Harpo accuses UN of anti-semitism.....

[flubadub]

It is not a crime in a war to shoot a civilian by mistake if you had good reason to believe they were the enemy.

Where did this 'mistake' clause come in?
Are you suggesting that the Israel's killing of 240 civilian police was a mistake?
Are you suggesting that if an IDF or Hamas member were as smart as a fencepost and to the best of their thinking they came up with the conclusion that civilians were legitimate targets they can kill without worry of being charged with war crimes?

Moreover I haven't seen any evidence that they actually were civilians, really.

And now the onus is on the dead to prove they were civilians?
What happened to your 'presumed innocence' beliefs? Now you have to prove you are a civilian or else you are a legitimate target?

This is almost correct. In place of "thinks", as I have repeatedly told you, and you have repeatedly failed to comprehend, put the phrase "has good reasons to believe".

I quoted you previously, and here it is again. You said 'What matters is what IDF thought'.
Clarify your position.
Can you kill civilians at will if you 'think' they are 'enemy' (as you put it above) or do you have to 'know'?

Hamas has explicitly told us they attack settlers for no other reason than because they dispute their right to live where they do, and that is very clearly a war crime.

Citation, please, otherwise I'm saying that's a boldfaced lie.

No factual basis other than he announced his conclusions before even being hired to carry out the investigation, you mean.

Citation, please, otherwise I'm calling that a lie.


So far you have three lies outstanding that you need to verify.
Prove Goldstone lied in his report. (still unproven)
Prove Goldstone announced his conclusions before even being hired to carry out his fact finding mission.
Prove that Hamas says settlers are a legitimate target based only on where they live.


And finally, prove that you are human being with some morality.

 

[fuji]

Where did this 'mistake' clause come in?

True, as far as we know they really were militia and it was not a mistake--in fact, that is probable. In any case, what MATTERS from a legal perspective is not whether or not they really were militia, which they probably were in fact, but whether IDF had good reason to believe they were.

Put it this way: Even if they were militia it would be a war crime if IDF killed them without knowing that. The key is whet IDF believed and why IDF believed it. That is ALL that matters in determining whether a crime was committed here--nothing else really matters.

What happened to your 'presumed innocence' beliefs? Now you have to prove you are a civilian or else you are a legitimate target?

You fail at comprehending the rules that apply in war. You utterly, completely, and totally fail.

Can you kill civilians at will if you 'think' they are 'enemy' (as you put it above) or do you have to 'know'?

Please start acknowledging the things I wrote. I have told you, repeatedly, that you need to have reasonable belief. Reasonable belief means you have some positive evidence--like, you see the guy carrying an RPG, or you have a credible intelligence report identifying him as an enemy.

It's NOT acceptable just to say "Oh I felt like he was a bad guy so I killed him", you have to be able to point out the reasons why you think so, and they have to be good enough that a reasonable person would say, "yeah given that information I would think they were the enemy too".

Citation, please, otherwise I'm saying that's a boldfaced lie.

I provided you the link to the Hamas website where they say it, and you yourself have said it. You (and Hamas) have both asserted that they are part of an "invasion force" simply by being there.

Citation, please, otherwise I'm calling that a lie.

Prior to getting the job of writing propaganda for the Arab League he was at HRW where he spent his time making the exact same accusations as he writes in his report. Presumably that is exactly why the direputable UN HRC picked him, and it's explicitly why Israel refused to co-operate with him.

 

[flubadub]

The key is whet IDF believed and why IDF believed it......Reasonable belief means you have some positive evidence

So now you require evidence to back up this 'belief', since you've added the 'why they believed it clause'.
If evidence is required now, to back up this belief, then an independant fact finding mission should also be able to look into the matter and judge whether there is evidence, whether there likely evidence even if he isn't party to it, and take that into account his fact finding mission. Which is exactly what Goldstone did. So you're back to square one again.

Goldstone found enough facts to report that charges at the ICC would be warranted. His claim still stands.

I provided you the link to the Hamas website where they say it, and you yourself have said it. You (and Hamas) have both asserted that they are part of an "invasion force" simply by being there.

I asked you to prove you weren't lying, and you haven't.
Now you are qualifying your 'they just have to be there' with 'they are part of an invasion force'.
Please provide the quotes from Hamas that you said existed.
You're still lying.

Prior to getting the job of writing propaganda for the Arab League he was at HRW where he spent his time making the exact same accusations as he writes in his report.

Citation requested, and still nothing to back up your lying, but more heresay.
You still lie.

I'll give you another chance, before I'll have to conclude that not only are you a blatant propagandist with the moral fibre of a cancer virus, but you are also a lying propagandist.
Here you go:

So far you have three lies outstanding that you need to verify.
Prove Goldstone lied in his report. (still unproven)
Prove Goldstone announced his conclusions before even being hired to carry out his fact finding mission.
Prove that Hamas says settlers are a legitimate target based only on where they live.

 

[rld]

True, as far as we know they really were militia and it was not a mistake--in fact, that is probable. In any case, what MATTERS from a legal perspective is not whether or not they really were militia, which they probably were in fact, but whether IDF had good reason to believe they were.

Put it this way: Even if they were militia it would be a war crime if IDF killed them without knowing that. The key is whet IDF believed and why IDF believed it. That is ALL that matters in determining whether a crime was committed here--nothing else really matters.



You fail at comprehending the rules that apply in war. You utterly, completely, and totally fail.

You really should think about not talking about things you really don't understand, it really is amazing the depth of ignorance you show.

Let me correct you on the legal concept of a crime or criminal act. Unless the statute specifies otherwise (and the law of International and State armed conflict do not) a crime has two elements.

1) actus reus-- the guilty act

2) mens rea-- the guilty mind.

Thus in your strange example, the IDF would not be guilty of the act you accuse them of if they thought they were firing on civilians but were in fact engaging militia. They would only have satisfied one of the two criteria.

This is basic, basic stuff man, you really should stop talking like you know something about law.

 

[Eric Blair]

They are known as "clubhouse lawyers" where I come from. They are that example of the situation where a little knowledge is worse than none.

 

[blackrock13]

You really should think about not talking about things you really don't understand, it really is amazing the depth of ignorance you show.

Let me correct you on the legal concept of a crime or criminal act. Unless the statute specifies otherwise (and the law of International and State armed conflict do not) a crime has two elements.

1) actus reus-- the guilty act

2) mens rea-- the guilty mind.

Thus in your strange example, the IDF would not be guilty of the act you accuse them of if they thought they were firing on civilians but were in fact engaging militia. They would only have satisfied one of the two criteria.

This is basic, basic stuff man, you really should stop talking like you know something about law.

Save your breath RID, it won't stop. Most of us have gotten used to it after a while and just tune him out.

 

[flubadub]

Save your breath RID, it won't stop. Most of us have gotten used to it after a while and just tune him out.

I agree, Fuji, never seems to learn.
Personally, I appreciate the insight.

 

[blackrock13]

I agree, Fuji, never seems to learn.
Personally, I appreciate the incite.

I guess what I SHOULD have said was we get use to them after a while. My bad.

 

[nottyboi]

Bah, Israel has shelled pali refugee camps in Lebenon before. So saying Hamas is committing wars crimes is just calling names..both side have done it. But it is clear that Israel is willing to risk the lives of women and children to assert sovereignty.

 

[fuji]

Thus in your strange example, the IDF would not be guilty of the act you accuse them of if they thought they were firing on civilians but were in fact engaging militia. They would only have satisfied one of the two criteria.

Act - pulling the trigger. Mind - believing they're killing civilians. What's missing? Nothing. Thanks for playing. Sure you could change the charge from the equivalent of "murder" to "attempted murder" because their target wasn't what they thought.

At any rate the purpose of the example was to illustrate to Flub a concept that he is resoundingly incapable of understanding: That it's not a crime to kill someone in war if you have a reasonable belief that they are the enemy.

I also find it interesting that you completely missed the point of the post.

 

[fuji]

So now you require evidence to back up this 'belief', since you've added the 'why they believed it clause'.

You really do have reading comprehension problems if you didn't know that's what I've been saying all along.

If evidence is required now, to back up this belief, then an independant fact finding mission should also be able to look into the matter and judge whether there is evidence

I quoted for you the bit from his report where he admits he doesn't have it. Anyone with an IQ higher than a fence post would realize that no matter how much fact finding he went and did, without Israel's co-operation he's not likely to get his hands on the intelligence information that IDF had.

I asked you to prove you weren't lying, and you haven't.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ers-are-a-legitimate-military-target-1.312108

That's Hamas making the exact same argument you were: That ALL settlers are legitimate targets because of where they live, because they own guns, and because they are "supported by" the army. That claim in and of itself is enough to indict Hamas for war crimes.

Citation requested, and still nothing to back up your lying, but more heresay.

Here's the letter Goldstone wrote to the UN stating before he was even hired to do the job that he was "shocked to the core" and stating that "gross violations" of human rights law had been "committed by all parties":

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/news/experts-seek-gaza-inquiry

Goldstone then brought in Chinkin as a member of the "unbiased" committee. The same Chinkin who had previously written this about the conflict:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5488380.ece

" In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes."

Whoops, Chinkin already believed it was a war crime before the commission was struck. Goldstone already believed crimes had been committed "by all parties". There was no unbiased investigation here--a bunch of anti-Israel hacks got together and did a hack job.

 

[rld]

Act - pulling the trigger. Mind - believing they're killing civilians. What's missing? Nothing. Thanks for playing. Sure you could change the charge from the equivalent of "murder" to "attempted murder" because their target wasn't what they thought.

At any rate the purpose of the example was to illustrate to Flub a concept that he is resoundingly incapable of understanding: That it's not a crime to kill someone in war if you have a reasonable belief that they are the enemy.

I also find it interesting that you completely missed the point of the post.

You remain completely wrong and your analogy is false and misleading.

Pulling a trigger in war is not a crime. Intentionally targeting civilians is. IF there is no civilian to target you cannot committ that crime.

Let me give you an example. Let's say you want to want to steal my cell phone, but accidently take your own instead. No crime. Guilty mind, no guilty act. Actually just thought of a better example. Let's say you want to have sex with a 14 year old and you go out and have sex with someone you think is 14, but is really 21. No crime. Guilty mind, no guilty act. If is a much better analogy because while the act is not prohibited, it is prohibited with certain classes, ie underage people.

The analogy to murder fails and is dishonest, because in civilian life killing anybody is a crime. It is not victim class specific.

I am beginning to wonder why you feel the need to be so dishonest on these issues. Fanaticism does not advance your arguments.

 

[rld]

Save your breath RID, it won't stop. Most of us have gotten used to it after a while and just tune him out.

you are probably right, I just get steamed with people misrepresent things.

I assume I will get used to it in due time.

 

[fuji]

Pulling a trigger in war is not a crime. Intentionally targeting civilians is. IF there is no civilian to target you cannot committ that crime.

Intentionally targeting people you believe to be civilians is a crime. Pulling the trigger is a guilty act in the furtherance of that criminal objective. The fact that they may not have been civilians after all is as irrelevant as the fact that the guy you thought you were hiring as a hitman was actually a cop.

 

[rld]

Intentionally targeting people you believe to be civilians is a crime. Pulling the trigger is a guilty act in the furtherance of that criminal objective. The fact that they may not have been civilians after all is as irrelevant as the fact that the guy you thought you were hiring as a hitman was actually a cop.

Another false and misleading analogy. Have you no shame at all?

 

[flubadub]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...ers-are-a-legitimate-military-target-1.312108

That's Hamas making the exact same argument you were: That ALL settlers are legitimate targets because of where they live, because they own guns, and because they are "supported by" the army. That claim in and of itself is enough to indict Hamas for war crimes.

Thanks for linking the same article I linked to earlier, because it proves my point, not yours. And note, that your argument up until this last post has only been that Hamas targets settlers because of where they live, and you are now changing it to include that they are armed and supported by the army. Sounds like their arguments might have enough basis to them, certainly they now have your 'reasonable doubt' fulfilled, but of course I still think that they and Israel should be brought up to the ICC.

Decision:

You changed your argument because you have been caught out in a lie.
Fail number 1.

"Attacking settlers is a natural thing," al-Rashk told Al-Hayat on Saturday, saying the "Zionist settlers are the occupation's first reserve military force."

"They are now a real army in every sense of the word, with more than 500,000 automatic weapons at their disposal, on top of the basic protection by the [Israel Defense Forces]," the Hamas official said.

Back to Fuji's argument:

Here's the letter Goldstone wrote to the UN stating before he was even hired to do the job that he was "shocked to the core" and stating that "gross violations" of human rights law had been "committed by all parties":

http://www.amnesty.org.nz/news/experts-seek-gaza-inquiry

Quotes taken out context.
From the letter: 'The events in Gaza have shocked us to the core. ' - that's fair, I'm sure just about everyone is shocked by needless war and death
Quote 2: 'we believe there is an important case to be made for an international investigation of gross violations of the laws of war, committed by all parties to the Gaza conflict. ' - note that in the first line of the letter it reads 'Allegations of serious violations of the laws of war have emerged throughout the latest Gaza conflict', here the letter writers are suggesting not that they are alleging these violations, but that reports of violations have come up and need to be investigated. There is no prejudgment in either of these statements.
Quote 3: 'committed by all parties' - that suggests there is no bias towards either party, and all possible crimes should be investigated, as they did.

Decision:
Attempts to use quotes out of context to create character assassination.
Fail number 2

Goldstone then brought in Chinkin as a member of the "unbiased" committee. The same Chinkin who had previously written this about the conflict:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article5488380.ece

" In addition, the blockade of humanitarian relief, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and preventing access to basic necessities such as food and fuel, are prima facie war crimes."

Whoops, Chinkin already believed it was a war crime before the commission was struck. Goldstone already believed crimes had been committed "by all parties". There was no unbiased investigation here--a bunch of anti-Israel hacks got together and did a hack job.

And finally an attempt to confuse two issues. Chinkin presented his opinion, along with a long and reputable list of people, that the policy of blockade was illegal and a war crime. This was not part of the mandate of the Goldstone report, though they did discuss it come to the same conclusions, as have most reputable legal authorities. Arguing against the war crime of collective punishment does not indicate bias towards other possible war crimes committed during operation castlead. Indeed their letter is a call for peace and the rule of law, which I suppose only a ranting pro-israeli supporter such as yourself might call 'biased'.

Decision:
attempt to conflate two separate issues, attempt to change the argument from 'Goldstone was biased' to 'everyone on the panel was biased'.

Fail number 3

 

[fuji]

And note, that your argument up until this last post has only been that Hamas targets settlers because of where they live, and you are now changing it to include that they are armed and supported by the army.

Sure, they are armed for self defense, and supported by the army. Civilians have a right to arm themselves for self defense, and they remain civilians when they do so. The populations of the United States and Canada are not an army just because gun ownership is legal here! Lots of people own guns. That does not make them legitimate targets in a war!!!

They are still civilians, and it is still a war crime to target them. The statements made by Hamas in that article are enough to indict them for war crimes.

The army that supports them is the legitimate target, not the civilians the army supports.

You've lost this, the only reason you don't see it is you buy into the same criminal thought patterns as Hamas: You somehow think that just because they're in disputed territory, and they try to defend themselves when attacked, that it's OK to murder them.

Quote 3: 'committed by all parties' - that suggests there is no bias towards either party

Presupposing that Israel committed any war crime at all is biased. For that matter, presupposing that Hamas commits war crimes is theoretically biased too, although Hamas steps up and boasts about doing so, so only in theory.

There is no moral equivalence here. It is not the case that both sides are equal morally or legally. Hamas commits the gravest war crimes there are, and boasts about doing so. Israel's transgressions, with the illegal settlements, and building a wall where it shouldn't, are relatively minor.

And finally an attempt to confuse two issues. Chinkin presented his opinion, along with a long and reputable list of people, that the policy of blockade was illegal and a war crime.

No. Chinkin presented her opinion that Cast Lead was a war crime. She was then hired on by Goldstone to write a supposedly unbiased report about whether it was or not, when it was clear from her editorial that she already thought it was.

 

[flubadub]

The statements made by Hamas in that article are enough to indict them for war crimes.

Not according to your dubious metrics.
But of course, both Hamas and Israel should be taken to the ICC.

Presupposing that Israel committed any war crime at all is biased. For that matter, presupposing that Hamas commits war crimes is theoretically biased too, although Hamas steps up and boasts about doing so, so only in theory.

There is no moral equivalence here. It is not the case that both sides are equal morally or legally. Hamas commits the gravest war crimes there are, and boasts about doing so. Israel's transgressions, with the illegal settlements, and building a wall where it shouldn't, are relatively minor.

Goldstone doesn't presuppose crimes were committed in the letter. He reports that grave allegations have been made and because of them an investigation should happen.

You lied and were caught out, three times now, and you're back to trying to push the same old propaganda and justifications for war crimes again. And now you're also back to saying Hamas' transgressions are the 'gravest war crimes there are' and Israel's just piffling. I'd say, having read the Goldstone report and the UN HRC Gaza report that you're just back to your sick ways. Apparently you just can't seem to understand the depravity of your position, so I'd better refresh your memory.

First, you justify the killing of civilians.
Second, you make a statement that it doesn't matter if the evidence is correct or not, as long as the perpetrator 'thinks' his target is a legitimate target they are, by the rules of war, allowed to kill at will.
Third, you refuse to allow this 'ruling' to be applied to both sides of a battle.
Fourth, you try to qualify this 'thinks' into 'knew' when confronted. Which is it? If its 'thinks' then anyone can kill anyone at will based on this definition, if its 'knew' then Goldstone's investigation into whether the Hamas police were civilian is entirely relevant, and his judgement fair.
Fifth, you falsely accuse Goldstone of lying.
Sixth, you have no factual basis in accusing Goldstone of being 'biased'.
Seventh, you attempt to use your faulty reasoning as a way to stonewall discussion about the multiple other charges, on both sides, of war crimes in Goldstone's report.
Eighth, your continual use of 'bias' as a tactic to stop discussion is tantamount to supporting war crimes.
Ninth, your refusal to support equal rights for both sides is tantamount to racism.
Tenth, your continual support of settlers colonization is tantamount to support for ethnic cleansing.
Eleventh, your support of the 'security barrier' and separate rules for Palestinians and Israeli's is tantamount to support for the policy of appartheid.
Twelfth, your support of the policy of the 'blockade' which has probably resulted in the permant stunting of 10,000 tottlers in Gaza, is support of abuse of children.
Thirteenth, your support of the 'collective punishment' of Palestinians is support for some of the worst racist treatment the world has seen in quite some time.


The only result I can come up with, when I consider all of these, is you really are arguing in support of Israel's right to kill anyone on land they want, specifically you are committing veiled support of genocide.

 

[fuji]

Not according to your dubious metrics.

No, only according to the ICRC. Duh.

But of course, both Hamas and Israel should be taken to the ICC.

I don't see any use for the ICC here. Hamas isn't going to submit to it to begin with, you'd have to send in an army to make them comply--IDF is already doing that.

Israel, on the other hand, is more than capable of policing itself, as was so eloquently pointed out by the former chair of HRW in his condemnation of HRW's recent bias against Israel.

Goldstone doesn't presuppose crimes were committed in the letter. He reports that grave allegations have been made and because of them an investigation should happen.

Allegations made by HIM, and by the others, link Chinkin, that he hired to write his propaganda.

 

[fuji]

Second, you make a statement that it doesn't matter if the evidence is correct or not, as long as the perpetrator 'thinks' his target is a legitimate target they are, by the rules of war, allowed to kill at will.

That is in fact correct. If you have reasonable grounds to think your target is the enemy the rules of war allow you to kill at will.

That's what people do in a war: Kill the enemy.

The only requirement is that they take reasonable steps to make sure it's the enemy that they are killing, and not some civilian.

What do you think people do in wars? Hold court hearings before deciding which head popped up over the trenches they can shoot at????? You are ridiculous.