[late]

It is not whataboutism...

Says the guy who is about to equal Nazis on civilian punishment, AKA mass murder.

[wat0n]

Says the guy who is about to equal Nazis on civilian punishment, AKA mass murder.

It is still not whataboutism to call out and condemn the mass rapes of October 7.

In fact, what you are doing is whataboutism. And it is supporting rape.

When will you stop?

[late]

It is still not whataboutism...

The trick with propaganda is that it needs to be, at least, superficially plausible.

Needs work..

[wat0n]

@late even the UN finds it credible there were instances of mass rape on October 7.

[late]

@late even the UN finds it credible there were instances of mass rape on October 7

Nothing excuses mass murder...

[wat0n]

Nothing excuses mass murder...

And mass rape, but here we are seeing you say otherwise in other threads.

[Rich]

Should war have rules?

British soldiers should not commit rape or desecrate dead bodies. In some ways I'm actually a bit of rules fanatic. For example I don't think we should kidnap, torture and cage "terrorist" suspects without trail or due process, even if they are foreigners. Most Liberals either support these measures or at the very least are quite happy to be in a military alliance led by people that do.

But let us consider the 10/7 special military operation. What was its purpose? Was it to destroy the Israeli army in whole or in part? Was it a classic Clausewitzian operation designed to destroy Israel's ability to fight. Clearly not. Not at all.

Was 10/7 aimed to capture and hold territory? Again clearly not, not at all. So what was this operation's goal?

Its sole goal was to hurt Israelis, to cause them pain and suffering. Now consider the young men, may be older boys who committed themselves to this operation. They didn't expect to live. They were sacrificing their lives for this operation. The expectancy must be that they wouldn't come back. Now we can debate the morality of this, we can debate whether this was a wise sacrifice of one's life. But given that they had committed to the operation. The best they could expect in return for their lives was hours, not weeks, not days but hours. If successful as the operation was, they had hours to cause maximum suffering to Israelis.

Don't you think it would add immensely to the suffering of the friends and relatives to know that their loved ones had spent the last minutes of their lives being raped. Wouldn't it add immensely to their suffering, if the images they couldn't get out of their heads, was of their loved ones dead bodies being violated? Given the nature of this operation, given that you'd chosen to sacrifice your life for the mission, I can't understand why anyone would not want to use the weapon of rape. I can't understand why anyone would not want to desecrate the bodies.

[Tainari88]

:roll: Oh dear, oh dear, Oh dear. This is a century old ethnic conflict that's involved multiple wars, that have cost the lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of people, have destroyed the homes and livelihoods of uncounted thousands and have uprooted hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people and you start talking about justice.

When Tony Blair went to Belfast to get the Good Friday Agreement signed, he spat on justice, he pissed on justice, he flushed justice down the toilet and rightly so. This is war, yet you talk about this like its an issue of policing. once you have an insurgency, you can forget about justice as we normally expect it in a peaceful liberal democracy. Once you have a serious insurgency, regardless of the virtue or "evil" of the insurgents, regardless of the virtue or "evil" of the status quo government or power.

This is the problem that bedevils every conflict, both sides treat it like its like a matter of the rule of law. Wars can not be fought within a rules based system. War is not lawn tennis.

@Rich that last line of yours is really truthful.

I do not see why it is so hard for warmongering governments to play that hypocritical shit role of....justice will be served. No, it won't. War is not about rules of justice or law and order. It is about chaos and violence and one side trying to survive and win, and the other side trying to survive and win or defend or offend.

It is not about justice.

Why do you have to explain the obvious?

[Potemkin]

@Rich that last line of yours is really truthful.

I do not see why it is so hard for warmongering governments to play that hypocritical shit role of....justice will be served. No, it won't. War is not about rules of justice or law and order. It is about chaos and violence and one side trying to survive and win, and the other side trying to survive and win or defend or offend.

It is not about justice.

Why do you have to explain the obvious?

@Rich has to explain the obvious because most people don’t want to believe the obvious. And when you explain it to them, they get angry with you, as though it’s your fault that reality is the way that it is. People don’t like the message, so they shoot the messenger. @Rich seems to have made it his life’s mission to explain the obvious to people, and to endure their anger and disbelief for doing so. I rather admire him for that.

[wat0n]

If this idea of "war sucks, get over it" was only applied universally... It's interesting how this argument only applies to some belligerents but not others.

[Potemkin]

If this idea of "war sucks, get over it" was only applied universally... It's interesting how this argument only applies to some belligerents but not others.

War is essentially legalised criminality. Acts which would, in normal circumstances, be regarded as outrageous violations of the legal code become not only legal, but praiseworthy and indeed mandatory. It is conscientious objectors - that is, those people who wish to maintain the rule of law - who are punished. Is it therefore surprising that Hamas committed acts of outrageous criminality in its war against Israel, or that the Israeli government is committing acts of outrageous criminality in its war against the Palestinians? Choosing which side to support has little or nothing to do with the methods used by either side in their war against each other, because such methods have been used by belligerents since history began.

[wat0n]

War is essentially legalised criminality. Acts which would, in normal circumstances, be regarded as outrageous violations of the legal code become not only legal, but praiseworthy and indeed mandatory. It is conscientious objectors - that is, those people who wish to maintain the rule of law - who are punished. Is it therefore surprising that Hamas committed acts of outrageous criminality in its war against Israel, or that the Israeli government is committing acts of outrageous criminality in its war against the Palestinians? Choosing which side to support has little or nothing to do with the methods used by either side in their war against each other, because such methods have been used by belligerents since history began.

There are differences too.

Spending a while torturing and raping civilians before executing them as it happened on October 7 is not necessary from a military point of view. Neither is the looting done by Israeli soldiers as they sometimes share on social media, which I don't think is nearly as bad as the former yet it is still criminal behavior and shows indiscipline.

Of course, these unnecessary things still happen regardless. But these acts against civilians have historically been regarded as forms of brutality and when those who committed them would end up losing the war, they would often be treated a lot more harshly than if they had not done so.

Also, living in a much more technological age where we have the means to wreck a lot more destruction than centuries ago suggests having at least some basic rules for conduct war can make sense. I don't think it's a coincidence that the development of our contemporary laws of war began when the Industrial Revolution was fully steaming ahead... And they probably still need to be developed further, since existing law seems to be quite hard to apply in practice and may even be counterproductive (specially if there are non-state actors who by default are hard to be held accountable).

[Potemkin]

There are differences too.

Spending a while torturing and raping civilians before executing them as it happened on October 7 is not necessary from a military point of view. Neither is the looting done by Israeli soldiers as they sometimes share on social media, which I don't think is nearly as bad as the former yet it is still criminal behavior and shows indiscipline.

Of course, these unnecessary things still happen regardless. But these acts against civilians have historically been regarded as forms of brutality and when those who committed them would end up losing the war, they would often be treated a lot more harshly than if they had not done so.

Which has always happened throughout human history. Why should it happen any differently now?

Also, living in a much more technological age where we have the means to wreck a lot more destruction than centuries ago suggests having at least some basic rules for conduct war can make sense. I don't think it's a coincidence that the development of our contemporary laws of war began when the Industrial Revolution was fully steaming ahead... And they probably still need to be developed further, since existing law seems to be quite hard to apply in practice and may even be counterproductive (specially if there are non-state actors who by default are hard to be held accountable).

Having moral rules in war can never really be more than helpful suggestions rather than binding laws, @wat0n. We can stand on the sidelines and purse our lips and tut disapprovingly, but that’s pretty much all we can do. And the ICJ and the like demonstrated how politicised and partisan they were back in the 1990s, which shouldn’t have surprised anyone - it’s an excellent opportunity to pursue politics by other means, as war itself is.

[wat0n]

@Potemkin oh, yes, of course these rules are not binding in practice or at least not without (ironically) fighting a war and defeating a belligerent. But does it mean it is a waste of time altogether?

I used to think it was too, but nowadays I believe trying to help make war slightly less brutal may be better than no attempts to that effect at all.

[skinster]

The unravelling of the New York Times ‘Hamas rape’ story

rape rape rape rape rape

I'm so amused you carried on with exactly what the OP leaked report suggested for hasbara trolls like you.

[wat0n]

I can see I'm still living in your head rent free, @skinster

[skinster]

I can see I'm still living in your head rent free, @skinster

You wish.

The genocide against Palestinians does live rent-free in my head though, as I'm sure you can see..

[wat0n]

This thread is specifically about me, I'm even in the name

You got so massively mad at the Patten report that you just had to dedicate a thread to me

[skinster]

[Deutschmania]

War is essentially legalised criminality. Acts which would, in normal circumstances, be regarded as outrageous violations of the legal code become not only legal, but praiseworthy and indeed mandatory. It is conscientious objectors - that is, those people who wish to maintain the rule of law - who are punished. Is it therefore surprising that Hamas committed acts of outrageous criminality in its war against Israel, or that the Israeli government is committing acts of outrageous criminality in its war against the Palestinians? Choosing which side to support has little or nothing to do with the methods used by either side in their war against each other, because such methods have been used by belligerents since history began.

No , war is not a free for all , where anything goes . There are rules of conduct , pertinent to just war theory .

https://www.usna.edu/CoreEthics/Orend_Just_Conduct_in_War

https://iep.utm.edu/justwar/