3 ms·

I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments, oddly enough. The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes a

I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments, oddly enough. The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them.

yyyk 3y ago
>I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. >The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities. This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234/u-s-led-coalition-hits-main-mosul-hospital-with-airstrike https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234... Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.
- lazyasciiart 3y ago
  > Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. Not true. I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.
  - yyyk 3y ago
    >Not true. Some of us have direct memories of the time and it was very much true... >I certainly wouldn’t refer.. They weren't even aware they weren't any patients. And it's not the only hospital attacked at Mosul. Most hospitals there were attacked: https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-ruins-battle-mosul https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-r... If you want the legal brief, see Article 8.2.e.iv. with an explicit carveout ("provided they are not military objectives"): https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=14 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=...
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      Yes, I do have direct memories of the time. Perhaps you were in one of those pro-war bubbles that didn't see any opposition.
      - yyyk 3y ago
        I actually remember quite a bit of opposition. Just not on these grounds.
  - redcitylights 3y ago
    > Not true. Make an argument, not just a contradiction. The fact is that public opinion on the Iraq war was far higher (47-60% in favor) initially than it is now (61% say we should have stayed out). wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#
    - lazyasciiart 3y ago
      My argument is that there was not consensus. You cite that there was up to 60% support, and you somehow think you are disagreeing with me?
edanm 3y ago
> The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them. That is neither what the laws of war say, nor what the Israeli argument is (or at least, it's a misrepresentation). The laws of war say that if a medical facility (or any other civilian infrastructure) is used by militants as part of the war effort, then it loses its protected status. Israel's argument, whether you agree or not, is that this occurred, thereby making those targets legal.

yyyk 3y ago

>I do recall opposition to America’s post 9-11 response based on the same arguments Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. >The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities. This is wrong. Medical facilities can be struck if they are used for war. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234/u-s-led-coalition-hits-main-mosul-hospital-with-airstrike https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/08/504815234... Moreover, this is not what happened in Gaza - there were raids but not dropping bombs from airplanes, the former being much less destructive.

lazyasciiart 3y ago
> Very much on the margins if any. The overwhelming consensus ignored these considerations. Not true. I certainly wouldn’t refer to “the US did it” as a cite for “it’s not a war crime”, but that article appears to be saying they attacked a place not thought to be currently active as a civilian medical facility.
- yyyk 3y ago
  >Not true. Some of us have direct memories of the time and it was very much true... >I certainly wouldn’t refer.. They weren't even aware they weren't any patients. And it's not the only hospital attacked at Mosul. Most hospitals there were attacked: https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-ruins-battle-mosul https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-rebuilding-hospital-r... If you want the legal brief, see Article 8.2.e.iv. with an explicit carveout ("provided they are not military objectives"): https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=14 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf#page=...
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    Yes, I do have direct memories of the time. Perhaps you were in one of those pro-war bubbles that didn't see any opposition.
    - yyyk 3y ago
      I actually remember quite a bit of opposition. Just not on these grounds.
- redcitylights 3y ago
  > Not true. Make an argument, not just a contradiction. The fact is that public opinion on the Iraq war was far higher (47-60% in favor) initially than it is now (61% say we should have stayed out). wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq#
  - lazyasciiart 3y ago
    My argument is that there was not consensus. You cite that there was up to 60% support, and you somehow think you are disagreeing with me?

edanm 3y ago

> The current laws of war do not allow, for instance, strikes at medical facilities: Israel’s argument is that they don’t have to follow the laws because Hamas is breaking them. That is neither what the laws of war say, nor what the Israeli argument is (or at least, it's a misrepresentation). The laws of war say that if a medical facility (or any other civilian infrastructure) is used by militants as part of the war effort, then it loses its protected status. Israel's argument, whether you agree or not, is that this occurred, thereby making those targets legal.