Israel/Gaza: Calling all UK forum members.

tszirmay wrote: Someone once said when asked how to end armed conflict stated that "football/soccer" should replace war, put 11 players on each side, get an impartial referee (the hard part) and let them settle their differences by kicking a ball to death (minimum collateral damage) . You will never guess who it was! Come on everybody, start guessin'

Grace Slick said something very similar in the 1970.  Put 10 of their guys on one side and ten of ours on the other and let em rip each other apart, and leave the rest of us alone.  (paraphrasing)

She said it backstage at one of those big festivals, Rotterdam I think. 

Blacksword wrote: IVNORD wrote: THirdly, history knows of some well-documented abuses of the war crimes statute. For one in 1945 the Allies, with active participation of Great Britain amongst others, convicted and executed a number of top German military which was not exactly within the bounds of the Geneva convention. So as the definition of a war crime can be twisted in any way to suit the prosecuting side, the  attempts of Belgian prosecutors could be nothing more than an ideologically motivated bluff. If memory serves me right, I remember Sharon succesfully  suing Time magazine in 1985 for libel Note: I never said the bombing of Dresden etc wasn't a war crime. As far as I'm aware, Dresden in particular was not a military target. The allies flattened it in a bid to break the Nazi's resolve and crush the countries morale. As such, it could be classified as a war crime, I guess. The killing of top Military brass, was clearly a war crime. Just because no one was brought to book over it, doesn't mean no one ever should be. If that were the case then the Geneva convention should just be scrapped altogether. Was the flattening of Tokyo also a war crime? 1 million civillians died there. More than were killed by both A bombs. Were the nuclear attacks on Japan a war crime? Hiroshima was cited as a legitimate military target at the time. Dont know about Nagasaki..

Note: I never said a word about Allied war crimes. Not even about the hypocrisy of the Nuremberg Trials. Only about the fact that the notion of war crime was construed  as they found fit (I included my post for your convenience). With respect to that the  attempts of Belgian prosecutors could be a political farce and Sharon's successful suit against Time implicitly proved that.

omri wrote:   I did mention the bombing of Dresden as an example of comitting war crimes by the UK army (among others). I got the feeling that some of the guys think it's old history so I mentioned crimes against catholic Irish people 20 years ago but again that seems quite old news to the fellows here. I could also mention crimes against Iraqi soldiers only 2 years ago but probably they will blame the US . It is quite easy to sit on your sofa, watch TV and feel that what ever someone else doing is wrong (usualy with no facts and hearsay stories) but the fact that any army in any war until these days commit crimes is a known fact strongly rejected by the British fellows here (some of them).

Vibrationbaby wrote: Blacksword wrote: IVNORD wrote: Blacksword wrote: ^^^ It now needs to be proven that the IDF committed these crimes. That will be tricky. The word of Palestinian eye witnesses is not going to hold much water. If the situation were reversed, and an allegation had been made against Hamas fighters, it would be assumed, without discussion, in most quarters, that the Israeli testimony was true. The IDF know this, and this is a green light to get away with cold blooded murder. If they did it  Nice disclaimer.   Blacksword wrote: ^^^ No Israeli minister, or high ranking military official is ever going to be standing trial for war crimes. I can guarantee that. How about the Sabra and Shatila affair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila   Specifically, "The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and it subsequently found Israel indirectly responsible for the event.... Ariel Sharon was found to bear personal responsibility..." True, but thats different to standing trial for war crimes. As it was an internal investigation there was very little consequence for Sharon. Indeed, he went on to be prime minister, so it all worked out quite nicely for him. As I understand it, a Belgian prosecutor attempted to bring Sharon to the dock for war crimes, and this fell flat on it's face. Do we know what happened to the Christian militias who actually carried out the massacres, while the Israelis stood by? I don`t know if this has been brought up before. Might be comparing apples & oranges But what about the alied bomber crews who bombed German cities such as Hamburg, Koln or Dresden during the second war The  Caanadian War Museum in Ottawa for quite some time diplayed a plaque a acusing as such until Veterans Affairs forced  them change it.Are these vets war crimminals? If so, I have two uncles who were war crimminals.

IVNORD wrote: Blacksword wrote: IVNORD wrote: Blacksword wrote: ^^^ It now needs to be proven that the IDF committed these crimes. That will be tricky. The word of Palestinian eye witnesses is not going to hold much water. If the situation were reversed, and an allegation had been made against Hamas fighters, it would be assumed, without discussion, in most quarters, that the Israeli testimony was true. The IDF know this, and this is a green light to get away with cold blooded murder. If they did it  Nice disclaimer.   Blacksword wrote: ^^^ No Israeli minister, or high ranking military official is ever going to be standing trial for war crimes. I can guarantee that. How about the Sabra and Shatila affair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila   Specifically, "The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and it subsequently found Israel indirectly responsible for the event.... Ariel Sharon was found to bear personal responsibility..." True, but thats different to standing trial for war crimes. As it was an internal investigation there was very little consequence for Sharon. Indeed, he went on to be prime minister, so it all worked out quite nicely for him. As I understand it, a Belgian prosecutor attempted to bring Sharon to the dock for war crimes, and this fell flat on it's face. Do we know what happened to the Christian militias who actually carried out the massacres, while the Israelis stood by? First of all, you talk about war crimes as though you personally know a few Israeli war criminals, while it's only your assumption they exist.   Second, isnt it a war crime to bombard civilians nearly on a daily basis year after year? Why nobody brings the terrorists to the dock for war crimes?   THirdly, history knows of some well-documented abuses of the war crimes statute. For one in 1945 the Allies, with active participation of Great Britain amongst others, convicted and executed a number of top German military which was not exactly within the bounds of the Geneva convention. So as the definition of a war crime can be twisted in any way to suit the prosecuting side, the  attempts of Belgian prosecutors could be nothing more than an ideologically motivated bluff. If memory serves me right, I remember Sharon succesfully  suing Time magazine in 1985 for libel

Note: I never said the bombing of Dresden etc wasn't a war crime. As far as I'm aware, Dresden in particular was not a military target. The allies flattened it in a bid to break the Nazi's resolve and crush the countries morale. As such, it could be classified as a war crime, I guess. The killing of top Military brass, was clearly a war crime. Just because no one was brought to book over it, doesn't mean no one ever should be. If that were the case then the Geneva convention should just be scrapped altogether.

Was the flattening of Tokyo also a war crime? 1 million civillians died there. More than were killed by both A bombs. Were the nuclear attacks on Japan a war crime? Hiroshima was cited as a legitimate military target at the time. Dont know about Nagasaki..

With regard to bringing the terrorists to the dock, I'm sure if they were identified and arrested, rather than being killed, I'm sure they could be. But, the point is, terrorists operate by their own rules. That is the nature of terrorism. They dont acknowledge any convention, or any aspect of international law. While that in no way justifies what they do, it explains the principle difference between the warring factions in the ME. Israel, with its legitimate armed forces, are required to adhere to international law, and in theory they do. When/if they break it, bringing the military high command and/or governement officials to the dock, is perfectly reasonable.

Edited by Blacksword - January 25 2009 at 10:10

Vibrationbaby wrote: I don`t know if this has been brought up before. Might be comparing apples & oranges But what about the alied bomber crews who bombed German cities such as Hamburg, Koln or Dresden during the second war The  Caanadian War Museum in Ottawa for quite some time diplayed a plaque a acusing as such until Veterans Affairs forced  them change it.Are these vets war crimminals? If so, I have two uncles who were war crimminals.

Hiroshima, Na a a gasaki?

BTW, I might not even be here if it weren't for that.  One of my grandfathers was shipped over to the pacific right after.  It gives one pause.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 23 2009 at 13:38

Slartibartfast wrote: I would say something clever but at this point I'm just enjoying seeing the quote pyramids go up.

IVNORD wrote: Blacksword wrote: ^^^ It now needs to be proven that the IDF committed these crimes. That will be tricky. The word of Palestinian eye witnesses is not going to hold much water. If the situation were reversed, and an allegation had been made against Hamas fighters, it would be assumed, without discussion, in most quarters, that the Israeli testimony was true. The IDF know this, and this is a green light to get away with cold blooded murder. If they did it  Nice disclaimer.   Blacksword wrote: ^^^ No Israeli minister, or high ranking military official is ever going to be standing trial for war crimes. I can guarantee that. How about the Sabra and Shatila affair? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila   Specifically, "The Israeli government established the Kahan Commission to investigate, and it subsequently found Israel indirectly responsible for the event.... Ariel Sharon was found to bear personal responsibility..."

True, but thats different to standing trial for war crimes. As it was an internal investigation there was very little consequence for Sharon. Indeed, he went on to be prime minister, so it all worked out quite nicely for him.

As I understand it, a Belgian prosecutor attempted to bring Sharon to the dock for war crimes, and this fell flat on it's face.

Do we know what happened to the Christian militias who actually carried out the massacres, while the Israelis stood by?

mystic fred wrote: perhaps the Soldiers were " only following orders...."

For a second there, I thought you were referring to Israeli soldiers.

That sounds more like something Hamas would do. If you want to believe that a modern "civilized" society slaughters innocent civilians intentionally, then I have to wonder what you're thinking over there.


Edited by birdwithteeth11 - January 23 2009 at 08:21

perhaps the Soldiers were " only following orders...."