Does Hamas kidnap Israeli soldiers?

[laughing dog]

It doesn't. For example, even though Hamas did not claim responsibility for the killing of the 3 teenagers, the IDF "captured" 500 Hamas "terrorists". As far as I know (and I could be mistaken), the 500 are still in "detainment".

This is exactly the kind of tit-for-tat that hostage taking during war time leads to. One side starts to skirt the rules, so the other side retaliates. Israel knows it will have to make a lop-sided exchange, so it takes hundreds of people prisoner for bartering purposes. Ultimately neither side gains anything.

This is in no way excuses some Israeli policies, but if it weren't for the previous prisoner swap, wouldn't those people be in jail anyway?

Some of the them probably would be detained without a trial, yes.

 

[Jayjay]

This is in no way excuses some Israeli policies, but if it weren't for the previous prisoner swap, wouldn't those people be in jail anyway?

Some of the them probably would be detained without a trial, yes.

Looking at list of prisoners released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, large majority had been sentenced, though there were few here and there who had not gone to trial.

Then again the overlap between that lot and the ones detained recently is probably dozens, not hundreds.

 

[Frikki]

So how does this work I geta an infraction for calling Loren a chicken hawk but he can call us terrorist lovers? Who is he blowing in the mod team?

 

[arkirk]

Some of the them probably would be detained without a trial, yes.

Looking at list of prisoners released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, large majority had been sentenced, though there were few here and there who had not gone to trial.

Then again the overlap between that lot and the ones detained recently is probably dozens, not hundreds.

With lying and national secrets, there is no way to tell how many of which it is. Why could you trust an Israeli list...or for that matter, a Hamas list? All we actually can trust are a few journalists who have earned our trust and even they are surely not going to know what goes on in the various hate soup kitchens of the world.

 

[Jayjay]

Looking at list of prisoners released in exchange for Gilad Shalit, large majority had been sentenced, though there were few here and there who had not gone to trial.

Then again the overlap between that lot and the ones detained recently is probably dozens, not hundreds.

With lying and national secrets, there is no way to tell how many of which it is. Why could you trust an Israeli list...or for that matter, a Hamas list? All we actually can trust are a few journalists who have earned our trust and even they are surely not going to know what goes on in the various hate soup kitchens of the world.

How many it is exactly is not really relevant, it's a subset of a subset after all. What laughing dog implied though, was that most if not all of those who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit were being detained without a trial and sentencing, which isn't true. It goes back to the question of whether Hamas taking hostages is legitimate or not, because if Israel were committing war crimes and the hostage taking was used to counter that, then you could at least justify it morally if not legally. "Ends justify the means", but in this case the ends was to just release a bunch of Hamas terrorists and leaders which does absolutely nothing to help Palestinians or fight the oppression they are facing.

 

[laughing dog]

With lying and national secrets, there is no way to tell how many of which it is. Why could you trust an Israeli list...or for that matter, a Hamas list? All we actually can trust are a few journalists who have earned our trust and even they are surely not going to know what goes on in the various hate soup kitchens of the world.

How many it is exactly is not really relevant, it's a subset of a subset after all. What laughing dog implied though, was that most if not all of those who were released in exchange for Gilad Shalit were being detained without a trial and sentencing, which isn't true.

I was referring to the roundup of the usual suspects in the killing of the Isreali teenagers, not Gilad Shalit.

 

[untermensche]

Taking them is legitimate.

Killing or torturing them after you capture them is not legitimate. Even if the US says it is allowed to torture.

Using them to gain concessions is perfectly legitimate.

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

 

[Jayjay]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Look more carefully--once they're captured they are hors de combat--and thus can't be used as hostages.

The only legitimate "hostage" actions permitted in combat are things like getting too close to the enemy so they can't call heavy fire on you.

 

[J842P]

I love this fantasy that war is a situation were there are legitimate an illegitimate actions, and that certain actions in war are "immoral" while others are simply war.

 

[Jayjay]

I love this fantasy that war is a situation were there are legitimate an illegitimate actions, and that certain actions in war are "immoral" while others are simply war.

I guess you also find it hilarious that criminal law makes a distinction between shooting someone in self-defense, and a premeditated murder (for example). It's all just violence, right?

 

[Togo]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

Interesting.

So taking them prisoner, not illegal. Holding them prisoner for the duration of the conflict, not illegal. Releasing them as part of a prisoner swap, not illegal. The only illegal bit is threatening to kill them in return for concessions. Holding them indefinitely in return for concessions is not a problem.

So does Hamas actually do this? I'm sure there are some fanatics (on both sides) who actually kill prisoners, or threaten to, but I wasn't aware of either Hamas or the IDF doing so.

Of course, this same extract also renders the Israeli practice of killing people and then claiming they were militants as entirely illegal, since you aren't allowed to murder anyone unless they're engaged in hostilities at the time.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I love this fantasy that war is a situation were there are legitimate an illegitimate actions, and that certain actions in war are "immoral" while others are simply war.

We have laws of war to minimize the harm to noncombatants.

- - - Updated - - -

So taking them prisoner, not illegal. Holding them prisoner for the duration of the conflict, not illegal. Releasing them as part of a prisoner swap, not illegal. The only illegal bit is threatening to kill them in return for concessions. Holding them indefinitely in return for concessions is not a problem.

So does Hamas actually do this? I'm sure there are some fanatics (on both sides) who actually kill prisoners, or threaten to, but I wasn't aware of either Hamas or the IDF doing so.

Of course, this same extract also renders the Israeli practice of killing people and then claiming they were militants as entirely illegal, since you aren't allowed to murder anyone unless they're engaged in hostilities at the time.

Taking them prisoner for the purpose of exchanging is hostage taking and thus wrong.

 

[J842P]

I love this fantasy that war is a situation were there are legitimate an illegitimate actions, and that certain actions in war are "immoral" while others are simply war.

I guess you also find it hilarious that criminal law makes a distinction between shooting someone in self-defense, and a premeditated murder (for example). It's all just violence, right?

Of course not and that's precisely because war is a situation were there is no law, not in any meaningful sense.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess you also find it hilarious that criminal law makes a distinction between shooting someone in self-defense, and a premeditated murder (for example). It's all just violence, right?

Of course not and that's precisely because war is a situation were there is no law, not in any meaningful sense.

Geneva Conventions.

Obviously there is no cop you can turn to but they define proper behavior in times of war.

 

[untermensche]

Taking them prisoner for the purpose of exchanging is hostage taking and thus wrong.

This isn't war.

This is an extremely powerful nation oppressing and stealing from a very weak mostly civilian population.

The rules of war do not apply to those fighting the shackles of oppression.

 

[Jayjay]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

Interesting.

So taking them prisoner, not illegal. Holding them prisoner for the duration of the conflict, not illegal. Releasing them as part of a prisoner swap, not illegal. The only illegal bit is threatening to kill them in return for concessions. Holding them indefinitely in return for concessions is not a problem.

Whoever said that holding hostages indefinitely for concessions is not a problem? If I kidnap your wife, and just keep them locked up somewhere until you give me $1 million, would that somehow make her less of a hostage than if I threatened to kill her?

So does Hamas actually do this? I'm sure there are some fanatics (on both sides) who actually kill prisoners, or threaten to, but I wasn't aware of either Hamas or the IDF doing so.

Of course, this same extract also renders the Israeli practice of killing people and then claiming they were militants as entirely illegal, since you aren't allowed to murder anyone unless they're engaged in hostilities at the time.

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

 

[Jayjay]

Taking them prisoner for the purpose of exchanging is hostage taking and thus wrong.

This isn't war.

This is an extremely powerful nation oppressing and stealing from a very weak mostly civilian population.

The rules of war do not apply to those fighting the shackles of oppression.

So Hamas has a blank cheque to do whatevery they want?

Hamas militant want a lollipop, and steals it from a baby. It's fine, becasue of oppression!

Hamas militant needs a new car, so he just takes one from his neighbour at gunpoint. Fighting oppression, nothing to see here!

Hamas militant is feeling horny, so he rapes a random woman on the street. Oppression!

This is of course insane. While war is something of a breakdown of social order, there are some things that can be morally justified by fighting said oppression, and some things that can't.

 

[Underseer]

There has been some attempts to muddy the waters by pretending they're just taking prisoners of war.

They admit the objective is kidnapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvF_il0WFXk

(Yes, this is about their tunnels, not kidnapping. The relevant bit is they said they used the tunnels to kidnap an IDF solider.)

So, wait. What exactly do you think is the difference between kidnapping and capturing a prisoner of war?

Furthermore, by your own arguments in the past, aren't the Palestinians justified in capturing Israeli soldiers because Israeli soldiers have killed Palestinian civilians in the past? Or does that line of argument only work when we apply the logic to certain conclusions but not others?

 

[untermensche]

This isn't war.

This is an extremely powerful nation oppressing and stealing from a very weak mostly civilian population.

The rules of war do not apply to those fighting the shackles of oppression.

So Hamas has a blank cheque to do whatevery they want?

Hamas militant want a lollipop, and steals it from a baby. It's fine, becasue of oppression!

Hamas militant needs a new car, so he just takes one from his neighbour at gunpoint. Fighting oppression, nothing to see here!

Hamas militant is feeling horny, so he rapes a random woman on the street. Oppression!

This is of course insane. While war is something of a breakdown of social order, there are some things that can be morally justified by fighting said oppression, and some things that can't.

If you lived in a place where some outside nation was oppressing you and everyone you knew, what exactly would you be allowed to do to stop it?

And what if that oppressive nation was also slowly taking land that rightfully belonged to you?

Could you resort to violent resistance if the oppression and theft lasted decades?

What exactly would you do? Lay down like a dog and take it?