Hamas attacks Israel
-
Well, as long as we're speaking Jesus...
From Luke 22:
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
That's interesting. It shows that the apostles already had swords. Reckon they had them to pick their teeth with?
-
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
I will not comment on your Biblical references which I regard as mere anecdotal entertainment but…..
The bombing of Dresden is neither here or there and I know you know that or, at least, should know better.
In any case Dresden was a legitimate military infrastructure target. Much is made by revisionist historians of its production of porcelain finery and knick knacks. However it was also a major rail hub and contained over 120 businesses that manufactured or assembled military use products. So I advise against hanging your hat on revisionist historical thinking on the matter.
As for the matter at hand - The Israeli Hamas War currently under discussion: The first use of chemical weapons against an enemy is abhorrent and should be avoided by any state that calls itself a democracy.
-
Is it better to be gassed or burned?
I think most can agree that WW2 was a just war. But from the burning of Dresden to the Rape of Berlin, there were an awful lot of Christians killed. For a purpose. And that purpose was the eradication of Nazi Germany.
Hamas's stated purpose is the eradication of the Jewish state. To do that, they will kill every Jew on the face of this earth if need be and they actually had that power. They will not wage a just war. They will not recognize noncombatants. They are a firm believer that nits make lice, so it's perfectly fine to rape a mother in front of her children and then burn the family to charcoal.
That's 13th century.
They've had their chance. They have swatted away any olive branch with barred teeth and ferocity. So, you fight them like 13th century. Treat them like the animals they are. Level Gaza. Track them to the ends of the earth and wipe their family's names from the rolls of men.
Many of you wish to apply modern rules of warfare to a people engaged in a Holy War with no quarter.
You know, if the shoe were on the other foot, so to speak...I think Hamas would treat the Jews much as Titus did. Kill them. Eradicate them. I think Josephus said as many as 600,000 Jews were slaughtered in Jerusalem. There's an old tale that says the Legion crucified a Jew every mile on the road, all the way back to Rome.
It was effective n a few different ways...It did spread Christianity. It also ended the Zealots, the Sadducees, the Pharisees and the Essenes. Permanently. They are now consigned to history forever.
In a fight to the knife, there is no second place winner. I think it's time we understood that and decided whether the world is better with Israel and the Jews, or the Muslims of Hamas.
If the Muslim world wishes to live in peace, then by all means possible, let us live in peace. But if not, let us win to make a better day.
-
You are probably…no, undoubtedly right about Hamas, although I believe Saladin in the 13th Century showed considerably more chivalry towards his Crusader enemies than any modern day fanatical Islamic terrorist shows towards any human being, let alone a Christian or a Jew.
But no, Israel should not be the first to resort to chemical weapons beyond incendiaries such as napalm and white phosphorus to name a couple of the several that fall under the conventional weapons label.
If Hamas or its ally, Hezbollah, use any WMD then all bets are off the table. Israel must respond in kind with total annihilation as the sole objective.
It is a matter of first use.
-
-
-
@jon-nyc said in Hamas attacks Israel:
No words.
When the enemy goes house to house with guns, one good man can do something like this to save his family. May he rest in peace.
When the enemy drop bombs from above, or use unconventional weapons of mass destruction, no man can do something like this to save any of his family.
-
@Axtremus said in Hamas attacks Israel:
@jon-nyc said in Hamas attacks Israel:
No words.
When the enemy goes house to house with guns, one good man can do something like this to save his family. May he rest in peace.
When the enemy drop bombs from above, or use unconventional weapons of mass destruction, no man can do something like this to save any of his family.
@Axtremus said in Hamas attacks Israel:
@jon-nyc said in Hamas attacks Israel:
No words.
When the enemy goes house to house with guns, one good man can do something like this to save his family. May he rest in peace.
When the enemy drop bombs from above, or use unconventional weapons of mass destruction, no man can do something like this to save any of his family.
How would you work in the morality of using civilians as human shields into that?
-
@Axtremus said in Hamas attacks Israel:
@jon-nyc said in Hamas attacks Israel:
No words.
When the enemy goes house to house with guns, one good man can do something like this to save his family. May he rest in peace.
When the enemy drop bombs from above, or use unconventional weapons of mass destruction, no man can do something like this to save any of his family.
As I understand it, Palestinian civilians are given an opportunity to evacuate before bombings. Still sucks to lose your house, but it's better than being raped and murdered on a Saturday morning.
-
@Horace said in Hamas attacks Israel:
As I understand it, Palestinian civilians are given an opportunity to evacuate before bombings.
Presumably the warning for the civilians to evacuate would also reach the ears of the terrorists, militants, rapists, murderers, etc. who can also choose to evacuate along with the civilians. Not sure how that would separate the civilians from the terrorists/militants/rapists/murderers.
-
@Axtremus said in Hamas attacks Israel:
@Horace said in Hamas attacks Israel:
As I understand it, Palestinian civilians are given an opportunity to evacuate before bombings.
Presumably the warning for the civilians to evacuate would also reach the ears of the terrorists, militants, rapists, murderers, etc. who can also choose to evacuate along with the civilians.
And yet Israel continues to announce the bombs.
Not sure how that would separate the civilians from the terrorists/militants/rapists/murderers.
Seems difficult. In effect, Israel minimizes human casualties in general when they announce bombing targets and allow evacuations.
-
Apropos that, is there any other conflict in the history of warfare where warnings are distributed before an attack?
-
@bachophile said in Hamas attacks Israel:
Apropos that, is there any other conflict in the history of warfare where warnings are distributed before an attack?
It did happen in Hiroshima, but that might have been a one-of. @jolly would know...
-
https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1086&context=ils
The requirement to give, in certain circumstances, advance warning prior to an at- tack that may affect the civilian population appears in the earliest codifications of the law governing the conduct of hostilities. Thus, we find the following instruc- tion in Article 19 of the Lieber Code of 1862:
Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard a place, so that the noncombatants, and especially the women and children, may be re- moved before the bombardment commences. But it is no infraction of the common law of war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity.1
Article 19 acknowledges that there may be situations when it is justified not to give a warning, as when it is necessary to enable surprising the enemy.The Lieber Code influenced the language of the Brussels Declaration of 1874, which stated in Article 16 that “if a town or fortress, agglomeration of dwellings, or village, is defended, the officer in command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.”2 Unlike the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration is directed to the of- ficer in command of an attacking force and not to commanders in general. It also specifies that the warning must be given to the “authorities.” Similar language appears in the Laws of War on Land published by the Institute of International Law in 1880 (known also as the Oxford Manual).3
Article 26 of the Regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV con- tains wording that is almost identical to that of the Brussels Declaration: “The Offi- cer in Command of an attacking force must, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, do all in his power to warn the authorities.”4 The term “assault” refers to surprise attacks, regarding which there is no obligation to warn in advance.
Article 6 of the 1907 Hague Convention IX Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War also refers to the duty to issue warnings prior to attacks.6 Conversely, the draft Air Warfare Rules of 1923 did not refer to warnings,7 which suggests that at that period of time no similar rule existed with regard to aerial bombardment.8
......
An obligation to give warnings prior to attacks appears in many military manuals, including the most recent.35 Examples include the following.
• The US Army’s Operational Law Handbook, published in 2010, provides:
The general requirement to warn before a bombardment only applies if civilians are present. Exception: if it is an assault (any attack where surprise is a key element), no warning need be given. Warnings need not be specific as to time and location of the at- tack, but can be general and issued through broadcasts, leaflets, etc.*36
• Paragraph8.9.2 of the USNavy’s The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, which was issued in 2007, under the heading “Warning before Bombardment” states, “Where the military situation permits, commanders should make every reasonable effort to warn the civilian population located in close proximity to a military objective targeted for bombardment. Warnings may be general rather than specific lest the bombarding force or the success of its mis- sion be placed in jeopardy.”37
• Article 5.32.8 of the United Kingdom’s The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004) provides:
There is a duty to give advance warning of an attack that “may” affect the civilian popu- lation, unless circumstances do not permit. Obviously, the point does not arise as a matter of law if military operations are being conducted in an area where there is no ci- vilian population or if the attack is not going to affect the civilian population at all. In other cases, the warning must be given in advance and it must be effective. The object of the warning is to enable civilians to take shelter or leave the area and to enable the civil defense authorities to take appropriate measures. To be effective the warning must be in time and sufficiently specific and comprehensive to enable them to do this . . . .*
• Article 551 o fAustralia’s 1994 Defense Force Manual provides:
Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law
When a planned attack is likely to affect the civilian population, those making the at- tack are required to give, if practicable, effective advance warning of the attack to the authorities or civilian population. This requirement must obviously be applied in a commonsense manner in light of all other factors. If the proposed action is likely to be seriously compromised by a warning then there is no requirement to provide any warning.39- Article 420 of Canada’s manual Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels (2001) states, “An effective advance warning shall be given of at- tacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit such a warning to be given. For tactical reasons, an attacking force may not give a warning in order to maintain the element of surprise.”
• Article1.4 of France’s LOAC Summary Note of1992states,“If the military mission allows for it, appropriate warning must be given to the civilian population to give it time to seek shelter.”41
Additional examples appear in volume II of the ICRC’s customary international law study.42 -
@bachophile said in Hamas attacks Israel:
Apropos that, is there any other conflict in the history of warfare where warnings are distributed before an attack?
Oddly enough, the IRA used to sometimes phone in a warning before setting off a bomb. They even had passwords so that the police would know which ones were genuine.
(Just to be clear I’m not comparing the IDF with the IRA, or this conflict with NI. Also, they would occasionally plant a second one nearby with no warning)
-
I don’t mean what’s written in the rules. I mean what’s done in practice. Regularly.
I don’t think it was done during Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. not sure about Iraq or Afghanistan
