Pray tell, name ONE historical war criminal, one who basically everyone agrees was a war criminal. You know exactly who I'm alluding to. Everyone knows his name, and I literally don't need to say more than this because everyone already knows who I'm talking about.
Now, what was his skin colour?
I can think of more counterexamples but I'd just be wasting my time at that point.
"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;"
A war or something resembling one must be fought in order for something to be a war crime. Otherwise, you could classify the Irish potato famine or the Holodomor as "war crimes" as well.
Think seriously about whether the court would really accept this interpretation of the Rome Statute. Think long and hard about it, don't just reply with whatever knee-jerk response you come up with in the first five seconds. Think of the possible defences and why they would succeed in addition to why you think they might fail. And before you attack its impartiality, consider the actual composition of the court and what type of countries criticise it in the first place.
This is not to say those events I mentioned weren't horrific, but the term "war crime" does not fit. You'd be better off arguing a case of genocide instead.
History is nuanced and any attempt to fit it into a snappy five-second sound byte is necessarily not just a crude simplification, but an inaccurate one. History ain't simple and nothing's black and white.
I would suggest you return to Lemmygrad where you'll find more people who will share this definition of "war". Everyone else seems to define it a little differently but you do you
I will say it flat out. I agree with the notion that the State of Israel is perpetrating genocide against Palestinians.
Many Palestinians, if given the chance, would do the same against Israelis. There is so much hate going on against each other in that region. Nobody is in the clear right and nobody is blameless.
if a state was perpetuating apartheid (a crime against humanity), ethnic cleansing, and a genocide against your people, where you have most likely personally known/were related to someone who was killed or severely injured by that state
don't you think you'd be just a little bit teeny tiny little bit more radical?
also, do not equate colonizers to the colonized, one is there to displace and oppress, one is the indigenous population that was ethnically cleansed and massacred.
You are correct. I would be easily radicalised, as would most people if I were placed into such a situation. I'm not immune from the same forces that radicalised everyone else there too.
I do not equate colonisers to the colonised, however, one must recognise that both have done things that they shouldn't have done. At this point, "but he started it" is no longer an excuse for racial and religious hatred. It's been 70 years already. People have been born into the conflict, grown up in the conflict, and died from the conflict.
The State of Israel has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. I do not deny it. But at the same time, I cannot wholeheartedly support the other party in this conflict when their methods of resistance include terror attacks, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate bombings—the same things they decry Israel for doing. The Palestinians have rejected several offers of peace. The UN partition plan—rejected. Two state solution proposals—rejected. Peaceful coexistence—rejected. Instead, they counter with a Palestinian state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders want to wipe the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants off the face of the earth, and Israeli leaders want to wipe the State of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants off the face of the earth.
You can say that the Palestinians were right/to begin with—that they had no obligation to cede any territory at all to the Israelis. And you'd be right. But it's important to recognise that being right to begin does not give anyone a mandate to do whatever they want. You can be right and move yourself into the wrong by how you act, and this is exactly what happened. Yes, I sympathise with Palestinians whose lands were taken from them by Israelis. At the same time, I condemn those who take matters into their own hands by bombing Israeli music festivals.
Instead, what is happening is that the situation may quickly be moving to a forcibly-imposed one-state solution with that state being the State of Israel. And that would be a tragedy.
This is what I mean by "history is nuanced". There is no black and white here and to portray any situation as such would be naïve.
Exactly what I'm saying. And no, I don't find it wrong at all to think this way. I'm sorry if you were angered or offended in some way by my previous comment.
Man these people are so lost in their stupid ideology lmao
There's a shit ton of white war criminals that everyone knows about. And literally every war criminal justifies their actions in some way, usually defense.
What a rubbish take on history.
Pray tell, name ONE historical war criminal, one who basically everyone agrees was a war criminal. You know exactly who I'm alluding to. Everyone knows his name, and I literally don't need to say more than this because everyone already knows who I'm talking about.
Now, what was his skin colour?
I can think of more counterexamples but I'd just be wasting my time at that point.
deleted by creator
Christ, the Gammons would canonise Churchill if they could, and the man was a monster.
"War criminal" is not a term applied liberally to describe people who presided over bad things. It is a term defined by treaty in international law.
"Intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including wilfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions;"
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
2/b/xxv
A war or something resembling one must be fought in order for something to be a war crime. Otherwise, you could classify the Irish potato famine or the Holodomor as "war crimes" as well.
Think seriously about whether the court would really accept this interpretation of the Rome Statute. Think long and hard about it, don't just reply with whatever knee-jerk response you come up with in the first five seconds. Think of the possible defences and why they would succeed in addition to why you think they might fail. And before you attack its impartiality, consider the actual composition of the court and what type of countries criticise it in the first place.
This is not to say those events I mentioned weren't horrific, but the term "war crime" does not fit. You'd be better off arguing a case of genocide instead.
History is nuanced and any attempt to fit it into a snappy five-second sound byte is necessarily not just a crude simplification, but an inaccurate one. History ain't simple and nothing's black and white.
the colonial occupation means a continuous state of war, so it makes it a war crime. maybe you should stop being a debatebro.
I would suggest you return to Lemmygrad where you'll find more people who will share this definition of "war". Everyone else seems to define it a little differently but you do you
You mean… that thing people who know better have been accusing Israel off since the very start?
Yes.
I will say it flat out. I agree with the notion that the State of Israel is perpetrating genocide against Palestinians.
Many Palestinians, if given the chance, would do the same against Israelis. There is so much hate going on against each other in that region. Nobody is in the clear right and nobody is blameless.
if a state was perpetuating apartheid (a crime against humanity), ethnic cleansing, and a genocide against your people, where you have most likely personally known/were related to someone who was killed or severely injured by that state
don't you think you'd be just a little bit teeny tiny little bit more radical?
also, do not equate colonizers to the colonized, one is there to displace and oppress, one is the indigenous population that was ethnically cleansed and massacred.
You are correct. I would be easily radicalised, as would most people if I were placed into such a situation. I'm not immune from the same forces that radicalised everyone else there too.
I do not equate colonisers to the colonised, however, one must recognise that both have done things that they shouldn't have done. At this point, "but he started it" is no longer an excuse for racial and religious hatred. It's been 70 years already. People have been born into the conflict, grown up in the conflict, and died from the conflict.
The State of Israel has committed acts of genocide against the Palestinian people. I do not deny it. But at the same time, I cannot wholeheartedly support the other party in this conflict when their methods of resistance include terror attacks, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate bombings—the same things they decry Israel for doing. The Palestinians have rejected several offers of peace. The UN partition plan—rejected. Two state solution proposals—rejected. Peaceful coexistence—rejected. Instead, they counter with a Palestinian state stretching from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. Palestinian leaders want to wipe the State of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants off the face of the earth, and Israeli leaders want to wipe the State of Palestine and its Arab inhabitants off the face of the earth.
You can say that the Palestinians were right/to begin with—that they had no obligation to cede any territory at all to the Israelis. And you'd be right. But it's important to recognise that being right to begin does not give anyone a mandate to do whatever they want. You can be right and move yourself into the wrong by how you act, and this is exactly what happened. Yes, I sympathise with Palestinians whose lands were taken from them by Israelis. At the same time, I condemn those who take matters into their own hands by bombing Israeli music festivals.
Instead, what is happening is that the situation may quickly be moving to a forcibly-imposed one-state solution with that state being the State of Israel. And that would be a tragedy.
This is what I mean by "history is nuanced". There is no black and white here and to portray any situation as such would be naïve.
No matter what anyone has done - it is Israel (and it's western backers) that carries full responsibility for what occurs here. Period.
"ackshually he only committed genocide, not war crimes!!! 🤓" Jesus Christ you're such a fucking redditor, shut up nerd
Death to America
Exactly what I'm saying. And no, I don't find it wrong at all to think this way. I'm sorry if you were angered or offended in some way by my previous comment.
Politician-tier slimy non-apology.
deleted by creator
Nope, just that Hitler is one notable counterexample. There are plenty more European war criminals.
Don't forget Hideki Tojo too. Not white, but still a light-skinned war criminal.
Vladamir Putin is wanted for crimes against humanity right now. There is a warrant out for his arrest.
And are we just allowing the current situation in Israel to slip our minds voluntarily?
Man these people are so lost in their stupid ideology lmao
There's a shit ton of white war criminals that everyone knows about. And literally every war criminal justifies their actions in some way, usually defense.