It will go over your head again, but I will repeat. It is not for me to "justify" what happens in war. I have no part in that decisions that bring various sides to war. I only reject the false distinctions. Not all distinctions. But the false ones. I do believe there is a difference. And I mentioned that explicitly in my first answer. I mentioned that specifically targetting civilians is itself a war crime under international law. I just rejected that difference distinguishes the action of Hezbollah from the actions you seem to justify. And I told you that I don't see that question being relevant to Hezbollah's activities. You just assumed a fact. If you ask me whether is proper to "celebrate" killing of people, I would say no. If you say whether I believe I detected such celebratory tone in US broadcasts and in the American public, I would say broadly yes. Specifically, no, but I doubt there are too many people who specifically celebrate the "death of innocent people". You just want to define some celebrations as being for one thing, and another for another thing. Let me end by saying that while I reject some of the distinctions, and find the tactics of war loathsome on all sides, there are some distinctions I uphold. Those distinctions are largely mirrored in international law. And what I uphold is the idea that juridical bodies, not political ones, not anyone here on bigsoccer, based on evidence, and based on legal principles equally applied to all, condemn (or condone) whatever acts of war that take place.
I'm not asking you to justify it, just say whether you feel it was right or wrong. So do you think blowing up an embassy staffed by civilians counts as targetting civilians or not? Do you think it served any military or strategic purpose? No, I asked you to tell me if you'd seen anyone in the US specifically celebrating the killing of civilians, not strikes in which civilians had also died, but the killing of civilians. No, people are free to condemn and condone as they see fit. That's one of the hallmarks of a free society. Whether the final arbitrator should be some international panel is a different matter, you should be able to give your opinion on something. Oh, and I'm sorry, but in your rush you appeared to have missed those last two questions, one directly about Helbollah, one not, so here they are again. While we are here, how did you feel about Hezbollah's kidnapping of western hostages, such as Terry Waite. Did you feel that was justified. Again, not a trick question, yes or no will suffice. How about the more recent hostages in Iraq, all civilians, who have had their heads hacked off because their governments wouldn't bow to the kidnappers demands. Do you think those actions were justified? Yes or no? Do you think they were terrorist acts, yes or no?
Was Begin arrested and given to UK for being the leader of irgun? Anyway, relax, it was just an example. A handy example on how the founder of likud previously was a terrorist. i have no intention to start an israeli related discussion. The point was that many peoples have used terrorism or targeted civilians in their history. I mentioned also the fate of my hometown in WW2 and I am not going to say that for Britain it was any different under the german bombings.
RichardL, IM will never admitt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization b/c Iran sponsores them. You and I and many many others know what Hezbollah is, so let's leave IM alone or else he will spew more bias crap. thanks
My position is that all war, and acts of war, undertaken without legitimate legal authority under international law, are wrong. That is my principle. If you find my answer insufficient, it is your perogative. But my answer is not going to change. If your question is whether Hezbollah's action are justified under iinternational law, I believe the issue is complex. It would be fair to submit that issue to international ajudication, but only if the actions of the other sides in that war were similarly subject to jurisdiction of an international body. In this process, what I "believe" without sufficient factual predicate, or without a full briefing on the legal issues, is not relevant. Indeed, I prefer to encourage people to "believe" in something else: that the issue itself not be decided by them, but for them to work to see such issues be decided in juridical fashion. Of course, we are free to state our beliefs even if they don't have the necessary predicate, but I would think we are free to refrain from doing so as well. Apparently you don't think the latter is true. And on that note, our conversation ends. P.S. I do believe the following, though I would accept a contrary judgment from a proper judicial body with authority to adjudicate claims of all sides in various wars: 1) That Hezbollah has done a few things that would not be defensible under international law, but Israel and the US (despite having greater voice in making up international law) have done a lot more that violates interantional law. The same I won't condemn an entire country for its misdeeds, I am not going to condemn Hezbollah as a whole for some of its misdeed. In short: I don't agree that Hezbollah should be classified as a terrorist organization, and many countries in the world agree with me on that. 2) I have no desire to justify anything Al Queda, or any of the groups affiliated to it, have done anywhere, including in Iraq. I do find those groups reprehensible both in their tactics and objectives.
I didn't read the question as regarding only Iran. Maybe I misread. (are you sure to have read the quote I answered to?) Irgun was just a handy example, btw. No intention to specifically blame Israel. You think so, of course I don't. It's dumb to look for americans chanting "death to muslims" (you will find them writing it in message boards I assure you) nonetheless I see too many ppl (not only americans) thinking and promoting the idea that the problem is islam. And the war being ultimately a clash between the western world and islam. You and I and others think this is BS, sadly many others don't. And there are media and newspapers and opinionists propagating that BS. I think that kind of racist BS is dangerous.
You're still begging the question. Where in the US were people publicly happy over the death of Iraqi civillians?
Besides the fact that you lack principals, until the international organizations prove somehow that they are non-bias and useful, i'll let my country decide on the war issue. again, yes or no was what RichardL was looking for. Again, the way the international organization have been making bias decisions against Israel and how incompetent they are in other global affairs, no international body should have any authority over what any country does. Also, you can't have a terrorist organization be in the same court as a legitimate country. blah blah blah No such thing as a proper judicial body (on an international level) That is why you are bias. They are by any definiton a terrorist organization and the fact that other countries agree with you, is why international court or any other judicial organization are incompetent and shouldn't exist. And again, Israel this and Israel that. Israel is not perfect, but there is nothing that negative that can be said about Israel that can't be said about Iran. So, i guess we need to bring Iran to international court then. One little differene though is that Israel doesn't sponsor or harbor terrorists. If it makes any difference to you.
so you think what Hezbollah did was wrong. Okey dokey, I'll live with that. so you think al-queda are wrong too. This is good. Puts my mind at rest if you will. ps do you think al-queda are a terrorist organisation? If so, what makes them different from the groups you don't think it is right to make a judgement about? If you don't think they are terrorists, then who is?
the issue IM brings up of proper actions of war under international law is generally never going to happen because it requires submission of a country's sovereignty to a larger body - self defense is never sacrificed to an international body. no war is generally about a country's security and international law is almost never a good pretex for the sole basis of action. It generally is only an "extra" that is good to have. and in terms of international law and terrorism and generally agreed to principles - AQ and Hezbollah and just about all of these terrorist organizations violate generally agreed to (internationally that is) principles of war - such as wearing uniforms.
Ah well. Obviously I misoverestimated you. Never mind, you win. Have fun in your protected yard/country.
I think a lot of countries, groups, and organizations supported by various countries, engage in terrorism (i.e., use force in violation of law to further a political objective). Some do very little but engage in such behavior, while others are more varied in their actions and purposes. The case for Al Queda is simple: they have taken responsibility (admitted) to things that can find no justification under international law, whether tactically or otherwise. And that is pretty much all they do; their reason d'etre is to wage a war that violates international law, using tactics that do so clearly and unequivocally. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is different. It represents the majority of the shia in Lebanon, which are the largest group in that country. It was organized as a "guerialla force" to fight a foreing army that invaded Lebanon, i.e. Israel. They also were engaged in a civil war in Lebanon on behalf of the largest, yet most disenfranchised, group in the country, while the US and Israel were seeking to prop up a government that was dominated by the Christains (who make up only 16% of Lebanon's population). Through the years, moreover, Hezbollah has further evolved into a political party, a humanitarian organization running charity, hospitals, and doing a lot of good work for the shia in Lebanon. I don't consider the US a terorrist organization or entity just because I believe that the US has engaged in actions that would so classified under international law. The US is about a lot more than the things that it has done in contravention of international law that I don't approve. The same, to a much smaller extent, is how I see Hezbollah. At the end, though, what I believe the most is that issues of war and peace must find a forum for fair, impartial, judicial, adjudication. I strongly support strengthening, not weakning, the International Court of Justice. Of strenthening, not weakning, the International Criminal Court. Of strengthening, and democratizing, the United Nations. And it is through these institutions and those like them that I prefer to see many disputes settled and, if necessary, for any wars to be waged. Until then, I see the world living under the rules of the jungle, and there are no real rules in the jungle. Other than the rule that says: might makes right.
Hezbollah's militia wear uniiforms. Indeed, Hezbollah is recognized by the government of Lebanon as a "national resistance force".
Talking about international law, would you be a war criminal if you started a war without approval of the UN? For example, if Argentina invaded Colombia claiming they wanted to do something against the Cocaine trade, would the responsible people be war criminals or heros? Just wondering.
No need to address this. Of course you can comitt evil terrorist acts while wearing uniforms, and fight for a good cause without wearing them. Did the French resistance were uniforms? No? Terrorists.
Under international law, you don't need authorization to act in self defense. However, self-defense is not defined so broadly to encumpass any of the things that the US or Israel engage in using that term. For such 'preemptive wars', you need UN authorization. If you wage war without such authorization, you have committed a war crime. However, that is all theoretical. The US does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to extend to its citizens, political leaders, or military personnel. Nor does it accept jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as it relates to such interstate disputes. The same with Israel. That means that the US basically does not want to live under the confines of international law. Indeed, that is one of the main points of the neocons and their ideology.
Well, there's something the current US administration and Al Qaeda have in common then. Not recognising international law. For entirely different reasons, of course. Oh, and if I were you I'd just leave Israel out of this debate. It doesn't really help to clarify things and just leads to unnecessarily emotional discussions. Also, it waters down some of your good points in my opinion. As much as I disagree with some of the recent Israel politics, I would really prefer if these issues were kept apart.
i dont think international law recognises blowing up innocent civilians using brain washed suicide bombers as a form of self defence. sounds like a war crime to me. hezbollah may do other things besides instigating terrorist attacks, but terrorism is quite blatantly a part of their repertoire.
Of course. I agree with this. Still, the question remains if things the USA (and Britain, for that matter) have done fairly recently can also be classified as war crimes. I personally think they can. If you don't follow international law, you are law-less, or in other words a criminal. If Bush and Blair were governing less powerful nations, they would be in jail, and deservedly so.
i dont know that they would be in jail - after all there are plenty of leaders of less powerful countries who have started wars who haven't ended up in jail. i've never been in favour of the war in iraq, but i don't see that bush and blair have presided over a campaign of ethnic cleansing, which is the sort of thing that gets the war crimes tribunal on to you.
Not war crimes surely? Going outside (possibly) international law does not equate to all subsequent actions war crimes.