International Hamas launches surprise attack on Israel; Israel has declared a state of war. Vol. VII

[tastaylvr]

Law is not my forte, so I can't pull an arbitrary number out of my ass to determine at what age a child can be held legally responsible for a crime. All I know is that if some kid charged at me with a knife, the last thing on my mind would be me wondering whether that kid is either close to being 11 or 17 years old.

Why do you keep changing the situation and topic?

You posted 3-5 year olds and then said anyone can be a terrorist. Then changed it to 11-17 year old's running at you with a knife. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[DEVILsSON]

So, perhaps it would help to clarify what your actual position is, as 'children' is ambiguous.

Putting Israel/Palestine to the side for a second, what is the appropriate age to start criminal responsibility for children, why, and what should that entail?

It's an active question in many communities. My city, which is the capital, and the most progressive legislature in the country - raised it recently to 14 (there are exceptions under the new legislation - intentionally serious violent offences)

The rationale is more or less trying to break cycles of intergenerational familial criminal behaviour. Some believe this can be accomplished through alternative paths to prevent recidivism. Whether or not it works, we'll see, but that'll likely depend on a variety of things.

ACT raises the age of criminal responsibility to 14 with nation-first legislation

Children in the ACT under the age of 14 won't be charged, convicted or incarcerated for criminal offences — except in exceptional cases — from mid-2025.

www.abc.net.au

Using kids under 15 is an outright war crime.

Child soldiers | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

casebook.icrc.org

However any child engaged in war is an enemy combatant. It is also almost impossible to know the age of a person during a firefight/incident unless you happen to know who the child is.

If some elementary school child brought a gun to school and started killing his classmates one by one and I had to shoot him, you best believe I would shoot to stop the threat(and save potentially many other [actually innocent] lives) and I would sleep just fine afterwards. That 'child' would not be innocent. We can debate mental illness, bad parenting, poor circumstances, poverty, or anything else but that's irrelevant in the moment.

Hamas are low lifes and they are very likely employing child soldiers.

Also for the 100th time, 76% of Palestinians support Hamas. So it doesn't matter if they didn't vote for them. They like them. They support them. They actually think that Hamas are not extreme enough.

 

[tastaylvr]

It's not entirely untrue. If you have adults teaching kids to kill, and those kids do indeed go out with the intention to kill, are they innocent? Do you not treat them like enemy combatants, because it hurts your moral center?

It's not black and white. Kids can kill. It's certainly tragic when you have to treat their little brainwashed minds as enemy combatants, but it is what it is. If you have a regime commanding kids to kill, do you just ignore the AK-47 in their hands because they're kids?

The problem is that you and the people who post this don't talk about this in regards to all children. It's only about Palestinian children.

You were the person talking about dead children the most when this situation started and always appeal to emotion when talking about this situation. That was when Israeli kids were killed. Now that thousands of Palestinian kids have died you want to spin this narrative "not all kids are innocent".

what a crock of shit

You are essentially arguing that Hamas can go out and kill anyone since nobody is innocent.

 

[Chad R. Thundercock]

Why do you keep changing the situation and topic?

You posted 3-5 year olds and then said anyone can be a terrorist. Then changed it to 11-17 year old's running at you with a knife. You are the gift that keeps on giving.

I didn't change the topic. Did you miss my post where I said they start these kids young with the indoctrinations? Your jihadi brain is clouded with the inability to make logical connections or accept reality. Again, par for the course for taqiyya-spewing Islamists like you.

 

[BAM]

Using kids under 15 is an outright war crime.

Child soldiers | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook

casebook.icrc.org

However any child engaged in war is an enemy combatant. It is also almost impossible to know the age of a person during a firefight/incident unless you happen to know who the child is.

If some elementary school child brought a gun to school and started killing his classmates one by one and I had to shoot him, you best believe I would shoot to stop the threat(and save potentially many other [actually innocent] lives) and I would sleep just fine afterwards. That 'child' would not be innocent. We can debate mental illness, bad parenting, poor circumstances, poverty, or anything else but that's irrelevant in the moment.

Hamas are low lifes and they are very likely employing child soldiers.

Also for the 100th time, 76% of Palestinians support Hamas. So it doesn't matter if they didn't vote for them. They like them. They support them. They actually think that Hamas are not extreme enough.

It's also interesting the numbers that Hamas and Israel report for death. Israel claims that about 12,000 of the 30k total were Hamas. I am sure this is disputed by Hamas and they would claim some sort of 90% civilian casualty rate. The Gazan health people (controlled by Hamas) don't distinguish Hamas combatants from all deaths in the conflict. So we get a 'women and children' total and a general total only from them.

Some people like not to associate the children figures with Hamas kills, as though they must be absolutely separate and no overlap, but we know that isn't the case. Hamas use their underage recruits in the war, for attacks and presumably to be in the base to do tasks, which as you state is a war crime. If a base is bombed and amongst the Hamas bodies you will have dozens of underage teenagers. Therefore the numbers get a bit muddled.

If you have teenagers in plain clothes approaching IDF, they may have weapons or bombs on them, normally that's a ridiculous position to have, but not in Gaza. It's surreal there. Guerrilla warfare in Gaza streets is going to be difficult to navigate on the ground. That'll get innocent unnarmed kids shot. It's a mess.

 

[HereticBD]

Not at at all. Combatants are Combatants. But I still consider a brainwashed child a innocent. Of course kids can kill and be combatants.. its why child soldiers are some of the worst crimes . Be they forced through physical intimidation or ideology.

Isn't this the standard we hold in most western countries by law ? A child isn't considered responsible for crimes generally in our nation's due to diminished capacity for understanding right / wrong etc.

And that's for western kids doing fucked up crimes. We still have a blanket viewpoint of all children are considered innocent...

Those are two completely different situations, though. In a war zone, if you're carrying a gun(or a bomb or whatever), you're in the game(I'd say the same thing for similar police situations as well). We're not talking about criminal responsibility in a court of law after the fact. We're talking about kids who are strapped and looking to kill you.

Are they "innocent" in a general way, in that their fertile minds have been taught this? Sure. It doesn't mean they get a pass when they're pointing a gun at your face in the moment. I can't even comprehend having to kill a kid, but if it comes down to a scenario where it's kill or be killed, my survival instincts would kick in all the same. I'm not gonna risk getting killed by a kid aiming to kill me, over my conscience. What good is a conscience, if you don't have one, because you're now a corpse who couldn't pull the trigger on the kid who just killed you?

I think we're getting into the weeds over what "innocence" really means. Are kids "innocent" in a general sense? Yes. Are they so innocent, that you're not gonna pop 'em, if they're looking to kill you and have the means to do so? No. We're not "throwing away" the concept of their innocence, just because some people have to do what they have to do to survive, in lethal situations involving kids.

 

[haysus31]

From the Jerusalem post

Israel will go it alone on Rafah if it has to, Netanyahu tells Blinken​

 

[Strychnine]

Depends on the circumstances

Of course if it meant taking out Yahya Sinwar and his immediate underlings and the collateral damage was about a dozen civilians then that's a very reasonable target to strike.

If we are talking about 1-3 Hamas foot soldiers in a residential building with 500 civilians that's a completely different story.

The civilians in Gaza didn't slaughter innocents unless you want to collectively blame them for Oct 7th.

You are making excuses though, in your eyes Israel can do no wrong in seeking retribution on Hamas. The Oct 7th attack was awful but if Israel hit Gaza with a chlorine gas attack would that be justified because of Hamas' brutality on Oct 7th?

Assad was also fighting terrorists in his country during the uprising including the likes of ISIS and AQ, does that justify the use of barrel bombs and sarin gas attacks? Or does only Israel get a blank check to fight terrorists?

I've never said that "Israel can do no wrong." Nope. Didn't happen. What I'm saying is that every civilian death is at the hands of Hamas. If Hamas never started the war, this thread wouldn't even exist.

You don't start wars that you cannot finish and if Hamas had the courage not to use human shields, the civilian casualties would be much lower.

 

[Strychnine]

Neither Israel nor Hamas wants peace, but Hamas wants to live to fight another day. Hostages prevents Israel from fully committing to wiping out the 350-450 miles of tunnels underneath the strip. So I don't see Hamas releasing them.

After releasing the hostages it would go back into the cycle again, this isn't the first hostage crisis between them.

Palestinians would get more support internationally and in the US liberal circles if Hamas released the hostages, which would put pressure on Biden. But they'd need to do it now, post November elections, that pressure doesn't matter.

At least somebody gets it.

 

[Strychnine]

It's in this thread somewhere

It was this video.

Yeah, I'm wrong because that has NEVER happened in any war anywhere.

 

[Anewt]

Those are two completely different situations, though. In a war zone, if you're carrying a gun(or a bomb or whatever), you're in the game(I'd say the same thing for similar police situations as well). We're not talking about criminal responsibility in a court of law after the fact. We're talking about kids who are strapped and looking to kill you.

Are they "innocent" in a general way, in that their fertile minds have been taught this? Sure. It doesn't mean they get a pass when they're pointing a gun at your face in the moment. I can't even comprehend having to kill a kid, but if it comes down to a scenario where it's kill or be killed, my survival instincts would kick in all the same. I'm not gonna risk getting killed by a kid aiming to kill me, over my conscience. What good is a conscience, if you don't have one, because you're now a corpse who couldn't pull the trigger on the kid who just killed you?

I think we're getting into the weeds over what "innocence" really means. Are kids "innocent" in a general sense? Yes. Are they so innocent, that you're not gonna pop 'em, if they're looking to kill you and have the means to do so? No. We're not "throwing away" the concept of their innocence, just because some people have to do what they have to do to survive, in lethal situations involving kids.

I consider it acknowledging the fucked up reality of the situation.

I disagreed with the statement " not all children are innocent " literally that's what I posted about...

We're getting into the weeds over the what innocent means ?

It was the entire point of my post.......... Ive even even like multiple times responded to the points not related to it.

I've acknowledged " children " are Combatants. And are sadly necessary to be killed in situations... even as fucking collateral.

Saying jfc man to " not all children are innocent " requires a amazing amount of justification on here depending which perceived team you're on lol

 

[Islam Imamate]

I've never said that "Israel can do no wrong." Nope. Didn't happen. What I'm saying is that every civilian death is at the hands of Hamas. If Hamas never started the war, this thread wouldn't even exist.

You don't start wars that you cannot finish and if Hamas had the courage not to use human shields, the civilian casualties would be much lower.

And I'm saying that's nonsense.

So lets use my example of the 1-3 foot soldiers in a residential building of 500 civilians. You would think its okay to take the whole building down? Kill 500 innocents to take out 1-3 foot soldiers? And if Israel did that they would not be at fault at all?

If this is the case then what is the difference between Assad and the IDF? Assad was also fighting terrorists. If there was no uprising there would've been no civil war, does that excuse Assad using sarin gas and barrel bombs? Can Israel use sarin gas in Gaza and be blameless because Hamas started the war?

 

[haysus31]

Netanyahu and his coalition in government doing a George Bush 43 and telling France we will go it alone. Bibi is saying F#%! it. They plan to be at war for the year and hope Biden Blinken and company will be out of office by years end. Probably feels he can go full Pol pot once Biden is out of office. Currently he is at Pinochet level death. A benevolent man who wants what's best for his people.

 

[HereticBD]

I consider it acknowledging the fucked up reality of the situation.

I disagreed with the statement " not all children are innocent " literally that's what I posted about...

We're getting into the weeds over the what innocent means ?

It was the entire point of my post.......... Ive even even like multiple times responded to the points not related to it.

I've acknowledged " children " are Combatants. And are sadly necessary to be killed in situations... even as fucking collateral.

Saying jfc man to " not all children are innocent " requires a amazing amount of justification on here depending which perceived team you're on lol

I'm not trying to be combative. I just think the word "innocent" is rather flexible when we're talking about child combatants in a war zone. Like, if they're "innocent" why are you shooting them? Because they're not so innocent in certain situations. That's all. I don't have a problem with the "Not all children are innocent" statement, and I don't think it deserves such a condemnation, given the situation we're all talking about.

 

[Strychnine]

What I'm saying is if there was a kid in a suicide bomb vest running towards me and I had a gun in my possession, you'd best believe I'll be emptying my magazine with no fucking reservations.

Terrorism apologist, Islamist imbecile.

I've heard those same words that actually happened from my friends who went downrange. Kids standing in the middle of a road with hills on each side, trying to stop the convoy. You stop...

You can imagine what happens.

Kids crawling at my cousin through the wire in Vietnam with sapper vests on. He yells at them in Vietnamese to "Go back!", but they keep crawling forward...

Yeah, he carried that to his grave.

But, since a kid got shot holding a Russian grenade in a movie, that stuff never actually happened.

Three overseas tours I did whereas some of ya'll couldn't survive a SINGLE tour with Taylor Swift.

 

[Strychnine]

And I'm saying that's nonsense.

So lets use my example of the 1-3 foot soldiers in a residential building of 500 civilians. You would think its okay to take the whole building down? Kill 500 innocents to take out 1-3 foot soldiers? And if Israel did that they would not be at fault at all?

If this is the case then what is the difference between Assad and the IDF? Assad was also fighting terrorists. If there was no uprising there would've been no civil war, does that excuse Assad using sarin gas and barrel bombs? Can Israel use sarin gas in Gaza and be blameless because Hamas started the war?

No, I don't think it's ok.

But then again, I don't run Israel either. I don't have to weigh the consequences of those actions.

I don't think it's ok for Israel to do that, but Hamas started a war with a country that was many, many, times more capable and powerful than they. They did not count the cost and now innocent civilians are paying the price.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No, I don't think it's ok.

But then again, I don't run Israel either. I don't have to weigh the consequences of those actions.

I don't think it's ok for Israel to do that, but Hamas started a war with a country that was many, many, times more capable and powerful than they. They did not count the cost and now innocent civilians are paying the price.

So basically you're going to hand waive away the moral dilemma and default to blaming Hamas and acting as if the IDF aren't accountable agents? To me that is to make excuses. Israel could bring down that building and you'd defend it as their choice.

What could Israel do to get you to offer even an ounce of condemnation? How about a sarin gas attack on Gaza? Since you don't run Israel you could not condemn such a thing?

 

[Strychnine]

So basically you're going to hand waive away the moral dilemma and default to blaming Hamas and acting as if the IDF aren't accountable agents? To me that is to make excuses. Israel could bring down that building and you'd defend it as their choice.

What could Israel do to get you to offer even an ounce of condemnation? How about a sarin gas attack on Gaza? Since you don't run Israel you could not condemn such a thing?

I would condemn it. I would condemn ANY attack that Israel carried out after Hamas returned every hostage. I'd call for an immediate cease-fire.

 

[BAM]

And I'm saying that's nonsense.

So lets use my example of the 1-3 foot soldiers in a residential building of 500 civilians. You would think its okay to take the whole building down? Kill 500 innocents to take out 1-3 foot soldiers? And if Israel did that they would not be at fault at all?

If this is the case then what is the difference between Assad and the IDF? Assad was also fighting terrorists. If there was no uprising there would've been no civil war, does that excuse Assad using sarin gas and barrel bombs? Can Israel use sarin gas in Gaza and be blameless because Hamas started the war?

I've seen interviews from years back with Hamas soldiers permitted to give interviews to Vice in the tunnels. When confronted about building tunnels under civilian infrastructure and that they would be collateral damage when IDF struck them, the rationale was that they are willing martyrs for the cause and that they support Hamas's actions.

Based on that rationale, and their awareness of what would happen in response, they counted on IDF killing lots of civilians. It was part of the plan, a feature not a bug. Turn the west against Israel by provoking them into a war that would inevitably kill civilians in a public way. The inevitable response was so obvious that Muslims from around the world begged for a ceasefire immediately the night/day of October 7th and to pray for the lives of Gazans soon to be killed. IDF hadn't even responded yet, they were still sifting through corpses and charred remains from around the neighborhoods and the music grounds.

So, yes, Hamas is responsible for every life lost, as it was so easily foreseeable by the wider public. But that doesn't mean that Israel also doesn't share responsibility, especially when due to error or through rogue elements within the IDF, or by over-aggression they needlessly kill civilians.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So, yes, Hamas is responsible for every life lost. But that doesn't mean that Israel also doesn't share responsibility, especially when due to error or through rogue elements within the IDF, or by over-aggression they needlessly kill civilians.

But @Strychnine seems to disagree with that part and even seemingly justifies over-aggression with reference to the Oct 7th attack.

So I think its only natural to ask, what is the limit? Can the IDF deploy chemical weapons in Gaza and be blameless because of Hamas' brutality on Oct 7th? I doubt you would agree with that but I think its the logical conclusion of what he's arguing.

Just as occupation and apartheid cannot be a justification for "by any means necessary" neither can fighting terrorists. Otherwise Hamas supporters can say that endless occupation, displacement, and apartheid is the fault of Israel and every civilian death on Oct 7th is the fault of the occupiers. In fact that is exactly what they do say and its repugnant.