4 ms·

The Israeli military often cites that it is impossible to make a difference between Hamas militants and civilians. It reminds me of the VN war in which the VC o

The Israeli military often cites that it is impossible to make a difference between Hamas militants and civilians. It reminds me of the VN war in which the VC often dressed as civilians to kill US military personnel. The US was condemned leading attack against VN villages allegedly housing the VC. At some point, they used mercenary like the South Korea military to squash those VC by hitting the whole village with extreme prejudice. Who was at fault?

csb6 2y ago
> Who was at fault? Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.
- Fatnino 2y ago
  The rules of war evolved specifically so armies would not feel the need to slaughter civilians. Uniforms, military facilities kept separate from civilian infrastructure, etc. are rules for a reason. If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk. There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
  - tdeck 2y ago
    Bold of you to take the same stance Germany took about murdering civilians in the territory they were occupying. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
    - nayaketo 2y ago
      He's taking the same stance allied forces took in Germany and Japan.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        > took The US base in Okinawa has a rather dubious reputation that continues.
  - 8372049 2y ago
    > There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you. That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals. (Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
  - nabla9 2y ago
    Rules of war should not bend to make war possible. If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.
jimbob45 2y ago
[flagged]
- _blk 2y ago
  I'd also be very curious at the ICCs classification of a civilian (dressed) mob cheering for the murderers and rapists of 22 year old girls like Shani Louk paraded through Gaza. Look at Iran, a sworn enemy of Israel where students refuse to step on American flags put in front of doors and cheer for the death of the Butcher of Tehran and their own citizens abroad parade with both Iranian and Israeli flags... - not the picture we see in Gaza.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > I'd also be very curious at the ICCs classification of a civilian (dressed) mob cheering for the murderers and rapists of 22 year old girls like Shani Louk paraded through Gaza. Still civilians, obviously. Cheering something does not make you lose civilian status. Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      > Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does. Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target? People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
      - edanm 2y ago
        > Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target? No. > People can justify killing in all sorts of ways. Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works.
        lostlogin 2y ago
        > Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works. And yet it is ignored in every war. It’s almost as though encouraging killing people leads to problems.
steve76 2y ago
[dead]
gmerc 2y ago
Both. Which is why the court targets both sides
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
datameta 2y ago
I see a parallel to the absolute annihilation of Manila during WW2 by a sustained artillery barrage lasting a few days, by U.S. forces - estimates are that, despite the battle also known as the Rape of Manila, 40% of civilian casualties are due to Allied bombardment.
cess11 2y ago
The right to resist invasion and occupation is not conditioned on forming a regular military force, so the answer to your question is quite obvious.

csb6 2y ago

> Who was at fault? Pretty clearly the U.S. and the South Vietnamese military. Just because you can't tell who is a combatant and who isn't doesn't give you permission to slaughter entire villages.

Fatnino 2y ago
The rules of war evolved specifically so armies would not feel the need to slaughter civilians. Uniforms, military facilities kept separate from civilian infrastructure, etc. are rules for a reason. If the group killing your soldiers isn't adhering to these rules of war then all the civilians in the area will find themselves at risk. There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you.
- tdeck 2y ago
  Bold of you to take the same stance Germany took about murdering civilians in the territory they were occupying. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francs-tireurs
  - nayaketo 2y ago
    He's taking the same stance allied forces took in Germany and Japan.
    - lostlogin 2y ago
      > took The US base in Okinawa has a rather dubious reputation that continues.
- 8372049 2y ago
  > There is no world where combatants can expect to be allowed to enjoy the protections civilians are afforded while still killing you. That is true, but this does not take away the protection afforded to civilians. As a concrete example, if you take fire from people in civilian clothing holed up in a hospital, then you can return fire in that specific occasion, but you may not start to indiscriminately fire upon people in civilian clothing or hospitals. (Also, you are not required to wear a uniform. You are required to distinguish yourself from the civpop by at least openly wearing arms and/or wearing a distinctive sign. Keep in mind not everyone in a uniform is a combatant, and not all combatants are armed.)
- nabla9 2y ago
  Rules of war should not bend to make war possible. If group of villagers resists you, maybe you have no right to be there.

jimbob45 2y ago

[flagged]

_blk 2y ago
I'd also be very curious at the ICCs classification of a civilian (dressed) mob cheering for the murderers and rapists of 22 year old girls like Shani Louk paraded through Gaza. Look at Iran, a sworn enemy of Israel where students refuse to step on American flags put in front of doors and cheer for the death of the Butcher of Tehran and their own citizens abroad parade with both Iranian and Israeli flags... - not the picture we see in Gaza.
- edanm 2y ago
  > I'd also be very curious at the ICCs classification of a civilian (dressed) mob cheering for the murderers and rapists of 22 year old girls like Shani Louk paraded through Gaza. Still civilians, obviously. Cheering something does not make you lose civilian status. Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does.
  - lostlogin 2y ago
    > Only actively engaging in combat in some capacity does. Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target? People can justify killing in all sorts of ways.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > Does compulsory military service and being a reserve make you a valid military target? No. > People can justify killing in all sorts of ways. Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works.
      - lostlogin 2y ago
        > Which is why we have international laws, in which smart people sat down and codified how this all works. And yet it is ignored in every war. It’s almost as though encouraging killing people leads to problems.

steve76 2y ago

[dead]

gmerc 2y ago

Both. Which is why the court targets both sides

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

datameta 2y ago

I see a parallel to the absolute annihilation of Manila during WW2 by a sustained artillery barrage lasting a few days, by U.S. forces - estimates are that, despite the battle also known as the Rape of Manila, 40% of civilian casualties are due to Allied bombardment.

cess11 2y ago

The right to resist invasion and occupation is not conditioned on forming a regular military force, so the answer to your question is quite obvious.