used to render immune from military operations objectives which are liable to be attacked.

Article 29 - Simply clarifies that the Party in whose hands civilians are held is responsible not just for its own actions but for those of its agents. While Israel can argue that Hamas is putting civilians in harm's way, this Article can't be used to absolve Israel of responsibility for actually harming them. The harm is being committed by Israel directly, not by Hamas or its agents.

The protection of civilians, human shields or not, means keeping them safe from harm. Whether that is by not using them as human shields or not attacking them when they are being used in such a way - both cases apply. You can't just choose one and ignore the other.

[Beastly Boy]

121. I am not sure how clear your understanding of the Articles is.

Of course Article 28 doesn't give the right to attack any areas where civilians are located. Nor does it say anything about civilians being used as human shields. It specifically states that staging military operations in the presence of civilians does not make the belligerent immune from being targeted.

I didn't find the 1958 commentary to Article 28 particularly dense, but what I found was that you are quoting it out of context. The quote, including the pertinent part that you omitted, states:

The lawfulness of ruses of war depends on the observance of the laws and customs of war, which are themselves based on the principle of respect for the civilian population. Consequently, the presence of civilians must never be used to render immune from military operations objectives which are liable to be attacked.

The commentary later states:

The prohibition is expressed in an absolute form and applies to the belligerents' own territory as well as to occupied territory, to small sites as well as to wide areas."

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/article-28/commentary/1958?activeTab=undefined

The reference is clearly to the Party that is using the civilians to avoid being targeted and not to the Party that targets them. The commentary actually interprets Article 28 as an absolute prohibition against the use of civilians in seeking immunity from military operations. It amplifies, not belittles, Hamas' responsibilities under Article 29.

Article 29, in turn, does not just "simply clarify that the Party in whose hands civilians are held is responsible not just for its own actions but for those of its agents." This clarification, first and foremost, broadens the extent of Hamas' responsibilities to include those of its agents. Both the Party to the conflict in whose hands civilians may be and the Party's agents, are equally responsible for whatever happens to civilians in their hands. Thus, when Abdullah the aspiring martyr lunches rockets from the grounds of a kindergarten, both he and Hamas are responsible for the fate of civilians who are harmed when Yossi the pilot from IDF targets Abdullah and his rocket launchers. Their shared responsibility does not extend to Yossi or Israel, and is absolute, as per Article 28.

It is obvious that, generally speaking, the protection of civilians means keeping them safe from harm. However, Article 29 spells out, clearly and unambiguously, who is responsible for protecting the civilians. It is the Party in whose hands the civilians are that is responsible for how the civilians are treated by its agents, the prohibitions that are spelled out in Article 28 included. Not the Party in whose hands the civilians aren't.

[AloeVera]

122. Article 28 first

I didn't quote anything out of context, nor leave pertinent parts out. I highlighted the pertinent part, in order to clarify that the article is based on the principle of protection of civilians and only addresses the prohibited use of civilians in Danger Zones prone to military attack, with the intention of making that zone immune from attack..

It does not, as you conclude:

It specifically states that staging military operations in the presence of civilians does not make the belligerent immune from being targeted.

What I argued and continue to do, is that the Article can't be interpreted and broadened, as you have done, to arrive at your conclusion.

There is a vast difference between saying you, Hamas or any other party, can't use civilians in a way that you hope will make you immune from attack vs saying you, Hamas or any other party will not be immune from attack if you do.

Any clearer?

[Beastly Boy]

135. No, you are not making yourself any clearer.

While you did quote the 1958 commentary to Article 28 out of context, and you did leave much of the quoted paragraph out, let's agree with going with Article 28 first.

What is the purpose of Article 28? You are saying it "only addresses the prohibited use of civilians in Danger Zones prone to military attack, with the intention of making that zone immune from attack". If this were the only thing it does, Article 28 would have been absolutely pointless. No, Article 28 doesn't address the prohibited use of civilians, it creates the prohibition against using civilians to immune military objects from being targeted. Prior to it being created, there would be no prohibition to address in the first place. And a prohibition, by definition, implies consequences when it is violated. Essentially, Article 28 defines a war crime.

So what happens if the presence of a protected person is used in such prohibitive manner? You seem to be suggesting that this outcome is not being addressed at all. Which would, of course, make Article 28 meaningless.

But looking down to Article 29, which immediately follows Article 28, you will find the answer to this question:

The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents

While not directly referring to Article 28, it is applicable to Article 28. And in the current conflict, Hamas, being the Party in whose hands the civilians are, is responsible for their treatment accorded to them by agents of Hamas, be they terrorists, militants or hospital administrators, the treatment in this case being the use of civilians as human shields. To put it in more direct terms, Hamas is responsible for a war crime every time the prohibition against using civilians to render Hamas military objects immune from attack is violated by anyone affiliated with Hamas.

[AloeVera]

141. I made myself clear, you just won't admit you were wrong.

One last chance, do you admit you were wrong when you said this about Article 28?:

It specifically states that staging military operations in the presence of civilians does not make the belligerent immune from being targeted.

Look, we all make mistakes. I'm not trying to score points, I just need to know I'm devoting my time to honest debate or I'm out.

Thanks.

[Beastly Boy]

142. Do you admit you were wrong when you said this about Article 28?:

"only addresses the prohibited use of civilians in Danger Zones prone to military attack, with the intention of making that zone immune from attack".

This is no more accurate of Article 28 than what I said.

Do you admit that you did quote the 1958 commentary to Article 28 out of context, and that you left much of the quoted paragraph out?

If you do, then you will have to also admit that you are making yourself disingenuous, by choice. And if you don't, you ARE trying to score points.

Of course you have not been devoting your time to honest debate, and I know it as well as you do.

[AloeVera]

143. We're through.

Good luck finding people to engage with. I really tried with you.

[Beastly Boy]

144. I know.

I knew it before you posted.

[The Magistrate]

60. Soldiers Do Not Think Their Civilian Fellow Citizens Lives Should Be Lost To Preserve Their Own

Soldiers do think the lives of anyone in the enemy camp, combatant or otherwise, worth nothing in compare to their own.

[Whiskeytide]

61. 30,000 American mothers and wives in 1945 might disagree with you. n/t

[sarisataka]

63. Of course not

That is why we have the Conventions that say it is a war crime to put civilians at risk by utilizing civilian infrastructure or hiding amongst a civilian population.

Doing such drastically increases civilian casualties.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

65. Let me hypothesize here,

suppose I'm in an active combat zone and there is an enemy hiding behind a civilian getting ready to ghost me, am I supposed to just let the enemy combatant shoot me because they're hiding behind a civilian, which is, BTW, a war crime, or do I save my own life by shooting the enemy while knowing I might hit the civilian being used as a human shield?

[AloeVera]

110. The human shields excuse for the destruction is bullshit.

Going out on a limb here but are there really Hamas fighters threatening to "ghost" Israel in every one of those apartment buildings and homes? About 80% of Gaza? Or were they just sleeping civilians in their own homes minding their own business with no clue they were now serving as human shields and therefore expendable?

The war crime of using human shields is in the context of forcefully placing them near strategic or military objectives, military convoys, infrastructure etc that is likely to be attacked for the purpose of deterrence Not in their own homes for heaven's sake.

And nowhere in the Conventions or its protocols is there a green light given to bombing or killing civilians even when they are used in such illegal capacity. Certainly no green-light for the bombing of multi-residential civilian homes that may or may not have an enemy combatant's family living there as well. Which is what Israel is doing, among other things.

The human shields excuse is bullshit.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

118. Great, but that wasn't the gist of my post.

If an enemy combatant is hiding behind a civilian and is ready to shoot me, am I supposed to just let him or her shoot me because there is a civilian in the way?
Or can I defend myself from becoming a ghost and shoot the enemy knowing that, in that act, I might hit the civilian and ghost them?

According to some here, I wouldn't be allowed to save my skin because there is a civilian involved.

[AloeVera]

123. Sure, I can answer your hypothetical.

I'm not sure I agree that's what some are saying. Hard to say, though, because your hypothetical in no way resembles what is happening in Gaza.

But in your hypothetical, which is more likely to occur in law enforcement hostage situations, what do the police do? I think they always try to not kill the hostage or
human shield if you will. When there is no alternative, and your life is in danger, you have to take your best shot. But you wouldn't bring the most destructive automatic assault rifle that sprays bullets everywhere including the hostage and 10 innocent bystanders. You'd have the appropriate weapon to just try take the shooter out.

The IDF brings the biggest assault weapon they have. Their 2000 lb JDAMS plus dumb bombs. That's a problem.

The other problem is that, unlike in your hypothetical which uses an involuntary type of human shield, Israel's human shield defense relies on a more problematic human shield category, one that is claimed as such due to proximity (to fighters, bases etc). This allows for a very broad and "relaxed" interpretation of the human shield defense if there actually is one. Basically the IDF can claim anybody and everybody in Gaza is a human shield. So they can attack every single building, home, office, hospital etc and since the bombs used are over-kill, simply claim that the high civilian casualties are due to human shields and that they had no choice because Hamas was hiding or attacking from there. Of course we only have their word on that, they're not accountable for providing actual proof. Yet.

Clever. But diabolical.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

124. Thank you for the honest answer,

while I may disagree with you, you make valid points and I will ponder them.
BTW, I never had to face such a situation in my 35 years of being a Marine.
Happy New Year to you and your family.

[AloeVera]

129. Thank you!

Those are kind words that are much appreciated! I'm trying to be kinder and more civil to fellow DU'ers I may disagree with. You're now my role model ha ha.

35 years as a Marine. Wow. My 35 years in public service just doesn't have the same ring lol.

A very Happy New Year to you and yours as well.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

131. I disagree,

35 years as a Marine. Wow. My 35 years in public service just doesn't have the same ring

35 years in public service, whether as a Marine or whatever agency you were with is equal in my book.

[David__77]

69. It's not a black and white issue, rather of degrees.

There is a definite valuation of lives (of different groups) that underlies different tactics.

The “safest” thing, for a military with the related capability, will generally incur many more non-combatant deaths.

[ripcord]

84. Soldiers are people too

[Eko]

91. Thanks for letting me know.

[ripcord]

92. You seemed a little confused like they are worth less than civilians

[RubyRose]

85. Written like someone that doesn't have a son or

daughter serving in the IDF.

[Eko]

89. Seeing as how I have been advocating for the US to go in

And I have family member's in the military, friends in the military and grew up in a military town I disagree with you.

[onecaliberal]

152. Gotta love how folks here assume they know your life.

[Eko]

161. Yup.

I always try to keep my preconceptions out of it as much as possible.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

87. So it is okay for Hamas to use civilians as human shields?

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Eko]

88. Hmmmm,

I'll have to go back and see where I said that.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

95. Really? The civilian deaths you discuss are due in large part to Hamas' use of human shields

Hamas is using human shields in violation of the rules of war and such tactic is one of the major factors in the death of civilians

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Please understand that I support President Biden's efforts to force Bibi to take steps to protect civilians. There are a large number of American Jews who are not fans of Bibi and there are reports that Bibi encouraged contributions to Hamas and ignored Hamas' threats for political purposes. This is in addition to the Americans who supported the protests of Bibi's efforts to gut the Israeli court system in order to protect Bibi from being tried for a host of crimes.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Bibi is very unpopular in Israel and it is only a matter of time before Bibi is voted out. President Biden has been applying pressure on Bibi and it is only a matter of time before Bibi is gone.

I support efforts to avoid civilian causalities but I recognize that Hamas' use of human shields means that there will be more causalities than one would normally see in such a conflict

[Eko]

96. And it take 2000 lb dumb bombs to overcome the using of human shields?

[AloeVera]

107. Exactly.

Those bombs have only one purpose, to destroy and kill as much as possible. They were NEVER intended to be used in cities or on civilians.

What is the purpose of destroying whole apartment blocks, in fact now 80% of buildings gone or damaged? How is it possible for Hamas to be "hiding" in all of those places?

The sheer illogic and willful blindness to the truth of what is happening is beyond belief.

[Eko]

108. Yup.

[Eko]

97. More.

‘Not seen since Vietnam’: Israel dropped hundreds of 2,000-pound bombs on Gaza, analysis shows- CNN
Satellite imagery from those early days of the war reveals more than 500 impact craters over 12 meters (40 feet) in diameter, consistent with those left behind by 2,000-pound bombs. Those are four times heavier than the largest bombs the United States dropped on ISIS in Mosul, Iraq, during the war against the extremist group there.

Weapons and warfare experts blame the extensive use of heavy munitions such as the 2,000-pound bomb for the soaring death toll. The population of Gaza is packed together much more tightly than almost anywhere else on earth, so the use of such heavy munitions has a profound effect.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

114. There are very deep tunnels that the IDF had to deal with

Link to tweet

[obamanut2012]

153. International law states that makes NO difference

[gulliver]

90. Putin is a rat face.

He takes after his mother.

[Torchlight]

93. Sounds really serious.

Best of luck.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

103. Noted that you refuse to answer a ? put forth to you?

What's the matter?
Too uncomfortable for you?

[Eko]

106. Not at all. I have answered this question from you before.

But I shall do so again.
suppose I'm in an active combat zone and there is an enemy hiding behind a civilian getting ready to ghost me, am I supposed to just let the enemy combatant shoot me because they're hiding behind a civilian, which is, BTW, a war crime, or do I save my own life by shooting the enemy while knowing I might hit the civilian being used as a human shield?
It's up to you man. Personally I would seek cover and call in reinforcements but if you want to go all dirty harry that's on you. If you think killing an innocent person to save your life is correct then by all mean, do so. Its you who has to be able to go to sleep at night. I don't have to think that and I don't have to accept being put in an either or situation when there are other options available. I would argue that thinking like that is why we are where we are.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

119. Thanks for this honest answer, that's hard to get here lately.

Last edited Thu Dec 28, 2023, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

Luckily, I never had to face this dilemma during my 35 years as a Marine.
Happy New Year to you and yours.

[Eko]

147. No prob ya old sapper.

Did you see the video I posted on the seebee's? It's pretty funny. Here is the link if you missed it. https://www.democraticunderground.com/11663165
Keep on leeponing and have a good new year!
Eko.

[Eko]

109. Also, is this scenario one that happens often?

Is there a recent conflict you can point to were this was persuasive or is it just a hypothesis of yours?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

120. See post #119.

I've no idea how many times its happened since the Gaza war started by Hamas, I can say its happened numerous times with Police Depart. around this country and the world.

[The Grand Illuminist]

130. War is hell.

Simple as that.

[brooklynite]

133. In what contest are civilians being killed to protect soldiers?

[PufPuf23]

140. Reminder: Israel is blowing Gaza to rubble in order to minimize face-to-face urban

combat by IDF soldiers with Hamas terrorists.

Some do not agree with the tactics used by Israel because so many civilians are being killed or injured so less IDF are killed in combat.

[Captain Stern]

146. Soldiers put themselves at risk to protect civilians...

Last edited Sat Dec 30, 2023, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

..of their own nation.

It's naive to think that soldiers should be expected to die to protect the enemy's civilians.

That just isn't how war works.

It's Hamas's duty to protect their civilians, and they're refusing to do so.

[JI7]

148. "It's Hamas's duty to protect their civilians"

Not only do they refuse to protect them but they have said they want more to die.

[onecaliberal]

154. No election in 17 years, how exactly is Hamas their leaders? We better hope america isn't held accountable for what

trump did. Apply that same logic here.

[yagotme]

155. Who's making decisions? Who's giving the orders? Who runs the military?

Who's controlling movement inside the country? Who controls the finances? That's "who's in charge". Which is Hamas. Recently elected, or not.

[thucythucy]

156. French civilians died during the bombing campaign in the lead-up to D-Day.

There was a concerted effort to destroy the French railroad network connecting Normandy to the rest of France, in order to prevent German reinforcements reaching the area during the first days of the campaign to liberate Europe.

Thousands of French civilians died in order to save the lives of American, British, Canadian and Free French soldiers.

I'm curious: had you been Roosevelt or Churchill or Eisenhower, would you have canceled that campaign in order to spare French civilians?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

160. That is a great question.

Speaking for myself, I would not have cancelled the operation, even if I knew that French civilians and resistance fighters would die in the process, defeating the Nazi's was paramount to prevent a worldwide tyrannical govt.

[thucythucy]

163. This was exactly the conclusion reached by FDR.

I've been reading Churchill's history of WWII, and in it he includes an exchange of telegrams between himself and FDR. Churchill was worried that mass civilian casualties would turn French public opinion against the Allies right on the eve of the invasion, and wondered if the proposed campaign shouldn't be scaled way down. FDR responded that he in good conscience couldn't restrict or curtail operations that his military advisors were telling him were essential to success.

There was some politics involved as well. Churchill seemed less concerned about the loss of life than the impact on French public opinion, probably remembering the fall out from the British attack on the French fleet in 1940. FDR first said he didn't feel it appropriate to contradict Eisenhower and Marshall, but then added that if D-Day were to fail, and the public learned that he went against military advise, he'd never survive politically.

But I think for both of them the objective, as you say, was defeating the Nazis as quickly and completely as possible, which was the reason for approving the campaign.

As it turned out the civilian casualties were less than anticipated, which was of course a good thing all around, but they were still substantial.

Best wishes and happy new year!