Gaza Attacks

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Strangelove » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:44 pm

.... did ChristaPuppy say that in retrospect from beyond the grave? :D

BTW guys, my "not an argument" remark stemmed from this post:

viewtopic.php?p=153794#p153794

Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Topper » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:23 pm

Strangelove wrote:Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....

and they're all pink on the inside.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Cookie La Rue » Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:31 am

ukcanuck wrote:........ Der Fehrer ........

:lol: I love this game, love this board. :mrgreen:
"Every dog has its day." - CC Hockey Pool Champion 2004 & 2013
User avatar
Cookie La Rue
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: 50° 10' North / 8° 34' East

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby SKYO » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:44 am

Doc/Per = gold CC medals of the year for debating!

Tops in this thread for hilarious posts -


Topper wrote:
Arachnid wrote:It's like the flowering anus of the lower mainland :eh:
Image

Topper:That explains the smell in Chilliwack.
User avatar
SKYO
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3453
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:34 pm

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Per » Fri Dec 07, 2012 5:56 am

Strangelove wrote:So you believe that "it" is not a gross violation of the Geneva Convention
... and yet is a "war crime"?? :crazy:

I’ve maintained the whole time that it is a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime.
I originally said gross violation, but after you did a comparison to genocide and such, I figured gross might be too strong a word, so I said “OK, strike gross”. What I meant was of course that it is not gross when compared to genocide.
But when you take that out of context and state “You believe it is not a gross violation of the Geneva Convention” it becomes very misleading, as you make it sound like I thought it’s negligible, which it is not. Looking at the websites of the ICC (International War Crimes Court) and the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross), it seems the correct legal term is “a grave breach of the Geneva Convention”, and as such it does constitute a war crime.

Strangelove wrote:You keep referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I believe the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defers to the Geneva Convention.
Uhm.. not quite, but in a way. See my next answer.

Strangelove wrote:You seem to understand the settlements are not a "war crime" under the Geneva Convention. But you don't seem to grasp that they are also not a "war crime" according to the International Criminal Court.
Now, you are free to speculate on whether or not the ICC might one day rule they are a "war crime".
But until that day comes (it never will, I think you know that) they are NOT... according to the ICC.
You mustn't neglect the all-important "COURT" part of the International Criminal Court!
Until a court rules y'see....

OK, pro primo, the Geneva Convention does not have a definition of what a war crime is. It just sets a number of rules that apply to international conflicts. In popular speech, breaches of the Geneva Convention are often referred to as war crimes, but there are various different definitions of war crimes, so the usage varies.
When however the International War Crimes Tribunal (now called the ICC, ie the International Criminal Court) was created, they actually did define war crimes in its statutes. The war crimes listed in their statutes can be divided into three groups:
1) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I;

2) Other serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts (based primarily on the 1899 Hague Declaration, the 1907 Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention No. IV, the 1925 Geneva Protocol, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and its protocols, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, and the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia);

3) Serious violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in non-international armed conflicts (based primarily on Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Additional Protocol II of 1977, the 1999 Optional Protocol to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone).
Source: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docum ... 311008.htm

Thus, violations (or breaches) of the rules set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention are now (since 2002) declared war crimes in the 2002 Rome Statute, but they are only a subset of its total list of war crimes.

Pro segundo, I think the wording of Art. 8 (2) (b) (viii) of the Rome Statute’s list of war crimes makes it rather clear that the settlements do qualify as such:
The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
As you may notice the wording is very similar to what can be found in Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

Pro tercio, I agree that it is unlikely that this will ever land in the ICC, mainly because so far the ICC only has jurisdiction over the countries that have ratified the Rome Statute (and Israel has not); but with 121 countries of the roughly 193 there are already having done this, and a further 32 having signed but not ratified, I’d say it is close to being universally agreed upon, and then it will start to qualify as customary law even for those that have not agreed to it.
I do however maintain that it is a war crime, regardless of whether Israel is bound by the rules or not and regardless of whether there ever will be a ruling.

Just as Nicole Simpson was murdered, regardless of whether or not anyone will ever be convicted of it, the settlements are a war crime, regardless of whether anyone will ever be convicted of it.

Strangelove wrote:Besides, as you said:
Using the phrase 'war crime' in this case equates to 'name calling' and is neither diplomatic nor favourable. :hmmm:
You also said:
"As for the legality issue, why don't we leave it to the lawyers to fight it out?" and concluded it's "open to debate".
.... why then do you continue to call the settlements a "war crime"?

Well, diplomats have their own set of rules. Just the other month a whole bunch of reporters were trying to get anyone at the Swedish department of foreign affairs on record saying that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, which it of course is, but everyone kept dodging and evading the word.
“We don’t tend to use that kind of labels…”
“I’m not sure I would use that word, but it’s certainly authoritarian…”
Etc :roll:

Even though I once contemplated looking for employment at the foreign department, I never did, and thus I feel free to call a spade a spade. And the Israeli settlements on the West Bank do constitute a war crime, as defined by the Rome Statute.

What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.

Some argue that the wording of the statute says it is only binding to those who have ratified it, others argue that with roughly two thirds of the world on board and this specific crime already being outlawed by the universally accepted Geneva Convention, it is binding even to those who have not.

I’m not enough of an expert of international law* to say which side is right, but I do understand politics enough to understand that no government of a western nation is going to say outright that they consider Israel guilty of war crimes. They really have nothing to gain by doing so, and they could stand to lose a whole lot.

*the little international law I have studied was mainly contract and business law, and does not apply to this situation

Strangelove wrote:After all, one could lable every nation on Earth as "war criminals" by that definition
... if one wanted to open the history books amirite? :)

Not so sure… let’s see what you can do with eg Norway, holding in mind that laws cannot be applied retro-actively. Looking forward to what you can dig up! :)

Strangelove wrote:Please stop trying to paint Israel as "the bad guys"!

I’m not. I’m saying “peas in a pod”.

Strangelove wrote:
Per wrote:Some have suggested that Gaza is neither autonomous nor occupied, but rather a gigantic prison camp. :?
Well those folk should not neglect to point the finger at the jailer to west: Egypt!
Agreed. But interestingly, neither Egypt nor Israel like to point out that they are basically allies.
:D
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Arachnid » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:09 am

Strangelove wrote:.... did ChristaPuppy say that in retrospect from beyond the grave? :D

BTW guys, my "not an argument" remark stemmed from this post:

viewtopic.php?p=153794#p153794

Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....


He is a Troubled zombie now :P
There is no such thing as climate change...there is no such thing as climate change...there is such thing as climate change...
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:42 pm

Per wrote:

What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.


Rules schmules...

Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry

If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.

That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..

That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...

Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.

Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...

For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Arachnid » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:39 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Per wrote:

What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.


Rules schmules...

Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry

If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.

That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..

That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...

Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.

Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...

For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it


Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?

Sorry, I don't think the Holocast has anything to do with Israel now. What about all the other injustices in the world? The genocides? The displacements? One tribe over another does not deserve special treatment. We either figure it out together or we all die as one.
There is no such thing as climate change...there is no such thing as climate change...there is such thing as climate change...
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby ukcanuck » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:46 pm

Arachnid wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Per wrote:

What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.


Rules schmules...

Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry

If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.

That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..

That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...

Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.

Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...

For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it


Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?

Sorry, I don't think the Holocast has anything to do with Israel now. What about all the other injustices in the world? The genocides? The displacements? One tribe over another does not deserve special treatment. We either figure it out together or we all die as one.

You misunderstand, I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the reality of the situation. If you have only one acceptable outcome, you are not going to take chances to be me nice guy, you are going to play hard ball, well at least I would in their shoes...it ain't pretty, and it ain't nice, it just is. If I was African or Native American it makes no difference, survival of the fittest right? I think that's your mantra ...

EDIT: Careful, Doc is watching and waiting for you to step in it...:)
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Arachnid » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:55 pm

ukcanuck wrote:
Arachnid wrote:
ukcanuck wrote:
Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?

Sorry, I don't think the Holocast has anything to do with Israel now. What about all the other injustices in the world? The genocides? The displacements? One tribe over another does not deserve special treatment. We either figure it out together or we all die as one.

You misunderstand, I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the reality of the situation. If you have only one acceptable outcome, you are not going to take chances to be me nice guy, you are going to play hard ball, well at least I would in their shoes...it ain't pretty, and it ain't nice, it just is. If I was African or Native American it makes no difference, survival of the fittest right? I think that's your mantra ...

EDIT: Careful, Doc is watching and waiting for you to step in it...:)


Doc schmock, why is everyone afraid of someone that always has a man as his avatar? Unlike moi :)
Let me ask you UcKy....Who do you trust?

A guy that advocates a nuclear apocalypse so he doesn't have to try to make the world better for this and future generations so he can go to a fictitious god or a guy that will go to a protest that he doesn't really know what it is about and fuck all the sexually permissive women (that are totally into a three-way with another woman) but wind up doing something progressively amazing despite himself?

8-)

It is not survival of the fittest, it is the opposite indeed. Might does not make right. History has proven that in every era, too bad we do not listen.
There is no such thing as climate change...there is no such thing as climate change...there is such thing as climate change...
Arachnid
CC Legend
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Old Berlin

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Strangelove » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:26 pm

Per wrote:...violations (or breaches) of the rules set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention are now (since 2002) declared war crimes in the 2002 Rome Statute, but they are only a subset of its total list of war crimes.

Pro segundo, I think the wording of Art. 8 (2) (b) (viii) of the Rome Statute’s list of war crimes makes it rather clear that the settlements do qualify as such:

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory


As you may notice the wording is very similar to what can be found in Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.


This case is not that cut and dry.

Did you miss the part where Jordan annexed the West Bank from 1948 - 67?

Did you miss the part where Jordan kicked out the Jews who had lived there for hundreds (thousands) of years?

According to your quote above, what Jordan did there was a "war crime".

Wouldn't the remedy to that "war crime" be to return the Jews to their original West Bank settlements?

Well that is exactly what happened when Israel won the Six Day War:

Jews returned to the West Bank after a 20 year illegal exile!

But YOU claim that obvious "remedy" is ALSO a "war crime"!!

And round and round we go.

No doubt some/most of those Israeli settlements in the WB will officially become part of Israel in any future Peace Deal.

The law you quoted above says that Jews should be allowed to live in certain sections of the WB.

Afterall they were part of the original population of the territory in question.

If you insist on calling the natural expansion of the settlements a "war crime" fill your boots.

Personally I'll reserve the term for things such as the targeting of civilians with bombs.

Speaking of that, this revelation came out today:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/07 ... le-crisis/

Jonathan Schanzer, a former counter-terrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, said the real agenda behind Israel’s assault last month on Hamas’ munitions stockpiles and smuggling tunnels was not simply to end the daily barrage of relatively primitive rockets that have become part of daily life in Israel. The real mission was to eliminate as many as 100 Iranian-built Fajr5 missiles - with the power to reach Tel Aviv - that had been sneaked into Gaza through Egypt. The Obama administration knew in advance of the operation and agreed that the missiles, built in a Sudanese factory, had to be neutralized to protect millions of Israeli citizens who were now within range of the deadly Iranian weapons, according to Schanzer.


Hmmm... Hillary to Morsi: "Mohamed you caused this mess, you broker a peace deal right fucking now and MAYBE we won't do to you like we did to Mubarak so fast it'll make your nemes spin like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a an exorcism!!"


.
Last edited by Strangelove on Tue Dec 11, 2012 12:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Strangelove » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:28 pm

Arachnid wrote:It is not survival of the fittest, it is the opposite indeed.


Spidey, the poster boy for Devolution. :mex:
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Topper » Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Arachnid wrote:It is not survival of the fittest, it is the opposite indeed.

Death to the weak.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4792
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby RoyalDude » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:47 pm

Can somebody bring me up to speed, who's winning? The Jews or Arabs?
"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate
User avatar
RoyalDude
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4493
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 6:36 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Gaza Attacks

Postby Per » Sat Dec 08, 2012 5:42 am

ukcanuck wrote:
Per wrote:

What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.


Rules schmules...

Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry

If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.

That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..

That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...

Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.

Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...

For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it


UK and Doc, two peas in a pod... :shock:



Besides..... Abraham's temple...? :?
User avatar
Per
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am

PreviousNext

Return to Creeper's Bar & Grill

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest