Amnesty international slams Israeli 'war crimes'

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

he's only being touchy because he can't defend the fact the Israel committed war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian structure..........FACT......

as far as personal attacks Charles also called me a terrorist lover in another thread......but that's because he has the very narrow-minded view that if you criticize and IDF actions in the war then of course you MUST support Hezbollah...........which I of course don't but......

"i've already gotten the message, don't discuss the pictures, just carry on about how evil israel is. "

at least he's starting to realise a few things eh??

here's some food for thought for both of you, perhaps instead of carrying on about civilian deaths, try to understand that such does happen and by law it should be avoided. nothing says that such cannot occur if reasonable steps are taken to prevent such.

link

Certain potential objects or individuals clearly are unlawful targets. For example, any direct attack upon the civilian population, or upon any places, localities, or objects used solely for humanitarian, cultural, or religious purposes such as hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, or museums are immune. On the other hand, such immunity is lost if they are used or employed for enemy military purposes.

The contemporary rule defining military objects is found in the Additional Protocol I of 1977. Article 52 limits attacks to places, localities, facilities, structures, and “objects which . . . make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”

First, the civilian population must never be the object of attack, making it clear that morale or terror-bombing tactics are clearly a war crime today. (so much for hezbollah eh?)

Third, Protocol I also provides that any loss of civilian life incidental to the attack on legitimate military targets must be reduced to what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the mission. It would be indiscriminate and unlawful to cause civilian casualties that are excessive under the circumstances.

Therefore, the loss of civilians, even deliberately located in and around a military target must clearly be shown to be absolutely necessary. Additional Protocol I specifically stipulates that feasible precautions in minimizing civilian loss includes the choice of weapons as well as the means and methods of attack. For example, bombing a military headquarters facility in a densely populated city would never justify the use of unguided bombs if PGMs were available to the striking force and if it appears that innocent civilians within the vicinity would be injured or killed.

The military commander planning or executing the attack cannot be the final arbiter of whether the loss of civilian life and property is reasonably proportionate to the attacks military advantage. Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

In the final analysis, the loss of any civilian life or property as a result of an armed attack, regardless of the level of the war, or the intensity of the particular planned mission, must clearly be shown to have been unavoidable with the use of the most precise weapons available to the attacking force.

in short, the jury is still out on that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

he's only being touchy because he can't defend the fact the Israel committed war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian structure..........FACT......

as far as personal attacks Charles also called me a terrorist lover in another thread......but that's because he has the very narrow-minded view that if you criticize and IDF actions in the war then of course you MUST support Hezbollah...........which I of course don't but......

"i've already gotten the message, don't discuss the pictures, just carry on about how evil israel is. "

at least he's starting to realise a few things eh??

here's some food for thought for both of you, perhaps instead of carrying on about civilian deaths, try to understand that such does happen and by law it should be avoided. nothing says that such cannot occur if reasonable steps are taken to prevent such.

link

Certain potential objects or individuals clearly are unlawful targets. For example, any direct attack upon the civilian population, or upon any places, localities, or objects used solely for humanitarian, cultural, or religious purposes such as hospitals, churches, mosques, schools, or museums are immune. On the other hand, such immunity is lost if they are used or employed for enemy military purposes.

The contemporary rule defining military objects is found in the Additional Protocol I of 1977. Article 52 limits attacks to places, localities, facilities, structures, and “objects which . . . make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”

First, the civilian population must never be the object of attack, making it clear that morale or terror-bombing tactics are clearly a war crime today. (so much for hezbollah eh?)

Third, Protocol I also provides that any loss of civilian life incidental to the attack on legitimate military targets must be reduced to what is absolutely necessary to accomplish the mission. It would be indiscriminate and unlawful to cause civilian casualties that are excessive under the circumstances.

Therefore, the loss of civilians, even deliberately located in and around a military target must clearly be shown to be absolutely necessary. Additional Protocol I specifically stipulates that feasible precautions in minimizing civilian loss includes the choice of weapons as well as the means and methods of attack. For example, bombing a military headquarters facility in a densely populated city would never justify the use of unguided bombs if PGMs were available to the striking force and if it appears that innocent civilians within the vicinity would be injured or killed.

The military commander planning or executing the attack cannot be the final arbiter of whether the loss of civilian life and property is reasonably proportionate to the attacks military advantage. Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

In the final analysis, the loss of any civilian life or property as a result of an armed attack, regardless of the level of the war, or the intensity of the particular planned mission, must clearly be shown to have been unavoidable with the use of the most precise weapons available to the attacking force.

in short, the jury is still out on that.

Not according to the Amnesty report. They seem to think there's a significant basis for a UN investigation.

Here's what we are talking about http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng

Edited August 23, 2006 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 14,297]

The military commander planning or executing the attack cannot be the final arbiter of whether the loss of civilian life and property is reasonably proportionate to the attacks military advantage. Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

In the final analysis, the loss of any civilian life or property as a result of an armed attack, regardless of the level of the war, or the intensity of the particular planned mission, must clearly be shown to have been unavoidable with the use of the most precise weapons available to the attacking force.

in short, the jury is still out on that.

Not according to the Amnesty report. They seem to think there's a significant basis for a UN investigation.

Here's what we are talking about http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng

the un can investigate away. note this sentence again: Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

one (in this case AI) is not good enough.......and until these organizations review the military plans of israel, who's to say what really went on in the planning stages of such?

[Nikita2Charles 33]

According to some people, the western world and Israel is all civilized and the rest of the world is back dated, slow and ignorant, as such they are all lower rank, lower class, don't know anything as such we SHOULD IMPOSED our way of life to them, because the western world is the best in everything, Including murderered, remember we dropped the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sad people don't learn from history.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The military commander planning or executing the attack cannot be the final arbiter of whether the loss of civilian life and property is reasonably proportionate to the attacks military advantage. Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

In the final analysis, the loss of any civilian life or property as a result of an armed attack, regardless of the level of the war, or the intensity of the particular planned mission, must clearly be shown to have been unavoidable with the use of the most precise weapons available to the attacking force.

in short, the jury is still out on that.

Not according to the Amnesty report. They seem to think there's a significant basis for a UN investigation.

Here's what we are talking about http://web.amnesty.org/pages/lbn-230806-feature-eng

the un can investigate away. note this sentence again: Only by the independent assessment of nonparticipating entities or organizations can the strict rules for the limitation of unnecessary suffering and destruction be upheld.

one (in this case AI) is not good enough.......and until these organizations review the military plans of israel, who's to say what really went on in the planning stages of such?

Which is precisely why they are calling for an independent investigation. The clear facts of the case (massive destruction of civilian infrastructure and loss of civilian life) are not in doubt - entire towns have been destroyed, over 1000 Lebanese citizens are dead and approximately 1 million people have been displaced. Not to mention, that as Fishkoepfin said earier that Amnesty is currently investigating human rights violations by Hezbollah.

BTW - did you see the links to the leaflets dropped by the IDF. Pretty much "Leave your home" (as there is a good likelihood that it will be blown up, but don't travel by car (because not only have we destroyed the roads, but we will automatically assume anyone in a car or truck is a Hezbollah fighter).

Like I said, I wonder why it is that Amnesty and the ICRC are greeted with enthusiasm when it comes to human rights violations by totalitarian regimes, but are treated with scepticism and cynicism when they pertain to our own activities and those of our allies. Clearly there are double standards at work.

ICRC in particular almost had its funding cut by a Repulican committee who objected to the organisation's comments about Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Apparently human rights are secondary to appeasing political officials...

[Risto 0]

remember we dropped the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sad people don't learn from history.

They don't

Look at Japan now

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

remember we dropped the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Sad people don't learn from history.

They don't

Look at Japan now

Look at America now.