stan187
Quote:
|
There never was any Palestinian lands being occupied or even disputed from 1967-1994, because those were Egyptian and Jordanian.
|
The Israeli occupation of and settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is illegal. I'm not really sure how the above is a response to that fact.
I said:
As I've said, I don't "bounce around between" moral and legal standards, but accept them both.
Since you insist otherwise, please quote me where I ever rejected either a moral or a legal standard.
If you can produce such a quote, I'd be happy to acknowledge that you are correct.
If you are unable to produce such a quote, I'd be happy to accept your apology.
You quoted a number of statements. In none of these statements have I rejected any moral standard. In none of them have I rejected a legal standard. Quite the contrary, they are all predicated upon either a moral or a legal standard, or both. The adoption of any of the above moral standards does not preclude the adoption of any legal standard, and, similarly, the adoption of any of the above legal standards does not preclude the adoption of any moral standard.
So, again, I find nothing mutually exclusive about moral and legal standards. On the contrary, I find them mutually supportive.
This "contradiction" is your own invention.
shek
Quote:
|
There is no international law that explicitly prohibits cluster munitions.
|
That is correct.
International law does, however, explicitly prohibit both indiscriminate warfare and weapons which are by nature indiscriminate. I've already cited the Geneva Conventions on both those points, but I don't think either point is in dispute. They are certainly not controversial.
Cluster munitions are, by nature, indiscriminate, and using them in populated areas is indiscriminate warfare.
Stan187 and Shek
Quote:
|
Indeed, I made this point a bit earlier, and he ignored it of course, because it doesn't prop up his already weak argument. Any weapon can be used to kill combatants or non-combatants equally.
|
I'm applying the standard of international law: Geneva Protocol I, Article 51, Paragraphs 4 and 5:
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c)
those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects;
and
(b)
an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.