Yirmeyahu

Stan187,

Upon which point do you challenge my statement?

I said indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law. Do you disagree?

I said using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscrimiante warfare. Do you disagree?

I said Landmins are forbidden as indiscrimiante weapons. Do you disagree?

I said unexploded munitions become de facto landmines. Do you disagree?

As for military necessity and proportionality, the burden is upon Israel to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I.

That's an elementary moral and legal truism.

Yours is the "guilty until proven innocent" logic. I'm working with the assumption that the targets of armed attacks are innocent victims of criminal acts. The burden is upon the party engaging in violence to demonstrate that their attacks met the requirements under international law, including Article 51 of Geneva Protocol I.

We needn't "prove" that Hezbollah's firing of rockets into Israel had no military necessity that would justify them or that the attacks were not proportional to any military objective. The burden of demonstrating that its use of force is legitimate is upon Hezbollah.

gunnut,

Under international law, it is a crime to acquire territory through the use of force. Hence UN resolution 242 of 1967, recognizing the inadmissability of the acquisition of territory through war and calling upon Israel to withdraw from the illegally occupied territories.

As for the ethnic cleansing of the Arab population, it occured. That's not a controversial statement. Nor do I have any interest in discussing whether it could have been carried out more efficiently.

Stan187

Answer our questions first. We've stated over and over already what points we dispute you on. That has not changed. Are you going to provide us with your proof, spelled out by law, or not?

Yirmeyahu

Then remind me. Upon which point do you challenge my statement?

I said indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law. Do you disagree?

I said using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscrimiante warfare. Do you disagree?

I said landmines are forbidden as indiscrimiante weapons. Do you disagree?

I said unexploded munitions become de facto landmines. Do you disagree?

See, because I'm confused as to which of these points you contend with, and so until I know which point(s) you disagree with, I can't respond. And if you agree with each of these points, then my case has already been made.

Stan187

Then go back and read, and stop repeating yourself, because I certainly should not have to. We've said that landmines are not forbidden. You said you got DIRECT proof in law? Show it. We said cluster munitions were not illegal or indiscriminate. Show us the proof in the letter of the law that they are. The law is very specific. I don't much care for your reading of its "spirit", you can go be Ms. Cleo and read spirits somewhere else. Show us direct proof, where it says specifically that these things are considered illegal under international law. You have not. And you cannot, because they are not illegal.

Now, I don't want any more questions from you until you prove yourself, answer our questions, or admit that you are wrong. Period. If you try to weasel yourself out of this, and start asking more questions without providing the said proof, you will be ridiculed, guaranteed.

Yirmeyahu

Stan187,

I already did. Once again:

"The 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines and on their Destruction, otherwise known as the Mine Ban Treaty, prohibits the use of antipersonnel landmines."

Palestine culture...

I'd direct you here for further information:

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0..._ihl_landmines

1) Indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law.

2) Using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscriminate warfare.

3) Landmines are forbidden as indiscriminate weapons.

4) Unexploded cluster munitions become de facto landmines.

We've addressed 3. So do you now dispute any of the other 3 points? Or may we move on?

Stan187

To which you have to be a signatory, which Israel isn't. Discussion over.


That's not direct proof, you idiot. That's your opinion. You said you had direct proof. You do not. There is no law that completely outlaws the use of cluster munitions. That's why your are blatantly showing yourself to be an idiot. You said you had concrete proof. You do not. It does not exist on the face of this planet.

Landmines are forbidden to those who signed onto the pact. Israel didn't. So you've just further embarrassed yourself.

zraver

1) Indiscriminate warfare is forbidden under international law.

But it is not a higher order law, the laws of proportionaility and military nessecity takes precedence.

2) Using cluster munitions in populated areas is inherently indiscriminate warfare.

No it's not, Hezzbollah chose to fight a urban battle using lebanese civillians as human shields invoking both the laws or proportionaility and military nessecity beucase israel was trying to stop the deliberate rocket attacks on it's civillian areas.

3) Landmines are forbidden as indiscriminate weapons.

Once again no they are not. What is forbidden is the use of non command detonated anti-personel mines by the signatory countries. Neither Israel, Iraq, lebanon or the US is signatory to this treaty and are out side its purview.

4) Unexploded cluster munitions become de facto landmines.

Possibly, although new clsuter muntions have mutliple fusings and time settings. Unexploded ordance or detrius has never been considered a landmine, just a hazard or war.

Shek

zraver,

Anti-personnel mines are prohibited by the Mine Ban Treaty in all forms; the US has made it policy that it won't use non-command detonated anti-personnel mines. I'm sure that Yirmey we argue vigorously that this meets the spirit of the law by preventing civilians from being indiscriminately targeted In either case, the use of anti-vehicular mines is not prohibited, and when one reads the definition of terms in the Mine Ban Treaty, there is no such thing as a "de facto" landmine, and UXO from cluster munitions don't fit the definitions laid out by the Mine Ban Treaty. Bottomline, Yirmey's attempt still falls far short of the mark.

Cheers.
Shek

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3