Israel v Hamas

[georgenorman]

Which aspects of warfare are not genocidal?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Which aspects of warfare are not genocidal?

That's a good question - it is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific non-combatant group, that distinguishes an act of war from an act of genocide.

Of course that's not always easy to determine, but in Israel's case, the general consensus is that they have demonstrated that intent.

 

[ASCPFC]

That's a good question - it is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific non-combatant group, that distinguishes an act of war from an act of genocide.

Of course that's not always easy to determine, but in Israel's case, the general consensus is that they have demonstrated that intent.

Every side committed genocide in the first and second world wars and plenty of other wars, according to that definition. Which makes me wonder what wars didn't do that, more than which wars didn't. I'm thinking Napoleonic was usually a set piece and not killing the general population. But there are bound to be exceptions, like the French in Egypt or raiding English coastal towns, and again this definition makes that genocide.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

That's a good question - it is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific non-combatant group, that distinguishes an act of war from an act of genocide.

Of course that's not always easy to determine, but in Israel's case, the general consensus is that they have demonstrated that intent.

I don't know why you keep persisting with the 'genocide' thing.

We all know what is going on and why. There are two sides to the conflict and one is trying to destroy the other after the October 7 straw that broke the camel's back.

Meanwhile, you are frothing about definitions that are meaningless.

You know that there would be no mercy if the boot was on the other foot so you are simply pushing a left wing agenda devoid of objectivity.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Every side committed genocide in the first and second world wars and plenty of other wars, according to that definition. Which makes me wonder what wars didn't do that, more than which wars didn't. I'm thinking Napoleonic was usually a set piece and not killing the general population. But there are bound to be exceptions, like the French in Egypt or raiding English coastal towns, and again this definition makes that genocide.

Sure, but the definition was part of a huge revision post-world war two, so that would make sense.

There were no real allegations of genocide during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars because, despite large amounts of civilian deaths, and certainly atrocities committed, there was no real evidence of the intentional destruction of a specific protected group.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I don't know why you keep persisting with the 'genocide' thing.

We all know what is going on and why. There are two sides to the conflict and one is trying to destroy the other after the October 7 straw that broke the camel's back.

Meanwhile, you are frothing about definitions that are meaningless.

You know that there would be no mercy if the boot was on the other foot so you are simply pushing a left wing agenda devoid of objectivity.

Because I think 'the genocide thing' is quite important, funny enough.

You say we all know what is going on and why, but that's evidently untrue given the posts on here - some are still talking about Israel defending themselves, for example.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense.

 

[georgenorman]

That's a good question - it is the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a specific non-combatant group, that distinguishes an act of war from an act of genocide.

Of course that's not always easy to determine, but in Israel's case, the general consensus is that they have demonstrated that intent.

The key word here seems to be 'non combatant', so practically every war could be considered genocidal.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The key word here seems to be 'non combatant', so practically every war could be considered genocidal.

The key word is intent, which is why it can be difficult to prove.

As mentioned above, Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of wars where despite a lot of casualties, there were no real allegations of genocide.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Because I think 'the genocide thing' is quite important, funny enough.

You say we all know what is going on and why, but that's evidently untrue given the posts on here - some are still talking about Israel defending themselves, for example.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense.

You are primarily irritated because the side you support is under attack.

You are hiding behind the 'genocide' thing because you know that Hamas has no moral high ground and cares not a jot for its people. While their leadership hides in other Muslim countries, they are happy to see their foot soldiers fight to the last man and see the civilians they hide among die with them.

If you weren't so blinkered by your own prejudice, you could see that.

Israel is the superior military force, and they are defending themselves by attempting to eradicate the constant threat on their border in the longer term. I don't think right or wrong has ever played a part in this conflict, so the morality of this is not a factor for either side.
It is a war that will go on forever until one side is completely defeated. I'm not sure Israel can achieve this, but what I am sure of is that Israel is a Western ally and that HAMAS is an enemy.

Are you happy to support our enemies?

 

[chris123]

I don't know why you keep persisting with the 'genocide' thing.

We all know what is going on and why. There are two sides to the conflict and one is trying to destroy the other after the October 7 straw that broke the camel's back.

Meanwhile, you are frothing about definitions that are meaningless.

You know that there would be no mercy if the boot was on the other foot so you are simply pushing a left wing agenda devoid of objectivity.

The Religious Zionist Party, Likud's coalition partner have some interesting policies that predate the October 7th atrocities.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

The Religious Zionist Party, Likud's coalition partner have some interesting policies that predate the October 7th atrocities.

We know that Hamas wants to kill all Jews, so any animosity in the opposite direction is hardly a surprise.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It makes perfect sense.

You are primarily irritated because the side you support is under attack.

You are hiding behind the 'genocide' thing because you know that Hamas has no moral high ground and cares not a jot for its people. While their leadership hides in other Muslim countries, they are happy to see their foot soldiers fight to the last man and see the civilians they hide among die with them.

If you weren't so blinkered by your own prejudice, you could see that.

Israel is the superior military force, and they are defending themselves by attempting to irradiating the constant threat on their border in the longer term. I don't think right or wrong has ever played a part in this conflict, so the morality of this is not a factor for either side.
It is a war that will go on forever until one side is completely defeated. I'm not sure Israel can achieve this, but what I am sure of is that Israel is a Western ally and that HAMAS is an enemy.

Are you happy to support our enemies?

I'm primarily irritated because a military is killing thousands of women and children - I don't know why that is so difficult to understand. I don't understand why you spend so much time telling me what I must really think - I have not been shy in sharing my views here. The constant straw mans and made up claims are so boring.

You are claiming I can't see things that I can - I agree Hamas has no moral high ground over anyone and they couldn't give a s*** about Palestinians. Completely agree.
Does that therefore give the IDF free reign to slaughter civilians? No, obviously not - that's illogical.

You acknowledge that you're not sure Israel will ever achieve what they claim is their objective, yet you continue to support them regardless, irrespective of how many civilians they kill - I find that another wholly illogical position.

For the XXth time, I don't support Hamas and never have - to equate condemnation of Israel's genocide with support of Hamas is just plain stupid.

You give you your unconditional support to a foreign government because they're a western ally - I don't agree with that, but I understand it as your position.

I don't agree with that unconditional support - I don't know why that's so hard for you to grasp.

 

[chris123]

We know that Hamas wants to kill all Jews, so any animosity in the opposite direction is hardly a surprise.

Slight difference is that one has been elected and is in Government.

 

[georgenorman]

The key word is intent, which is why it can be difficult to prove.

As mentioned above, Afghanistan and Iraq are good examples of wars where despite a lot of casualties, there were no real allegations of genocide.

During the Iraq war the USA carried out thousands of bombing raids on Bagdad that clearly and obviously would kill non-combatants - how is that not 'intent'?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

During the Iraq war the USA carried out thousands of bombing raids on Bagdad that clearly and obviously would kill non-combatants - how is that not 'intent'?

Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent.

The US can certainly be accused for committing war crimes in Iraq, but there is not much evidence to suggest their intent was to destroy a protected group.

 

[ASCPFC]

Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent.

The US can certainly be accused for committing war crimes in Iraq, but there is not much evidence to suggest their intent was to destroy a protected group.

From experience, I can tell you that they didn't particularly care. One "blue on blue" action particularly springs to mind.

 

[georgenorman]

Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent.

The US can certainly be accused for committing war crimes in Iraq, but there is not much evidence to suggest their intent was to destroy a protected group.

What is a protected group?
If you are a Brighton fan and decide to bomb Thornton Heath, killing many Palace fans, but he say his intention was to destroy the clocktower, that's not genocidal?

 

[eaglesdare]

Civilian deaths alone are not evidence of genocidal intent.

The US can certainly be accused for committing war crimes in Iraq, but there is not much evidence to suggest their intent was to destroy a protected group.

Well there you go! 👍🏻

 

[ASCPFC]

What is a protected group?
If you are a Brighton fan and decide to bomb Thornton Heath, killing many Palace fans, but he say his intention was to destroy the clocktower, that's not genocidal?

I'd say someone has to notice the bombing too. The damage would be unnoticeable in a lot of Croydon. Or even welcome in some cases. I bet the council wouldn't mind a little accident in some of their property investments.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Well there you go! 👍🏻

Yet another straw man 👍🏻