Have they? Who says so? (Apparently Human Rights Watch, a UN advocate.) Video? Chemical assay? Question everything?
Are there hostile formations in Syria? We are there without invitation, so who is the worse actor?
Here is a good resource on the use of white phosphorus, which, if used as a smoke-producing agent (smokescreens, target marking) is not banned by any treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions#International_law Do more research, less knee-jerking.
You remind me of the "We don't need no trial; hang the bastard!" spirit of thought.
Also, it is not the mother's body genetically. The baby has an entirely different set of genes. So, the "It's my body!" argument is a fraud.
Private dwellings with no functional military presence would not count as a legitimate military target. But the Ukrainians shell only civilians without a second thought. And so did Hamas.
I think you are making light of this in order to ignore it. But it was not ignored when the Geneva and Hague treaties on conventions of war were negotiated. Human shields are forbidden. It is not permissible to position anti-aircraft guns on top of hospitals, or store munitions in factories, or set up command centers in university buildings, or fighting teams in apartments. What's the penalty? The opponent always has a right to target military forces or equipment, no matter where they are. The Russians have been scrupulous about this in Ukraine. I'm not sure how scrupulous the Israelis are, but since the Gazans democratically chose Hamas to be their government, they have signed up for all the backblast the actions of Hamas provokes. "But they are innocent civilians!" Innocent of what? Certainly not innocent of approving, endorsing, supporting, and obeying outright terrorists. They are accomplices.
It is one of the reasons that we situate ICBM silos far from population centers, as they would be expected nuclear targets. We try to do that with military facilities, but there is a lot of pre-atomic infrastructure that would be very expensive to re-establish.
When Hamas sets up offices or headquarters in apartment complexes. The Israelis recently bombed a building at the local university, because it was being used for this purpose, as well as being an armory for ammunition. It is an old trick by the Ukrainians to use human shields, and Hamas is just borrowing the playbook, putting armed forces (a legitimate target) among civilians, and when they are bombed, cry "Israel is murdering civilians!" And gullible types sing their song.
This is the same human shield tactic being purveyed by the Ukrainians. They embed in civilian structures, get righteously attacked, and then drag out dead civilians as being the only victims.
Nothing "false" about the damage and death. You don't have the slightest shred of evidence to suggest any such thing. All you have is a huge dose of anti-Israel prejudice. But blame the victim has always been a tactic of scurrilous resort.
They are not. Hamas/Gaza has a positive obligation under international law not to use human shields, which are forbidden as a tactic. Israel has no moral or legal obligation to do anything other than target their military forces or capabilities, wherever they are located. (In other words, the enforcement of the prohibition against human shields is that no one has to regard the welfare of the shields.)
At the moment, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran are all on the same page, and that page says "Death to Israel," which is unmistakable genocide. They are receiving widespread approval or silent toleration throughout the world. The U.S. government gifted Iran $6 billion to facilitate its strategies, and (as I have read recently) offered $ millions to Palestine. So, yes, it is about committing genocide against Israel with the world's approval.
The only moral question is whether Hamas has any right to use human shields, when there is worldwide acceptance of such use being illegitimate. There is no violation of international agreements by engaging the enemy, wherever the enemy is located.
Nor is the attacked party under any obligation to become a pretzel in order to avoid civilian casualties which were the responsibility of the attacker to preclude. It doesn't matter if Hamas was a government with a Pentagon, or mere rabble.
Where the attack was sent from has no relevance to how to proceed. All military targets are legitimate, no matter whence the originate.
To deal with the situation it would be necessary to (1) repel or kill the invaders, and (2) simultaneously eliminate their capability to attack from long range. There is no reason to wait for either measure. Doing so would be illogical.
There is no indication that Israel is bombing civilians by choice. If it bombs known or suspected Hamas operating units, it does not matter if civilians are present. Hamas has a positive obligation under either the Geneva or Hague convention to segregate its forces from its population. They do not get to use human shields, and the enforcement of that principle is that there is no war crime involved in shooting back at the enemy if they are embedded in the public.
The response makes perfect sense.
I apologize. My high blood pressure sometimes clouds my thinking. What I was attempting to clarify was that it really wasn't a question of Israel finding a better approach than also hitting civilians as collateral casualties---because it was an original obligation of Hamas not to create that problem.
There's a lot of agitation over Israel "committing war crimes," but the original war crime (use of human shields) was committed by Hamas. Every combatant has a clear right to target opposing combatant forces, however situated. I see a lot of confusion about the subject of war crimes in the Ukrainian context and I have become sensitized about it.
You are fine. I just wanted you to be aware that your position is stronger than you thought.
You have it backward. A combatant has a positive obligation to separate its armed forces physically from its civilians. Human shields are a war crime. This would be, for example, mounting anti-aircraft guns on the roof of a hospital. The other combatant may legitimately attack military targets WHEREVER THEY ARE.
And, I think it is a universal principle that when one side throws away the rule book---as Hamas did with the deliberate targeting, capture, and deaths of civilians, mothers, fathers, and children---then there is only one rule book...and they have thrown it away.
Now, I begin to understand why God directed the Israelites to obliterate the Caananites. Of what are the Gaza people innocent? Harboring mass murderers? Nobody gets off the hook.
And the "confirmation" comes through what? Too much foregone conclusion going on.
You guys should win an Olympic medal for jumping to conclusions. The allegation pertained to live children being trafficked through a British organization, with Coca-Cola purportedly making a payment. Any verification that it was truly Coca-Cola and not some impostor?
And, by the way, if you find the composition of Coca-Cola terrifying, just look up the composition of your own gastric juices, of which we self-generate about 1.2-1.5 liters every day. (The "Coca" part of the name came from the infusion from coca leaves. The "Cola" part of the name came from the kola nut being used in the formula.) Myself, I'm fond of the phosphoric acid.
A bomb leaves no trail, and they are generally smaller in dimension than a human body. Good luck seeing anything.
Consistent with Moose_Antlers description of a precursor warning attack followed by the real thing.
I would like to see evidence of the real-time remote control feature. The system is set up to permit re-selection of target during flight, but not hands-on control. (I worked on a battle management system in the 2000 time frame that would have allowed target location updates to a weapon, but nothing like real-time remote control.) Remote control would be a vulnerability to hacking. Likewise, I have never heard of a system on airliners that would strip control from the pilots (excluding the MCAS system, which was essentially programed to do exactly that, but not for any good outcome).
The usual denier nonsense ("It couldn't have happened") doesn't prove a fantasy about remote control. Likewise, what pre-planned explosive charges?
Well, that seems to be the knee-jerk reaction of a True Believer, so I have to put it in the "of interest" category and wait for something less biased.
"Norman Rockwell-esque" might be a better adjective. None of this captures his distinctive style, which is more than matters of technique.
When you make it all up in your head and simply deny the evidence, even as it is being dug out of the ground, there is not much that is real to talk about. But I make a point of not giving up on conversation.
But you give up on conversation when it is an uphill struggle for you to present your fantasy. We just saw that. You were playing to the peanut gallery (I get that) but I think you are finding that your brand of snake oil is not as popular as you think.
Well you are reduced to uttering single words. Apparently sentences are beyond you. The Smithsonian has a nice display of rockets. I've seen them.
Very dismal. But you live in the lap of the First World, where it is possible to be indolent and to idly toy with thoughts of suicide. In a place like Zambia, children sometimes are literally thrown on the street and left to fend for themselves --- for the rest of their lives. They figure out something to sell, like fruit, or old clothes. They sometimes prosper beyond their expectations, through diligence and discipline. It comes down to the reality that "doing" is more important than "dreaming." I am speaking from some experience with step and foster children. When you truly have nothing to your name, the beauty of a blooming flower enters your life with unexpected importance.
Ultimately, you have to stop looking within yourself and look without. Within is emptiness. Without is the wonder of God's Creation and, if you pay attention, it will seep into you. Let it. Let it work on you. Pay attention to the lectures by Jordan Peterson. He is an odd bird, a bit strident, and probably one of the smartest men on the planet, but he has gone through a personal vale of meaningless ... and has come out the other side. His theme basically boils down to the importance of reality and action and duty. (You want to be a better person? There are things that are incumbent on you to do.)
As for multitasking, if one is not much good at doing any particular thing, multitasking is a frivolity of doing many worthless things all at once. Get thrown overboard a mile from the shore and you will instantly discover the benefit of concentration...on swimming, as though your life depended on it. Or become a farmer: if you don't concentrate on growing food, you don't eat.
Finally, you can write. It doesn't take much in the way of resources, except to have something to say. One can make a living from it. That, maybe, and speaking. If one has nothing better to do with one's time (as it seems from your description), it is an open door. Don't blame the door if you don't go through it.
No, the dumbest thing was your concluding remark. You haven't been paying attention for these last two years.
Might not matter. If the Speaker does not satisfy the Presidential requirement, he gets passed over for the next in line of succession. But what if you run out? Shows that you can't think of everything.