(Completely different country here, no present risk.) The unfortunate reality for me is that I have three kids who might be called up if the shit hits the fan, and I’ve had 30 odd years longer on this planet.

If its not me, it’s my kids.

As per another poster - grumpy featherfluffle

Na, that’s fantail (nz bird). Grumpy little fuckers - they even yell at you and get somehow are also really social with people.

Id be ok with 3 - live, rent, vacation - because it means you can have a great lifestyle but will them get nailed for being too greedy.

Nice

Trump doing illegal shit is also a “widely expected move”. Expected, not good.

Hows a crab meant to hold that?

You could easily exploit borderlands- but live action? Its like a live action Kerby.

NO MR TORGUE!!!

I don’t have the right rant to express my displeasure at this, someone wanna help me out??

EXPLOSIONS!!!

In the case of war crime, no they don’t.

Shooting in self defense isn’t a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians… and if you’re claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.

Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.

I had a discussion on this point when we went over this at uni.

They aren’t signatories to the Geneva convention, UN Charter or any of the other rule based systems we have, however they can still done under crimes against humanity.

No criminal ever signed a declaration before they crime that they agree to follow our laws, but are prosecuted all the same.

I’ve also never met any afgani women who openly accused the Taliban regime since they took back over - lack of evidence isn’t proof of something. Nor do I belive you can just casually say “oh, your point doesn’t matter” and dismiss it out if hand.

i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.

It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if… for example you’re just “protecting your home” or “the other side is worse” or “you don’t have a choice”.

Point 0 - that you for engaging with facts and opinion rather than instant accusations.

Point 1 - correct, asymmetrical warfare is very common among weaker forces and is a great way to negate tech advantages. Nothing wrong with it, the issue is where and how they are conducting it.

Point 2 - interesting part of the point you mentioned regarding dressing up to murder civilians in hospitals. Hamas was doing such things - terrorists dressing up as civilians to access medical care, who took arms into a hospital that removed its protections, who were then killed by an opposing force in a way that minimizes civilian casualties.

I haven’t seen anything on the legality since, but discussions I had when this video came out was that it is probably justified as they did drop the disguise before opening fire. Lack of uniform does make it questionable.

This goes back to my original point - armed combatants aren’t allowed to use civilian infrastructure as it removes its protections. Hamas blatantly used it and yet its Israeli fault for killing them there?

For your last point, im sorry I’ve got a splitting headache and struggling to connect the dots, but you do raise an interesting point. I cant blame Palestine for wanting to fight, but I can blame Hamas for their conduct and choices within the conflict - just like Israel.

Not OP.

So your saying Hamas actions that are war crimes are justified because they are defending their home, therefore they are not the same?

Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?

I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn’t going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Using your discussion they had no choice but to fight. Fair point.

They absolutely had choices on where to organise, whether or not to kill and capture civilians, or if they should set up in hospitals and key infrastructure that keeps their civilians alive. Do you have a justification for this?

Good question, should clarify.

Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I’ve seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back… and we know how that went.

Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack… regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.

Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We’ve all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.

Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of “we don’t have a choice” because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn’t just apply when you are winning and its a “fair” fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don’t justify Israeli breaches.

So what your saying is war crimes are acceptable when you are losing?

You also missed the part where I took one of my neighbors kids after throwing shit over the fence, that there is years of history between us where we both attacked eachother, and that im apparently hiding behind wife shooting at you saying “hurt her its your fault”.

That’s like saying I had no choice but to beat my wife at home because if I did it in public I’d get arrested.

No where in the UN charter, Geneva convention or any legal precident does it say war crimes are acceptable if you don’t have a choice, or its ok if you will be attacked by not breaching the convention. There is a damn good reason we keep those places protected and we are looking at the suffering losing them causes.