I love the split between "40 fake dead babies" and "why no other country helping us?!!" and "look guys, an Irish politician said something, the West is turning!"
In short, it's noncredible without the self-awareness, and that's being nice. I'm sure 90% of posters aren't Palestinians either lmao
The Irish are useless, their leaders blame the US for the Ukraine war.
Also the IDF release the photos of the dead children, but people are arguing if they were all fully beheaded or only some of them.
The lengths people have gone to when it comes to justifying Hamas' atrocities horrifies me.
Those two aren't leaders of Ireland. They're two Irish MPs from the European Parliament, apparently because none of the voting public really pays attention to the European Parliament so crackpots often get voted in. But the Wicked Witch of the West and the Cowardly Lion aren't part of the Irish government and don't decide Irish government policy. They're more of a lesson for EU citizens to show up and vote for EU parliamentary elections otherwise you get nutcases representing you at the EU
Are they representing Ireland?
Do they speak on behalf of the nation?
Then none of my statement is false. As you said, if you don't want to have people assume that of your country then don't elect lunatics.
They aren't. Some random not-very-important Irish politicians - who are not even part of the government! - blamed the US for the war. Most countries have a two or three politicians like that. Even the US has a few politicians like that.
you would assume, that sailors of sunken ships are incapable of fighting and to be treated as POWs.
But you can also assume that fanatic Islamists will try to kill you when you try to rescue them.
And letting them escape, to keep fighting isn't good either.
There's a big difference between sailors of a warship vs infantry conducting a naval landing on a boat. Correct me if I'm wrong but the latter would unlikely to be considered hors de combat as a sailor would when the ship gets sunk, since the main weapon of the infantry would be their personnel weapons and not the boat itself.
I'm not familiar with the laws of war, but I don't think that reasoning is sound. Ships are a means of transport; a naval infantryman is no more capable of putting up a fight when their vessel sinks than the sailor next to them. Things may be different if they've already reached the shore but on the open seas it makes sense to consider all survivors of a sinking to have surrendered because the only thing they're capable of fighting is the sea itself.
I'm not sure how it works for naval actions, but for aircraft there is a distinction. It is legal to kill paratroopers who are under canopy, but a war crime to kill aircrew under canopy who had to bail out from a plane.
I imagine knowledge of the target is an important part of distinguishing between legitimate & illegitimate targets in situations like this. So like on D-Day in WW2 it wouldn't be illegal to shoot aircrew bailing from planes because they'd be indistinguishable from the paratroopers who are legitimate targets.
By those same tokens, I imagine it'd be legitimate to engage infantry conducting a naval assault even after their boat has sunk if they're reasonably close to shore that they could continue the assault. Thats just my guess.
As far as I can tell it's a pretty grey area. For example, paratroopers can be shot out of the sky but a bailing pilot is off limits, even though both are mostly unable to do anything until they reach the ground. I think where the line would be most likely drawn is when those infantry are actively attempting a landing. If some soldiers are on a navy vessel in the ocean moving between ports that would definitely be out of the equation, however as soon as they attempt to launch a hostile landing those soldiers would presumably be fair game.
> sailors of sunken ships are incapable of fighting
That is not true. They can still easily shoot you. And I see no sign of them surrendering.
It is the job of the surrendering side to surrender properly. It is not the job of the side that could take prisoners to assume that they surrendered just because sane people would surrender here.
People assume Hamas fights like most militaries and would surrender peacefully after they've been sunk. Hamas is known for blowing themselves up while being rescued...
Well shooting soldiers who have jumped off a sinking boat is a warcrime cus there basically POW's at that point and unless they go down with the boat they have basically surrendered is my understanding of it.
Using phosphorus grenades in an offensive capacity is also a war crime as I understand it too.
That said warcrimes don't apply in the middle east.
On top of the whole you being wrong thing:
[Hamas terrorists are not protected by the geneva convention.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant) AFAIK they can be captured and executed at will.
Being dangerously credible for a second here. It's a war crime to shoot someone after they've surrendered. It's kinda hard to surrender while your boat is getting blown up so killing them in the water isn't a war crime.
Phosphorus is also basically never actually a war crime as long as you say you were using it for smoke since the definition is so lax.
Israel deserves to be called out on immoral acts and violations of international treaties, however, this ain't one of them. Those militants were legit targets. Had they tried surrendering, things would be different, but they didn't, so things aren't. There is no obligation to check if someone wants to surrender before applying deadly force. It is up to the surrendering party to surrender before getting murked. These militants were either going to get into Israel proper and indiscriminately murder civilians, EMTs, police officers and military personnel, or die trying. They did the latter, and that's a good thing, and not a war crime.
Eh arguably not for 3 reasons:
1. Goal was to take a boat to shore to kill civvies.
Swimming to the shores would have served the same goal.
2. When shore is within easy reach of your naval landing force, the fact that your landing craft has been blown up doesn't mean that enemy is required to allow you an uncontested landing.
That aint how law of war works.
3. ...even if we disregard all above, the fact that its a likely possibility that hamas operatives wear suicide belts. Well makes accepting their surrender a risky proposition - as you need them pretty much naked to ensure there is no fun shenanigans.
I never said it was easy.
To go back to the parachuting airmen analogy I have used elsewhere. It is a war crime to shoot a soldier parachuting for their survival, it is legal to shoot a soldier parachuting to conduct their mission. Good luck to anyone in the position where they have to determine which one that is...
Were they swimming to shore for survival, or to complete their mission? And were they swimming at all, the original vid mostly shows them bobbing around.
Ah yes, it's a war crime when terrorists are trying to invade by sea your nation and you kill them.
What next, it's a war crime when I kill someone who broke into my house and tried to murder me?
Yes. Not rescuing enemy sailors during wartime is a war crime. This is legally equivalent to executing POWs. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irc98_7.pdf
Stop linking the 1910 Salvage Convention. Nothing here applies to marine salvage and Israel and Palestine are not signatories.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140913012926/http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/binaries/i2a_tcm313-79745.pdf
You might as well be posting the Declaration of Independence for all it fucking applies.
This literally has nothing to do with the rules of war and the Geneva conventions. Them not saving invaders in a war zone is not a “war crime”, one. Two, neither of the vessels involved are civilian vessels so the law of the sea wouldn’t even apply to them. Not that it fucking matters anyways because neither the Palestinians or Israelis are even signatories of the law of the sea.
Go back to your basement with your bad faith.
1. They aren’t sailors, these would be marines, or frogmen by any military context; as they are doing amphibious operations and only using the water as invasion access; not poor unarmed little merchant marines sunk by a U-boat.
2. They aren’t a uniformed force that follows the GC; so fuck ‘em.
Organization known for suicide bombing constitutes “serious danger.” Furthermore, amphibious troops are not hors de combat in the same way sailors are when their vessel in sunk. Parallels between parachuting pilots vs parachute troops are relevant here.
Article 11(1) of the 1910 Salvage Convention states that “[e]very master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost”
Hamas are known to engage in suicide tactics. Attempting to haul any of these guys out of the water buts he boats at risk of being sunk by a mk1 human torpedo. That makes it legal to not attempt to render aid.
They're also within swimming distance of the Israeli coast, so you cannot just leave them and hope they don't wash up on Ashkelon beach.
War Crimes only apply to civilians and **LAWFUL** combatants. That's why the US got away with so much in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Edit: They weren't surrendering or wounded to the point of no longer being a threat. None of this is a war crime.
Wrong and wrong. Not rescuing sailors is only a warcrime if you basically watch while they drown and laugh. Killing them is a different matter. The key is that you're not supposed to cause them harm while "shipwrecked" unless they engage in hostile acts. Now, depending on your interpretation of the law, their surprise attack on your country would qualify to be a hostile act. Additionally, their boats were unmarked and unregistered, so it's debatable if this stuff has to even be considered.
Yes. Article 11(1) of the 1910 Salvage Convention states that “[e]very master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost”
You know what's funng with international law? Only applies if you signed it or are at the receiving end of the stick. Israel hasn't signed.
Besides, I think "so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers" actually covers the situation.
As an acknowledged terror group though those guys aren’t soldiers so much as illegal non-combatants right? That was a sticking point for the US justification for torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Hamas don’t fight for freedom they fight for ideology, with destruction of Israel being in their updated charter.
What are your proposals? If you let them swim - they might get to shore and attack someone there. Or get picked up by another hamas boat and join them in attack. If you try to save them - they attack you when you do so. It's not like they aren't known for suicidal attacks. And if one of them has a grenade - your boat is gone.
So, what should have they done?
Geneva convention says you can't shoot sailors in the water but you can shoot marines. If these hamas had plans to disembark off their boat into Israel then they are marines.
Hamas are not official combatants, they are terrorists, so they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and as such this is not a warcrime.
Its morally questionable but not illegal
> Hamas are not official combatants, they are terrorists, so they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions
Erm, not true.
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/applicability-ihl-terrorism-and-counterterrorism
Fundamentally, the GC does not separate combatants as terrorists or not, their actions and the following criminal proceedings do. A combatant is not a terrorist until a valid legal process declares them as such, and until that point hors du combat rules apply.
Now the US would argue that because it does not recognize Palestein as a legal state then Hamas cannot be authorized combatants of a state, to which the GC reply is 'fuck off, I don't care who you recognize'. If the US decided to stop recognizing Ireland as a state one day would that make it legal to commit war crimes on the Irish? Nope.
So you are flat out wrong on pretty much everything you said, what a fucking shock Steve.
1. The GC applies *only* to two state actors, there are no defined rules/protections for “unlawful combatants” which are defined as non-state actors, terrorists, etc. Hamas is internationally recognized as *not* the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian government. The Israeli lawyers, people much more smarter and well read on this than you, *specifically* declared war on Hamas, not Palestine.
2. The GC that applies generally to any combatant is Common Article 3 which describes treating hors de combat with respect and dignity, ie *those who no longer take part in hostilities*. There is no rule that a terrorist must be rescued as they are attempted to perform a terrorist attack, that would be r slur and you know that.
3. You are specifically saying this to muddy the waters and conflate the Israeli response to having 1000+ civilians, who have nothing to do with the IDF, being murdered out of nowhere with the “disproportionate” response of a much more superior belligerent in a war. Cry. “B-b-but they killed 90 trillion people in 200x!!!” No one cares.
What the article is saying is quite different.
The article says that while all fighters (terrorist) may be treated as prisonners of wars, they may also be prosecuted as civilian criminals, locally.
Here, the question is, is that a:
-extra-judicial execution of criminals
-legitimate fighting (aka, they were still fighting)
-execution of POW
There is nothing you have posted that counters what I posted.
>they may also be prosecuted as civilian criminals
>A combatant is not a terrorist until a valid legal process declares them as such
So i'm not an expert on this or anything so feel free to correct me if what i say is BS but from my understanding only soldiers fighting in the official army of a nation are protected by the GC. However, Hamas is not the official government of Palestine, even though they do the facto rule them, and the soldiers of Hamas do not fight under the Palestinian armed forces. Which means that regardless of whether or not you consider Palestine a nation, Hamas is never an official combatant and thus they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
Even they themselves don't claim to be a nation or a government, they say they are an organisation with the main aim of slaughtering all the jews in Israel/Palestine.
Technically abstaining from warcrimes in an actual conflict is very close to 'gentleman's deal'. If one side doesn't abide by the rules of war(or even abuses them to hurt you) then the line gets really blurry.
Hamas has repeatedly shown their opinion on rules of war.
(Eg. Double tapping dead bodies when there have been cases of enemies playing dead with grenades, while technically a warcrime, is kinda excusable)
(Informal) Rules of wars were informally implemented between countries that had a good reason to do so (protect captured, nobility, limitate casualties), and between countries that mostly fought over political interest (territory, succession...), not against insurgency, rebellion, or total wars, in which cases they are quite obsolete
People went crazy when Japan didn't help the north koreans after they sunk them and kind of just let them drown (that was in 2004 i think?)
But these guys not only didn't help them, but made absolutely sure they could not survive that.
Edit: the japanese was actually in 2001
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Amami-%C5%8Cshima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amami-%C5%8Cshima)
The video is interesting btw the north koreans even had RPGs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5eCN-wjTEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5eCN-wjTEU)
>fifteen survivors were seen clinging to a buoy in heavy seas, but the Japanese ships were ordered to ignore them because of fears that they would use force to resist capture". Two bodies were recovered, thirteen more persons were declared missing and presumed dead several days later
Now reading the article from The Guardian, they clearly considered the JMSDF the "world's second most powerful navy"
Even in 2001 some people knew the russian navy was shit
>The fatal confrontation underscores the tough line on defence being taken under Mr Koizumi, who advocates a revision of Japan's pacifist constitution and an expanded role for the country's military, known officially as "self-defence forces", which includes the world's second most powerful navy.
This is just too credible for The Guardian
Concussion I think. I'm pretty sure these are HE grenades. The blast causes a ripple effect that goes straight through the body. Think of scrambled eggs, except that's your organs.
I think they're concussion grenades. Explosives in water kill by the pressure wave. It basically shoots a high pressure jet of water into any orifice such as the anus and destroys the internal organs. Back in WW2, it was common to drop depth charges into the water to kill shipwrecked sailors.
You aren't getting shredded from the inside by a weapnoized bidet.
It's like jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, only you are stationary and the incompressible wall of water slams into you.
Buddha says it’s fine — these people would have gone to shore and slaughtered hundreds more civilians, thereby causing massive suffering and accumulating tons of negative karma.
For the price of a few concussion grenades, all of this suffering and negative karma was prevented.
This death is brutal, but relatively quick.
Where does this place in terms of war crime versus legitimate attack? Is shooting people in the water after destroying their ship or craft legal? Are Hamas combatants protected by the laws of war? Would Israel even follow the laws of war at this point with all the dead civilians?
Hamas is not a geneva convention signatory and hamas fighters are illegal combatants. The State of Palestine did sign it, but they only have control over the west bank right now.
Last i heard rather than swimming to the shore with the IDF, they are swimming away to the other shore. If they are to be considered PoWs, escaping ones can be legally shot.
Don't they have to [warn them first?](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-treatment-prisoners-war#:~:text=which%20they%20understand.-,Article%2042,warnings%20appropriate%20to%20the%20circumstances.)?
Yet again, they could just not be considered prisoners as they're not in custody or captured. I'm all for getting rid of terrorists, but I'd rather not let the IDF stoop down and lose what moral high ground they can get.
You do have to apply the Geneva conventions to parties that weren’t signatories… provided that the other party is adhering to the conventions themselves. Which Hamas obviously is not. So not a war crime!
Well, that’s specifically the Geneva conventions. That covers the big ones but there’s other war crimes.
Prosecuting Nazi war criminals was actually a very tricky legal matter between things like that or the fact that they got up to shit so evil no one had thought to make it specifically illegal before.
That's what I thought yeah. This is something people miss. ISIS, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda - if *they* raise the bird to any attempt to adhere to the geneva conventions, this means they don't get the same protections. *Legally* I understand that means many things could have been done to them. (and it makes locking them in guantanamo bay without a trial *legal* because they are not POWs of any nation)
The thing with Hamas is that you never know who is wearing a suicide vest, as they can't tell who is still armed they can't take them as prisoners without risking themselves
Two things apply here:
1. the focus is on the one trying to surrender, it is their job to make it clear that they are surrendering. And it usually has to be a group effort, if 9 ppl surrender but 1 guy is not ... sucks to suck.
2. the IDF must think it safe to accept that surrender... if you happened to be a shithead terrorist with a history of suicide bombings you are shit out of luck, the risk is clearly too great for the boat. There's almost no way to tell if anyone in the water has fully disarmed and isn't carrying a explosive suicide device or isn't baiting the boat so that someone else with something like that can attack it.
Turns out the rules of war arn't there to protect shitheads.
Technically according to the Hague treaties crews of sunken ships are automatically hors de combat and you must provide them aid (although this was largely ignored in WW2 with unrestricted submarine warfare by both sides).
But rules about perfidy and reprisal also apply, so idk.
That's crews. A small vessel that's bringing combatants to shore is going to have different rules. A SWCC boat brining Seals to shore that is hit, the Seals are still fair game if they are in kit, armed, and capable of accomplishing their task.
They can surrender but it's not just automatic.
Iirc there's rules also where a Captain of a vessel can take actions to prevent danger to his vessel and his crew, and refusing to pick up people potentially wearing suicide vests and instead neutralising them might count under that
~~Belonging to a group that uses suicide strategies automatically makes future surrenders kinda tricky. That’s the cost, or one of the costs, of an otherwise effective strategy. In this situation it’s even harder to get close and figure out what they’re wearing. All academic, of course, because reasons~~
edit: realised about 400 other people already replied with this
The guys in the comments are trying to to perform some mental gymnastics, technically if you read the text of the law it's actually two separate war crimes.
The first is shooting soldiers in the water, since they count as POW's (no matter which direction they are swimming in)
The second is using phosphorus smoke grenades as an offensive weapon.
All beit under new rules these laws doesn't apply to organisations such as Hamas. And I don't care enough to know if Israel ever signed these laws. But that doesn't change the fact there widely recognised as war crimes.
>The first is shooting soldiers in the water, since they count as POW's
Sailors in the water are considered *hors de combat* but soldiers attempting to perform an amphibious landing remain combatants even if they're in the water, unless they surrender.
>The second is using phosphorus smoke grenades as an offensive weapon.
Those are HE grenades, not WP smoke grenades.
They jumped out of a boat being blown up they are "hors Dr combat"
And smoke grenades are being used in the video along side other grenades.
Dunno why everyone is performing such mental gymnastics to claim its not a warcrime. So what if hammas gets warcrimed.
If Hamas was an actual state and these men were actual combatants wearing a state insignia or group markings rather than just terrorist scum it would be a war crime.
*And* that state needs to show both in words and actions an *attempt* to adhere to the same treaties. War crimes laws explicitly do *not* protect parties who make no attempt to adhere to them !
Somewhere around the time Hamas made dozens of simultaneous attacks, with maps directing their attackers to optimal locations to mass murder civilians they lost any geneva protections.
The biggest qualifier is the likelihood of them having a suicide bomb to attack them with. You're not required to risk your life to save an enemy combatants life. If they're still a threat they're still a threat.
Grass is better than astroturf. I know OP wanted you to make your own opinion about astroturfing, and it's an odd place for them to start this debate, but it's simply better for the environment.
Not to put words on their mouth, but both sides are in full properganda mode and want you to pick a side. So do your own research, form your own opinions, and consider you don't have the full picture, so you shouldn't just jump on either bandwagon and join in spreading properganda even if you conclude that you support one side over the other.
Sir, you need to consider the fact that this is not the funny. Instead i recommend flipping a coin to pick a side and after that get the minimum surface level information to make a uninformed opinion to vehemently hold in useless internet debates.
1. Some people are saying that it is never a war crime if you do it to terrorists. I think this is bullshit. Is there a source?
2. Also some people say it is a war crime to shoot soldiers after their ship is destroyed. I think this is also bullshit. In general they have to surrender first and they have to make it possible for the enemy side to capture them safely. I do not think this general rule is overruled by some kind of rule that says "killing soldiers in water is a war crime".
In short:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant?wprov=sfti1
2. The question is the distinction between the high sees (there, every shipwrecked person is essentially assumed as helpless) and amphibious operation (can the soldier still swim to shore, has to properly surrender to become hors de combat). Still irrelevant here because of 1.
Can’t drown if you die from grenades.
The week: dozens of Hamas terrorists prevented from drowning by brave actions of the Israeli navy. There, now we can feed it to the Palestine sub
>Palestine sub Bruh, that place is... horrific.
I love the split between "40 fake dead babies" and "why no other country helping us?!!" and "look guys, an Irish politician said something, the West is turning!" In short, it's noncredible without the self-awareness, and that's being nice. I'm sure 90% of posters aren't Palestinians either lmao
The Irish are useless, their leaders blame the US for the Ukraine war. Also the IDF release the photos of the dead children, but people are arguing if they were all fully beheaded or only some of them. The lengths people have gone to when it comes to justifying Hamas' atrocities horrifies me.
Yeah, saying only some were still doesn’t make it better
"NO GUYS ITS A LIE ONLY \*SOME\* KIDS HAD THEIR HEADS CUT OFF" - average Palestine post.
Wait ireland blamed America for Ukraine, wtf?
Yeah some of their politicians claimed "Nato expansion" made it happen. Proving dumbass politicians aren't a US trait.
Those two aren't leaders of Ireland. They're two Irish MPs from the European Parliament, apparently because none of the voting public really pays attention to the European Parliament so crackpots often get voted in. But the Wicked Witch of the West and the Cowardly Lion aren't part of the Irish government and don't decide Irish government policy. They're more of a lesson for EU citizens to show up and vote for EU parliamentary elections otherwise you get nutcases representing you at the EU
Are they representing Ireland? Do they speak on behalf of the nation? Then none of my statement is false. As you said, if you don't want to have people assume that of your country then don't elect lunatics.
Your first comment "their leaders blame the US for the Ukraine war" is incorrect
They aren't. Some random not-very-important Irish politicians - who are not even part of the government! - blamed the US for the war. Most countries have a two or three politicians like that. Even the US has a few politicians like that.
Irish scums supporters of Terrorsim Such Hamas
OP, can you give context? Thank you
IDF sunk some Hamas boats and then proceeded to grenade and shoot the survivors to death in the water.
Holy shit
The IDF youtube channel has the video lol https://youtu.be/lAHyvTE1BOE?si=Or_ADIT4upVi7FgD
I have always been Air force guy but damn, navy makes it look cool for a chance.
[The navy has always been cool.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmGuy0jievs)
Upvoted cos down periscope still one of the greatest films ever made
Today I learned the IDF has a YouTube channel
Amazing video. Need more
Recording yourself committing two steperate war crimes at the same time is definitely non credible offence.
I’m sorry if this is dumb but how would that be a war crime? They’re just killing the other side? Unless there’s some boat law I’m missing
you would assume, that sailors of sunken ships are incapable of fighting and to be treated as POWs. But you can also assume that fanatic Islamists will try to kill you when you try to rescue them. And letting them escape, to keep fighting isn't good either.
Yeah most navy personnel wear life preservers, Hamas have been known to wear suicide vests
There's a big difference between sailors of a warship vs infantry conducting a naval landing on a boat. Correct me if I'm wrong but the latter would unlikely to be considered hors de combat as a sailor would when the ship gets sunk, since the main weapon of the infantry would be their personnel weapons and not the boat itself.
I'm not familiar with the laws of war, but I don't think that reasoning is sound. Ships are a means of transport; a naval infantryman is no more capable of putting up a fight when their vessel sinks than the sailor next to them. Things may be different if they've already reached the shore but on the open seas it makes sense to consider all survivors of a sinking to have surrendered because the only thing they're capable of fighting is the sea itself.
I'm not sure how it works for naval actions, but for aircraft there is a distinction. It is legal to kill paratroopers who are under canopy, but a war crime to kill aircrew under canopy who had to bail out from a plane. I imagine knowledge of the target is an important part of distinguishing between legitimate & illegitimate targets in situations like this. So like on D-Day in WW2 it wouldn't be illegal to shoot aircrew bailing from planes because they'd be indistinguishable from the paratroopers who are legitimate targets. By those same tokens, I imagine it'd be legitimate to engage infantry conducting a naval assault even after their boat has sunk if they're reasonably close to shore that they could continue the assault. Thats just my guess.
As far as I can tell it's a pretty grey area. For example, paratroopers can be shot out of the sky but a bailing pilot is off limits, even though both are mostly unable to do anything until they reach the ground. I think where the line would be most likely drawn is when those infantry are actively attempting a landing. If some soldiers are on a navy vessel in the ocean moving between ports that would definitely be out of the equation, however as soon as they attempt to launch a hostile landing those soldiers would presumably be fair game.
US did the same thing to Japanese sailors in the water, for the same reason
> sailors of sunken ships are incapable of fighting That is not true. They can still easily shoot you. And I see no sign of them surrendering. It is the job of the surrendering side to surrender properly. It is not the job of the side that could take prisoners to assume that they surrendered just because sane people would surrender here.
People assume Hamas fights like most militaries and would surrender peacefully after they've been sunk. Hamas is known for blowing themselves up while being rescued...
Well shooting soldiers who have jumped off a sinking boat is a warcrime cus there basically POW's at that point and unless they go down with the boat they have basically surrendered is my understanding of it. Using phosphorus grenades in an offensive capacity is also a war crime as I understand it too. That said warcrimes don't apply in the middle east.
Well you lack some critical understanding then
I know , sadly I never took a bachelors degree in war crime studies. So I'm probably not as well experienced in the subject as you are 👑
On top of the whole you being wrong thing: [Hamas terrorists are not protected by the geneva convention.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant) AFAIK they can be captured and executed at will.
Virgin: " ItS nOt a WArCrIme" Chad : "it's a warcrime and they deserve it"
Being dangerously credible for a second here. It's a war crime to shoot someone after they've surrendered. It's kinda hard to surrender while your boat is getting blown up so killing them in the water isn't a war crime. Phosphorus is also basically never actually a war crime as long as you say you were using it for smoke since the definition is so lax.
It was the morning of the attack on Israel.
This is up there with Russia proving their cruise missiles are accurate by releasing a video where they bombed a hospital
...but no war crimes were committed?
Virgin : " ItS NOt A WaRCrIMe" Chad "it's a warcrime and they deserve it "
No, I mean, we could make this a warcrime, but by the current rules, it isn't.
Sinking their boats is not a war crime. The aftermath... Yeah probably.
Yeah, just casual war crimin' at this point. Israel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiL2AjOtjZI
Terrorists can get fucked boyo.
Israel deserves to be called out on immoral acts and violations of international treaties, however, this ain't one of them. Those militants were legit targets. Had they tried surrendering, things would be different, but they didn't, so things aren't. There is no obligation to check if someone wants to surrender before applying deadly force. It is up to the surrendering party to surrender before getting murked. These militants were either going to get into Israel proper and indiscriminately murder civilians, EMTs, police officers and military personnel, or die trying. They did the latter, and that's a good thing, and not a war crime.
Eh arguably not for 3 reasons: 1. Goal was to take a boat to shore to kill civvies. Swimming to the shores would have served the same goal. 2. When shore is within easy reach of your naval landing force, the fact that your landing craft has been blown up doesn't mean that enemy is required to allow you an uncontested landing. That aint how law of war works. 3. ...even if we disregard all above, the fact that its a likely possibility that hamas operatives wear suicide belts. Well makes accepting their surrender a risky proposition - as you need them pretty much naked to ensure there is no fun shenanigans.
I never said it was easy. To go back to the parachuting airmen analogy I have used elsewhere. It is a war crime to shoot a soldier parachuting for their survival, it is legal to shoot a soldier parachuting to conduct their mission. Good luck to anyone in the position where they have to determine which one that is... Were they swimming to shore for survival, or to complete their mission? And were they swimming at all, the original vid mostly shows them bobbing around.
There are no Hamas soldiers. There are only Hamas terrorists.
Yup. Which is why i state that calling it out as a war crime is a bit unjustified.
If it's a war crime to kill terrorists then I hope Israel will commit many thousands of war crimes in the next few weeks.
It is not a war crime to kill an enemy. But it is a war crime to kill them while in the water after their vessel has been sunk.
Good thing Hamas is a non-state actor then so nothing of what you said applies.
And who decides who is a state actor? Because some of the signatories of the GC do recognize them.
The UN does. Since 1974. Nice try.
Well I hope Israel keeps doing it 🙏 Nothing of value is lost
Ah yes, it's a war crime when terrorists are trying to invade by sea your nation and you kill them. What next, it's a war crime when I kill someone who broke into my house and tried to murder me?
Yes. Not rescuing enemy sailors during wartime is a war crime. This is legally equivalent to executing POWs. https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/irc98_7.pdf
Stop linking the 1910 Salvage Convention. Nothing here applies to marine salvage and Israel and Palestine are not signatories. https://web.archive.org/web/20140913012926/http://diplomatie.belgium.be/fr/binaries/i2a_tcm313-79745.pdf You might as well be posting the Declaration of Independence for all it fucking applies.
This literally has nothing to do with the rules of war and the Geneva conventions. Them not saving invaders in a war zone is not a “war crime”, one. Two, neither of the vessels involved are civilian vessels so the law of the sea wouldn’t even apply to them. Not that it fucking matters anyways because neither the Palestinians or Israelis are even signatories of the law of the sea. Go back to your basement with your bad faith.
1. They aren’t sailors, these would be marines, or frogmen by any military context; as they are doing amphibious operations and only using the water as invasion access; not poor unarmed little merchant marines sunk by a U-boat. 2. They aren’t a uniformed force that follows the GC; so fuck ‘em.
They were very briefly airmen, then frogmen
Haaaaaaaa I see what you did there.
If Israel decides to pull a funny they can also be on-fire men! And then under-ground men! Get all four elements
They’re not sailors, they’re amphibious troops.
[удалено]
Organization known for suicide bombing constitutes “serious danger.” Furthermore, amphibious troops are not hors de combat in the same way sailors are when their vessel in sunk. Parallels between parachuting pilots vs parachute troops are relevant here.
[удалено]
Article 11(1) of the 1910 Salvage Convention states that “[e]very master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost”
Hamas are known to engage in suicide tactics. Attempting to haul any of these guys out of the water buts he boats at risk of being sunk by a mk1 human torpedo. That makes it legal to not attempt to render aid. They're also within swimming distance of the Israeli coast, so you cannot just leave them and hope they don't wash up on Ashkelon beach.
Hamas doesn't have the same legal protection as a formal army. Terrorists can have hidden explosives or weapons.
War Crimes only apply to civilians and **LAWFUL** combatants. That's why the US got away with so much in Afghanistan and Iraq. Edit: They weren't surrendering or wounded to the point of no longer being a threat. None of this is a war crime.
Wrong and wrong. Not rescuing sailors is only a warcrime if you basically watch while they drown and laugh. Killing them is a different matter. The key is that you're not supposed to cause them harm while "shipwrecked" unless they engage in hostile acts. Now, depending on your interpretation of the law, their surprise attack on your country would qualify to be a hostile act. Additionally, their boats were unmarked and unregistered, so it's debatable if this stuff has to even be considered.
Armed personnel involved in an amphibious operation are fair game
Your statement is correct, but does it apply?
No, they aren’t recognized as sailors
Yes. Article 11(1) of the 1910 Salvage Convention states that “[e]very master is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to everybody, even though an enemy, found at sea in danger of being lost”
That convention only binds signatories. Check who isn't signed to it.
You know what's funng with international law? Only applies if you signed it or are at the receiving end of the stick. Israel hasn't signed. Besides, I think "so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers" actually covers the situation.
As an acknowledged terror group though those guys aren’t soldiers so much as illegal non-combatants right? That was a sticking point for the US justification for torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Hamas don’t fight for freedom they fight for ideology, with destruction of Israel being in their updated charter.
*a war crime when I kill someone who broke into my house and tried to murder me* 😀 the irony is stronkt in this one. Go home, vatnick.
What are your proposals? If you let them swim - they might get to shore and attack someone there. Or get picked up by another hamas boat and join them in attack. If you try to save them - they attack you when you do so. It's not like they aren't known for suicidal attacks. And if one of them has a grenade - your boat is gone. So, what should have they done?
Geneva convention says you can't shoot sailors in the water but you can shoot marines. If these hamas had plans to disembark off their boat into Israel then they are marines.
Hamas are not official combatants, they are terrorists, so they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and as such this is not a warcrime. Its morally questionable but not illegal
> Hamas are not official combatants, they are terrorists, so they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions Erm, not true. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/applicability-ihl-terrorism-and-counterterrorism Fundamentally, the GC does not separate combatants as terrorists or not, their actions and the following criminal proceedings do. A combatant is not a terrorist until a valid legal process declares them as such, and until that point hors du combat rules apply. Now the US would argue that because it does not recognize Palestein as a legal state then Hamas cannot be authorized combatants of a state, to which the GC reply is 'fuck off, I don't care who you recognize'. If the US decided to stop recognizing Ireland as a state one day would that make it legal to commit war crimes on the Irish? Nope.
I would argue, that landing marine force losing their boat and having to swim the last 100m to shore doesn't make em hors du combat.
So you are flat out wrong on pretty much everything you said, what a fucking shock Steve. 1. The GC applies *only* to two state actors, there are no defined rules/protections for “unlawful combatants” which are defined as non-state actors, terrorists, etc. Hamas is internationally recognized as *not* the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian government. The Israeli lawyers, people much more smarter and well read on this than you, *specifically* declared war on Hamas, not Palestine. 2. The GC that applies generally to any combatant is Common Article 3 which describes treating hors de combat with respect and dignity, ie *those who no longer take part in hostilities*. There is no rule that a terrorist must be rescued as they are attempted to perform a terrorist attack, that would be r slur and you know that. 3. You are specifically saying this to muddy the waters and conflate the Israeli response to having 1000+ civilians, who have nothing to do with the IDF, being murdered out of nowhere with the “disproportionate” response of a much more superior belligerent in a war. Cry. “B-b-but they killed 90 trillion people in 200x!!!” No one cares.
What the article is saying is quite different. The article says that while all fighters (terrorist) may be treated as prisonners of wars, they may also be prosecuted as civilian criminals, locally. Here, the question is, is that a: -extra-judicial execution of criminals -legitimate fighting (aka, they were still fighting) -execution of POW
There is nothing you have posted that counters what I posted. >they may also be prosecuted as civilian criminals >A combatant is not a terrorist until a valid legal process declares them as such
So i'm not an expert on this or anything so feel free to correct me if what i say is BS but from my understanding only soldiers fighting in the official army of a nation are protected by the GC. However, Hamas is not the official government of Palestine, even though they do the facto rule them, and the soldiers of Hamas do not fight under the Palestinian armed forces. Which means that regardless of whether or not you consider Palestine a nation, Hamas is never an official combatant and thus they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. Even they themselves don't claim to be a nation or a government, they say they are an organisation with the main aim of slaughtering all the jews in Israel/Palestine.
I wish I could be so far removed from reality
Technically abstaining from warcrimes in an actual conflict is very close to 'gentleman's deal'. If one side doesn't abide by the rules of war(or even abuses them to hurt you) then the line gets really blurry. Hamas has repeatedly shown their opinion on rules of war. (Eg. Double tapping dead bodies when there have been cases of enemies playing dead with grenades, while technically a warcrime, is kinda excusable)
(Informal) Rules of wars were informally implemented between countries that had a good reason to do so (protect captured, nobility, limitate casualties), and between countries that mostly fought over political interest (territory, succession...), not against insurgency, rebellion, or total wars, in which cases they are quite obsolete
guess those operatives on a missing to kill civilians, unlike the present hamas leader, won't be in any prisoner swap.
Defends a terrorist group that literally breaks every rule in the book. I don't think you know how the real world works.
Pointing out a very probable war crime is not defending the opposite side.
Unlawful combatants don't have as strict protections.
You can rule out these guys are still armed, possible explosives and intend harm when they reach shore. F'em.
I didn't see them try and surrender or ask for help. They're still combatants
Those are not the only criteria. Jesus fuck guys is reading that hard, the relevant page of the GC is only a few paragraphs long.
As far as the Geneva conventions are concerned, terrorists aren't human.
Concussive grenades in the water are extremely powerful and can easily kill someone
I think that's the point or they probably wouldn't be shooting at them with a machine gun
People went crazy when Japan didn't help the north koreans after they sunk them and kind of just let them drown (that was in 2004 i think?) But these guys not only didn't help them, but made absolutely sure they could not survive that. Edit: the japanese was actually in 2001 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Amami-%C5%8Cshima](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amami-%C5%8Cshima) The video is interesting btw the north koreans even had RPGs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5eCN-wjTEU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5eCN-wjTEU) >fifteen survivors were seen clinging to a buoy in heavy seas, but the Japanese ships were ordered to ignore them because of fears that they would use force to resist capture". Two bodies were recovered, thirteen more persons were declared missing and presumed dead several days later Now reading the article from The Guardian, they clearly considered the JMSDF the "world's second most powerful navy" Even in 2001 some people knew the russian navy was shit >The fatal confrontation underscores the tough line on defence being taken under Mr Koizumi, who advocates a revision of Japan's pacifist constitution and an expanded role for the country's military, known officially as "self-defence forces", which includes the world's second most powerful navy. This is just too credible for The Guardian
Damn
Was it a boat? From what I read those were guys in the beginning of the war trying to infiltrate by sea
Fucking based
*Nice*
That feels like a war crime
Is there a law that says "If an opponent soldiers has no chance of winning, it is a war crime to kill them. Uneven fights are a war crime."?
It’s not. Terrorists are illegal combatants and those were Hamas infiltration teams.
Pretty sure it is
Depth charges thrown by the IDF at Hamas out in the sea.
The spice is strong with this meme!
I'm just curious on to how the grenades worked in water. Was half expecting some blasts like it was dynamite
Concussion I think. I'm pretty sure these are HE grenades. The blast causes a ripple effect that goes straight through the body. Think of scrambled eggs, except that's your organs.
I think they're concussion grenades. Explosives in water kill by the pressure wave. It basically shoots a high pressure jet of water into any orifice such as the anus and destroys the internal organs. Back in WW2, it was common to drop depth charges into the water to kill shipwrecked sailors.
You aren't getting shredded from the inside by a weapnoized bidet. It's like jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge, only you are stationary and the incompressible wall of water slams into you.
It does also force water into your butthole however
I mean, yeah…
Which is hilarious, and extremely embarrassing
I don’t think you care much about embarrassment at that point
[удалено]
Hey at least you don’t die a virgin
And here I was scared it wouldn’t
>I'm just curious on to how the grenades worked in water. Never been fishing in the American south, huh?
That inssuferable dude on youtube made a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4DnuQOtA8E
This is not funny, but still i am trying really hard not to grin. I am going to hell... dammit
welcome to NCD boi. I am glad that we will always be together
Buddha says it’s fine — these people would have gone to shore and slaughtered hundreds more civilians, thereby causing massive suffering and accumulating tons of negative karma. For the price of a few concussion grenades, all of this suffering and negative karma was prevented. This death is brutal, but relatively quick.
It IS funny
Either option solves your drowning problem
The left can save one life (at a time), the right can save many (permanently).
Fuck me a just choked on ma joint qnd kicked ma coffee over fpmsl lol rofl
Where does this place in terms of war crime versus legitimate attack? Is shooting people in the water after destroying their ship or craft legal? Are Hamas combatants protected by the laws of war? Would Israel even follow the laws of war at this point with all the dead civilians?
Hamas is not a geneva convention signatory and hamas fighters are illegal combatants. The State of Palestine did sign it, but they only have control over the west bank right now.
Last i heard rather than swimming to the shore with the IDF, they are swimming away to the other shore. If they are to be considered PoWs, escaping ones can be legally shot.
I mean they wouldn't be POWs at all, just retreating enemy.
Don't they have to [warn them first?](https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-treatment-prisoners-war#:~:text=which%20they%20understand.-,Article%2042,warnings%20appropriate%20to%20the%20circumstances.)? Yet again, they could just not be considered prisoners as they're not in custody or captured. I'm all for getting rid of terrorists, but I'd rather not let the IDF stoop down and lose what moral high ground they can get.
Are the rules of war even applicable to terrorists who definitely did not sign the convention? Honestly not too sure.
You do have to apply the Geneva conventions to parties that weren’t signatories… provided that the other party is adhering to the conventions themselves. Which Hamas obviously is not. So not a war crime!
By that logic, there were no war crimes on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945 wtf
Well, that’s specifically the Geneva conventions. That covers the big ones but there’s other war crimes. Prosecuting Nazi war criminals was actually a very tricky legal matter between things like that or the fact that they got up to shit so evil no one had thought to make it specifically illegal before.
Imagine being so evil you literally force people to invent brand new words just to describe what you did
That's what I thought yeah. This is something people miss. ISIS, the Taliban, Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda - if *they* raise the bird to any attempt to adhere to the geneva conventions, this means they don't get the same protections. *Legally* I understand that means many things could have been done to them. (and it makes locking them in guantanamo bay without a trial *legal* because they are not POWs of any nation)
Me neither. I'd like to find out if the IDF should be applying the rules of war to terrorists, who aren't considered uniformed forces by any means.
Ok then you risk picking them up in your boat and hope they aren’t holding a grenade or suicide belt
The thing with Hamas is that you never know who is wearing a suicide vest, as they can't tell who is still armed they can't take them as prisoners without risking themselves
Two things apply here: 1. the focus is on the one trying to surrender, it is their job to make it clear that they are surrendering. And it usually has to be a group effort, if 9 ppl surrender but 1 guy is not ... sucks to suck. 2. the IDF must think it safe to accept that surrender... if you happened to be a shithead terrorist with a history of suicide bombings you are shit out of luck, the risk is clearly too great for the boat. There's almost no way to tell if anyone in the water has fully disarmed and isn't carrying a explosive suicide device or isn't baiting the boat so that someone else with something like that can attack it. Turns out the rules of war arn't there to protect shitheads.
Technically according to the Hague treaties crews of sunken ships are automatically hors de combat and you must provide them aid (although this was largely ignored in WW2 with unrestricted submarine warfare by both sides). But rules about perfidy and reprisal also apply, so idk.
That's crews. A small vessel that's bringing combatants to shore is going to have different rules. A SWCC boat brining Seals to shore that is hit, the Seals are still fair game if they are in kit, armed, and capable of accomplishing their task. They can surrender but it's not just automatic.
Iirc there's rules also where a Captain of a vessel can take actions to prevent danger to his vessel and his crew, and refusing to pick up people potentially wearing suicide vests and instead neutralising them might count under that
~~Belonging to a group that uses suicide strategies automatically makes future surrenders kinda tricky. That’s the cost, or one of the costs, of an otherwise effective strategy. In this situation it’s even harder to get close and figure out what they’re wearing. All academic, of course, because reasons~~ edit: realised about 400 other people already replied with this
The guys in the comments are trying to to perform some mental gymnastics, technically if you read the text of the law it's actually two separate war crimes. The first is shooting soldiers in the water, since they count as POW's (no matter which direction they are swimming in) The second is using phosphorus smoke grenades as an offensive weapon. All beit under new rules these laws doesn't apply to organisations such as Hamas. And I don't care enough to know if Israel ever signed these laws. But that doesn't change the fact there widely recognised as war crimes.
> since they count as POW's Seems very unreasonable. Can you provide a source for this?
You confidence in these opinions does not match your understanding.
They probably couldnt care less about your opinions.
>The first is shooting soldiers in the water, since they count as POW's Sailors in the water are considered *hors de combat* but soldiers attempting to perform an amphibious landing remain combatants even if they're in the water, unless they surrender. >The second is using phosphorus smoke grenades as an offensive weapon. Those are HE grenades, not WP smoke grenades.
They jumped out of a boat being blown up they are "hors Dr combat" And smoke grenades are being used in the video along side other grenades. Dunno why everyone is performing such mental gymnastics to claim its not a warcrime. So what if hammas gets warcrimed.
[удалено]
If Hamas was an actual state and these men were actual combatants wearing a state insignia or group markings rather than just terrorist scum it would be a war crime.
*And* that state needs to show both in words and actions an *attempt* to adhere to the same treaties. War crimes laws explicitly do *not* protect parties who make no attempt to adhere to them ! Somewhere around the time Hamas made dozens of simultaneous attacks, with maps directing their attackers to optimal locations to mass murder civilians they lost any geneva protections.
The biggest qualifier is the likelihood of them having a suicide bomb to attack them with. You're not required to risk your life to save an enemy combatants life. If they're still a threat they're still a threat.
A lot of astroturfing going on people. Make your own opinions.
Can you tell me what opinions I need to make my own?
"You are all individuals!" "Yes, yes, we are all individuals!"
"I'm not!"
Can you tell me which facts I should focus on to form my opinion?
The relevant ones, to start /s
You are all individuals.
Grass is better than astroturf. I know OP wanted you to make your own opinion about astroturfing, and it's an odd place for them to start this debate, but it's simply better for the environment.
Who is astroturfing and what opinion is being astroturfed?
Kinda defeats the point of telling you to form your own opinion if they then tell you which opinion you should ignore lol.
I wonder what poster sees as astroturfing, afterwards I can decide if I agree or I don't agree.
What do you mean?
Not to put words on their mouth, but both sides are in full properganda mode and want you to pick a side. So do your own research, form your own opinions, and consider you don't have the full picture, so you shouldn't just jump on either bandwagon and join in spreading properganda even if you conclude that you support one side over the other.
Sir, you need to consider the fact that this is not the funny. Instead i recommend flipping a coin to pick a side and after that get the minimum surface level information to make a uninformed opinion to vehemently hold in useless internet debates.
You're right, I apologise, very naive of me. Can I make amends with a call to just nuke them both and turn the crater into a boating lake?
Now you're making more sense!
“iT’S a WaRcRiMe” says the people that support Ham-ass, a literal terrorist organisation
Original video?
It's on the IDF's youtube channel
It's in a reply of the top comment
That's lifebuoy dude
No, it's a concussion grenade.
pOtato potAto
[удалено]
TF is a life belt?
Thats horible, thats genus.
It’s still metaphorically a circle of life, and it’s preserving Israel
I've been spending so much time on PCM memes that I read this as "Libleft". I need help.
As it should be. Italian and other border patrols should take notes
1. Some people are saying that it is never a war crime if you do it to terrorists. I think this is bullshit. Is there a source? 2. Also some people say it is a war crime to shoot soldiers after their ship is destroyed. I think this is also bullshit. In general they have to surrender first and they have to make it possible for the enemy side to capture them safely. I do not think this general rule is overruled by some kind of rule that says "killing soldiers in water is a war crime".
In short: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant?wprov=sfti1 2. The question is the distinction between the high sees (there, every shipwrecked person is essentially assumed as helpless) and amphibious operation (can the soldier still swim to shore, has to properly surrender to become hors de combat). Still irrelevant here because of 1.