| Forum Index > General Forum |
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On June 09 2024 13:37 Mohdoo wrote: Imagine that, more hostages kept in a family home. And not just 1, moved around to various family apartments. I guess all family homes are legitimate targets then... | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 09 2024 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote: I guess all family homes are legitimate targets then... Of course not all. But this is not the first confirmed case of hostages being held in family households. If you read about the operation to rescue these hostages, even if you ignore all info from the IDF, it is clear Hamas tried to make sure the hostages were extremely well guarded while also being deeply embedded in civilian centers and directly in civilian homes. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12575 Posts
On June 09 2024 17:07 Jockmcplop wrote: I guess all family homes are legitimate targets then... You can't target the homes, they have human shields | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18464 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18464 Posts
On June 09 2024 22:07 Mohdoo wrote: Of course not all. But this is not the first confirmed case of hostages being held in family households. If you read about the operation to rescue these hostages, even if you ignore all info from the IDF, it is clear Hamas tried to make sure the hostages were extremely well guarded while also being deeply embedded in civilian centers and directly in civilian homes. Seeing as Israel shouldn't want to bomb family homes, isn't putting hostages with families just plain sensible? I mean, in a perfect world, there would be no civilian casualties, whether because they're hostages or because everything is getting bombed, but in the current situation, where *should* Hamas keep hostages according to you, in order to safeguard their survival and minimize the chance of them unintentionally dying to sudden Israeli bombing? | ||
KwarK
United States44382 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18464 Posts
On June 10 2024 08:59 KwarK wrote: That’s some bizarre logic. Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On June 10 2024 17:37 Acrofales wrote: Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place). They should keep them in their underground bunkers. After all, that's where their hacking bases, piranha tanks and slabs with slow moving lasers that cut up the middle all are. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44382 Posts
On June 10 2024 17:37 Acrofales wrote: Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place). So if I'm understanding the logic correctly it goes: 1. Israel attempts to avoid doing war crimes. 2. Attacking civilians is a war crime. 3. Therefore embedding the hostages among civilians will keep them safe. Therefore the best place to keep them would presumably have been a pediatric cancer ward located somewhere on the continental United States. Even less likely that they'd attack there. Failing that, the hostage's own homes. It's the last place Israel would expect. But surely you see why embedding Israel's military objectives among the civilian population is making war crimes more likely, not less. That doing this is itself a war crime. Israel only avoids targeting civilians because civilians are civilians, by making them active participants the whole purpose is defeated at which point the hostages are no safer. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10967 Posts
On June 10 2024 18:15 KwarK wrote: So if I'm understanding the logic correctly it goes: 1. Israel attempts to avoid doing war crimes. 2. Attacking civilians is a war crime. 3. Therefore embedding the hostages among civilians will keep them safe. Therefore the best place to keep them would presumably have been a pediatric cancer ward located somewhere on the continental United States. Even less likely that they'd attack there. Failing that, the hostage's own homes. It's the last place Israel would expect. But surely you see why embedding Israel's military objectives among the civilian population is making war crimes more likely, not less. That doing this is itself a war crime. Israel only avoids targeting civilians because civilians are civilians, by making them active participants the whole purpose is defeated at which point the hostages are no safer. Not sure if i'm up to date with my "warcrime"-law, but isn't holding hostages or storing ammo/weapons in civilian buildings/households making these fair game to attack and attacking them is therefore no longer a warcrime? Well, I doubt that people care either way, see "genocide". | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
So should the hostages be instead kept in the Hamas command bunker? Would this trigger less outrage? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10967 Posts
To make it clear: If XYZ attacks a food marked/hospital, thats a warcrime. Easy enough. If XYZ attacks a food marked/hospital that is also used to store weapons/hide hostages or fighters, thats likely not a warcrime. The fact that civilian deaths are expected during an attack is not the factor that makes something a war crime or not. | ||
|
Byo
Canada212 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8280 Posts
On June 10 2024 17:37 Acrofales wrote: Ok, where should Hamas have kept their hostages (which we, once again, do all agree they shouldn't have in the first place). Are you seriously trying to argue that Hamas was doing a good thing by keeping the hostages near civilians, indirectly creating more hostages of their own people, and substantially increasing civilian casualites? Are you ok? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8280 Posts
On June 10 2024 19:44 Magic Powers wrote: The IDF has shown that they're willing to attack literally any area in Gaza with low regard for civilian life. It doesn't matter where Hamas keeps the hostages, they're never safe from attacks. That is unless you think the terrorists are somehow supposed to be good people who want to minimize casualties. Only then your logic would make sense, because then they shouldn't have any hostages to begin with. But the assumption has to be that they keep hostages precisely because they're terrorists, and from that assumption we have to ask where the hostages should be kept. If it has to be anywhere in Gaza, they're automatically unsafe. There is no safe place in Gaza. This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On June 10 2024 22:29 Excludos wrote: Are you seriously trying to argue that Hamas was doing a good thing by keeping the hostages near civilians, indirectly creating more hostages of their own people, and substantially increasing civilian casualites? Are you ok? You could just answer his question. But since you refuse to do so and obviously oppose the idea of putting things that should not be blown up (hostages) with other things that should not be blown up(civilians), I assume you are also part of the "hostages are military targets" school of thought. So hostages should be kept in ammo depots, command bunkers, together with rocket launch strike groups... Yeah, that surely would be better and would certainly cause less outrage. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10967 Posts
Putting your hostages with civilians is blatantly endangering "your" civilians. Stuff like this is done willingly and knowingly of the dangers. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On June 10 2024 22:35 Excludos wrote: This is surprisingly untrue. You might think it, or want to think it, based on media outpour, but IDF have shown quite a bit of restraint when it comes to what targets they choose. There have been numerous instances of IDF choosing not to attack legit military targets, because the civilian casualties would be high. There's also, tbf, numerous instances of bad intel and hitting wrong targets, that should not go unmentioned. But they aren't uncritically leveling the entirety of Gaza. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue, but if it is that Israel would have attacked civilians even if Hamas actually played by the rules of war and kept themselves and the battlefield away from the urban areas, then you are not arguing in good faith. Yes, there is a lot of hatred on both sides, but currently only one side has been caught deliberately targeting civilians, and it's not Israel I don't know what "rules of war" you're speaking of. According to my rules, Israel has slaughtered tens of thousands of people. Are your rules more forgiving? | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8280 Posts
On June 10 2024 23:01 mahrgell wrote: You could just answer his question. But since you refuse to do so and obviously oppose the idea of putting things that should not be blown up (hostages) with other things that should not be blown up(civilians), I assume you are also part of the "hostages are military targets" school of thought. So hostages should be kept in ammo depots, command bunkers, together with rocket launch strike groups... Yeah, that surely would be better and would certainly cause less outrage. "But uhuhm.." *shoves glasses up the nose* since you refuuuuse to answer the question..!" The question needs to be based on a reasonable premise to be worthy of answering. Not taking hostages is the correct answer. If you do take prisoners, you hold them away from high value military targets, and you especially keep them away from civilians. There's no moral grey area or philosophical discussion to be had here. There is no world in which keeping hostages in civilian areas can in any way shape or form be considered "a good thing". This discussion is so low-brow I'm amazed I can still see my own nose. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
