Israel/Gaza: Calling all UK forum members.

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

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: 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.

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).

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.

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. 

Windhawk wrote:

I laughed if you actually think that's true. The Palestinians and Hamas are by no means defenseless, and they started this incident anyway. Actually, they start most if not all of them.

Windhawk wrote: Heh, from what I know of local conditions down there, it's a drawing that speaks volumes about the distribution of power. Israel controls water supply to Palestina, Israeli soldiers decide whether or not most Palestinians are allowed to get to work - as many work in Israel or Israel-controlled area; the recent admission of Israel in the use of white phosphor in bombarments against civilan areas in Palestine comes to mind. And the somewhat unjust power balance between a professional modern army that can call on the help of the US with the snap of a finger and an underground guerilla movement is an undeniable fact.

I am just so fed up with the whole issue. I have also lived in Northern Ireland.

So my position is one state; two people. Take the whole Palestine and Israel territory and create one state. This area is not big enough for two states so it has to be one state. Put up one parlament. Palestinians choose 50 % of it. The Jews the rest. Divide the government in 50/50 between those two groups. Let them get on with governing the state.

My solution is the same as the Northern Ireland solution. There, we have two persons who for the best part of thirty years tried to kill each other. And I litterary means "tried to kill each other". It does not get more basic and primitive than that. Both has now been placed in the same room as each other and told to run Northern Ireland. So they did that and made a big success out of it. One of them retired due to old age and another one took over. He too had tried to kill that other person for the best part of thirty years. So they drink tea together and rule over 1 million people.

Northern Ireland is now a huge success. In my view; this solution should be exported to the Middle East.  

Windhawk wrote: Heh, from what I know of local conditions down there, it's a drawing that speaks volumes about the distribution of power. Israel controls water supply to Palestina, Israeli soldiers decide whether or not most Palestinians are allowed to get to work - as many work in Israel or Israel-controlled area; the recent admission of Israel in the use of white phosphor in bombarments against civilan areas in Palestine comes to mind. And the somewhat unjust power balance between a professional modern army that can call on the help of the US with the snap of a finger and an underground guerilla movement is an undeniable fact. It is also a fact that there is at least 100 Palestinian victims for each one on the Israeli side. For those facets of the conflict this drawing is very much representative - originally published in a Norwegian newspaper earlier this year. BTW - a minor detail in the grand debate worth looking at for thise interested in the state of affairs down there: http://mondediplo.com/2008/09/07israel

As I've mentioned previously in this thread, I personally have no issue with a modern army using white phosphorous in battle, especially with it being used as recently as the Second World War. However, I can understand how using such a weapon would become an issue. And as I also have previously mentioned, Israel is fighting an enemy that stockpiles their militants and weapons in public areas such as mosques, so more civilians are bound to be killed. And I really don't see my country's forces physically involved in the current conflict. They shouldn't be, as the rest of the world needs to eventually get the hint that America's responsibility is to police the world for everyone else. Take care of your own damn problems and we'll take care of ours.

Sorry for that tangent. Anyway, as to the picture itself, I like how you, like so many other people in this thread, just assume that whatever the media publishes and spits out to the general public is absolute truth. Although the Dutch currently passed a law saying that it's now considered a hate crime to say anything against Islam, and other European countries might follow suite, so I can certainly understand why you would side with the Palestinians.

Seriously though, I can't think of a single instance where I have yet to defend Israel's actions. This is a matter of self-defense and national security for them. If you think they've done something horribly wrong, I want to know what your opinion is on it, not the opinion shared by a million and one journalists.