Are there many situations in which a person can be jailed in the UK for failing to prevent a crime?
On 17/12/2024 16:06, GB wrote:
Are there many situations in which a person can be jailed in the UK for
failing to prevent a crime?
Yes, - the Uncle of sara sharif- 16 years.
On 2024-12-17, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 16:06, GB wrote:
Are there many situations in which a person can be jailed in the UK for
failing to prevent a crime?
Yes, - the Uncle of sara sharif- 16 years.
That is an excellent example - the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004 s5 "Causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or
suffer serious physical harm" creates an offence when someone in the
same household as a child or vulnerable adult fails to take "such steps
as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect [them]".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/part/1/crossheading/causing-or-allowing-the-death-of-a-child-or-vulnerable-adult
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
On 18/12/2024 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-17, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 16:06, GB wrote:
Are there many situations in which a person can be jailed in the UK for >>>> failing to prevent a crime?
Yes, - the Uncle of sara sharif- 16 years.
That is an excellent example - the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004 s5 "Causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or
suffer serious physical harm" creates an offence when someone in the
same household as a child or vulnerable adult fails to take "such steps
as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect [them]".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/part/1/crossheading/causing-or-allowing-the-death-of-a-child-or-vulnerable-adult
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
It was Faisal Malik I had in mind when I asked the question. I have no
idea how he could stand by and do nothing, but he got a swingeing
sentence for it.
The judge said that the sentencing guidelines are the same for causing a child to die as for allowing a child to die, which seems surprising.
On 18 Dec 2024 at 10:10:54 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/12/2024 09:28, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-17, TTman <kraken.sankey@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/12/2024 16:06, GB wrote:
Are there many situations in which a person can be jailed in the UK for >>>>> failing to prevent a crime?
Yes, - the Uncle of sara sharif- 16 years.
That is an excellent example - the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims
Act 2004 s5 "Causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or
suffer serious physical harm" creates an offence when someone in the
same household as a child or vulnerable adult fails to take "such steps
as he could reasonably have been expected to take to protect [them]".
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/28/part/1/crossheading/causing-or-allowing-the-death-of-a-child-or-vulnerable-adult
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
It was Faisal Malik I had in mind when I asked the question. I have no
idea how he could stand by and do nothing, but he got a swingeing
sentence for it.
The judge said that the sentencing guidelines are the same for causing a
child to die as for allowing a child to die, which seems surprising.
All becomes clear when you look at the history of the offence, and why an offence of "causing or allowing" exists. It was not originally aimed at third parties in the household, indeed it must be quite uncommon for parents to kill
their child in front of a third party. It was devised a few decades (?) ago because couples were regularly using a so-called cut-throat defence where each
said the other was totally responsible for the death. This occasionally resulted in both being acquitted, even though the child was clearly dead at the hands of one or both of them.
The "causing or allowing" defence effectively means that they can both be convicted of a crime comparable in severity to murder, which is almost certainly a just outcome unless one parent can show very severe coercive control by the other.
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there
are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in
some special position of responsibility in relation to the victim
or the circumstances of the crime.
All becomes clear when you look at the history of the offence, and why
an offence of "causing or allowing" exists. It was not originally aimed
at third parties in the household, indeed it must be quite uncommon for parents to kill their child in front of a third party. It was devised a
few decades (?) ago because couples were regularly using a so-called cut-throat defence where each said the other was totally responsible for
the death. This occasionally resulted in both being acquitted, even
though the child was clearly dead at the hands of one or both of them.
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no,
there are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for
failing to prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such
situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in some
special position of responsibility in relation to the victim or the
circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to notify
the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there >>>> are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in
some special position of responsibility in relation to the victim
or the circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to
notify the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:31:50 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no,
there are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for
failing to prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such
situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in some
special position of responsibility in relation to the victim or the
circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to notify
the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
This is *uk* legal. A jurisdiction which does not have secret police.
(We'll put to one side the amusing problem of how could anyone contact
the secret police)
On 2024-12-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no, there >>>>> are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for failing to
prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in
some special position of responsibility in relation to the victim
or the circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to
notify the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
On 18 Dec 2024 at 17:00:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:31:50 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no,
there are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for
failing to prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such
situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in some
special position of responsibility in relation to the victim or the
circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to
notify the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
This is *uk* legal. A jurisdiction which does not have secret police.
(We'll put to one side the amusing problem of how could anyone contact
the secret police)
I believe MI5 is in charge of this type of investigation. Rather than
leave a message in a tree on Hampstead Heath, the person wishing to
contact them will need to speak to an ordinary police officer. Unless
they know that one of their mates is an MI5 informer, but unfortunately telling them would leave no provable record. Are you *sure* we don't
have secret police?
On 18 Dec 2024 at 17:00:30 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:31:50 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Dec 2024 at 16:04:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 09:28:51 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
However I think the answer to GB's original question is that no,
there are not *many* situations in which you can be jailed for
failing to prevent a crime - but clearly there are *some* such
situations.
(For me) a key question is if there is any obligation on a random
citizen ? Is it not akin to the "brothers keepers" rule ?
The example cited placed a specific onus in a specific situation.
Yes. I can't think of any scenarios where you can be criminally
responsible for failing to prevent a crime where you are not in some
special position of responsibility in relation to the victim or the
circumstances of the crime.
The previously mentioned terrorist legislation meets this criterion.
Friends have been sent to prison for long periods for failing to notify
the secret police of a friend's apparent radicalisation.
This is *uk* legal. A jurisdiction which does not have secret police.
(We'll put to one side the amusing problem of how could anyone contact
the secret police)
I believe MI5 is in charge of this type of investigation. Rather than
leave a message in a tree on Hampstead Heath, the person wishing to
contact them will need to speak to an ordinary police officer. Unless
they know that one of their mates is an MI5 informer, but
unfortunately telling them would leave no provable record. Are you
*sure* we don't have secret police?
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
On 18/12/2024 17:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism."
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/12/2024 17:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism."
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/12/2024 17:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism." >>>
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
How short your memory is.
On 18/12/2024 17:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism."
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
Maybe a court can decide after the event, but I would need to know in
advance if I wanted to shop a neighbour.
On 19/12/2024 14:35, GB wrote:
On 18/12/2024 17:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
You're right, it's the Terrorism Act 2000 s38B (as inserted by the
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 s117). Ten years for
"failing to disclose" information which "might be" of material
assistance in convicting someone of a terrorism offence. Which
given a "terrorism offence" can be almost anything, means that
probably technically everyone is guilty of this crime.
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism."
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
Who decides what is a terrorist act in any case? I know there are
proscribed organisations (though I don't know where I would find a
list), but what about independent actors?
What about the Ukrainian who blew up a Russian general in Moscow (and
his assistant)? He acted like a terrorist, but is he a jolly fine chap because the general is regarded as nasty?
What about the American who killed the CEO of a medical insurer? Not a particularly political act.
Or a lone school shooter, where the police find a crazy "manifesto"
amongst his belongings?
Maybe a court can decide after the event, but I would need to know in
advance if I wanted to shop a neighbour.
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU perhaps?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist
offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU
perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s quite clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this: name a
terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist
offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU
perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s quite clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this: name a
terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
On 20 Dec 2024 at 11:11:47 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist >>> offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU >>> perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s quite
clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this: name a
terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
Well *someone* may have done, but not I.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to
shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not
terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist
offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU
perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s
quite clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this:
name a terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
On 20/12/2024 11:11, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:IRA?
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop >>>>>> them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not
terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a
terrorist offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they
were? By the EU perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s
quite clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this: name
a terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
On 2024-12-20, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Dec 2024 at 20:50:48 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-19, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to
shop them?
No, the JSO people are predominantly white so are therefore not
terrorists.
How short your memory is.
Personally I remember them definitely not being charged with a terrorist >>> offence. Is there some alternative fact around that they were? By the EU >>> perhaps?
You equated the state of not being a terrorist with being white. It’s
quite clear from what you wrote above. A question for you is this:
name a terrorist group operating in the UK that was white.
I'm not sure I've ever seen somebody quite so impressively confused
as you are right now.
On 20 Dec 2024 at 11:32:24 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/12/2024 14:35, GB wrote:
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000Who decides what is a terrorist act in any case? I know there are
makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism." >>>
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them? >>
proscribed organisations (though I don't know where I would find a
list), but what about independent actors?
What about the Ukrainian who blew up a Russian general in Moscow (and
his assistant)? He acted like a terrorist, but is he a jolly fine chap
because the general is regarded as nasty?
I think it is very important to distinguish between attacking military targets
and terrorism, which by definition involves damaging morale by attacking civilian targets.
On 20/12/2024 12:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Dec 2024 at 11:32:24 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 19/12/2024 14:35, GB wrote:
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 >>>> makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/sheWho decides what is a terrorist act in any case? I know there are
believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism." >>>>
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop them? >>>
proscribed organisations (though I don't know where I would find a
list), but what about independent actors?
What about the Ukrainian who blew up a Russian general in Moscow (and
his assistant)? He acted like a terrorist, but is he a jolly fine chap
because the general is regarded as nasty?
I think it is very important to distinguish between attacking military targets
and terrorism, which by definition involves damaging morale by attacking
civilian targets.
Was the Russian general a "military target"? What about his assistant?
What about the other people in his apartment block (which was damaged)?
On 20/12/2024 12:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Dec 2024 at 11:32:24 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 19/12/2024 14:35, GB wrote:
According to the CPS: "Section 38B(1) and (2) of the Terrorism Act
2000 makes it an offence if someone does not inform the police if
he/she believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of
terrorism."
If you knew what JSO were up to, did you have an obligation to shop
them?
Who decides what is a terrorist act in any case? I know there are
proscribed organisations (though I don't know where I would find a
list), but what about independent actors?
What about the Ukrainian who blew up a Russian general in Moscow (and
his assistant)? He acted like a terrorist, but is he a jolly fine chap
because the general is regarded as nasty?
I think it is very important to distinguish between attacking military
targets and terrorism, which by definition involves damaging morale by
attacking civilian targets.
Was the Russian general a "military target"? What about his assistant?
What about the other people in his apartment block (which was damaged)?
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable collateral damage.
On Sun, 22 Dec 2024 11:15:01 +0000, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/12/2024 12:16, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think it is very important to distinguish between attacking military
targets and terrorism, which by definition involves damaging morale by
attacking civilian targets.
Was the Russian general a "military target"? What about his assistant?
What about the other people in his apartment block (which was damaged)?
Dresden ?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that collateral damage
is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about the Gaza war assure us that
45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that collateral damage
is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about the Gaza war assure us that
45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about
the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable
collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is
there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when
resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about
the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable
collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is
there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when
resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to
achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
If not, what is the point of your comment?
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is
there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when
resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to
achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza
that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide
amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is
there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when
resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza
that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide
amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human shields?
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about
the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable
collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to
create support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is
there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when
resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza
that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide
amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human
shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza
that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide
amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human
shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
On 17:01 23 Dec 2024, GB said:
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to
achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population.
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Some say that by hiding behind civilians, Hamas expected its fighters to
be protected because the Israelis would withhold fire.
However some war commentators believe hiding behind Palestinian
civilians (who would get killed) was deployed as a cynical strategy by
Sinwar to maximise international sympathy in the hope it would restrain
the Israeli military response and permit Hamas to appear undefeated.
In the event, both those were miscalculations. As was the hope that the
Arabs in the Middle East would rise in armed retaliation against Israel.
It's all turned out rather badly for Iran's terrorist proxies. I see the Houthis are now in line for close Israeli attention for their gratuitous rocket attack on Tel Aviv.
Maybe the prospect of Israelis cowering in bomb shelters is some sort of recompense.
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that
collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible? >>>>
that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide
amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human
shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent
country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand
can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
On 25/12/2024 11:36, Max Demian wrote:
Maybe the prospect of Israelis cowering in bomb shelters is some sort of
recompense.
The Israelis have been under attack with rockets for years.
On 25 Dec 2024 at 11:59:01 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/12/2024 11:36, Max Demian wrote:
Maybe the prospect of Israelis cowering in bomb shelters is some sort of >>> recompense.
The Israelis have been under attack with rockets for years.
They have been largely small, unguided rockets, most of which have been intercepted in recent years. A larger, more accurate weapon that actually evaded their defences must be of some concern to them, especially if it was more than a fluke it wasn't stopped.
For obvious reasons they are not going to
comment, but if it is something that could be repeated it seems to warrant a firm response.
On 24/12/2024 19:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza >>>>> that isn't populated?"
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that >>>>>>>>>> collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic to create
support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible? >>>>>
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide >>>>> amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human >>>> shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent
country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand
can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
You keep attempting to justify Hamas using civilians as human shields.
It's expedient, but that does not make it right.
One reason it's expedient for Hamas is that they want civilian
casualties, for political purposes. It's what they set out to provoke in
the 7 October raid. I don't think the Israelis should have obliged them
by retaliating, but unfortunately they didn't ask my opinion.
On 25 Dec 2024 at 12:06:58 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
You do realise that this business about "human shields" is just one side's propaganda, not a self-evident fact?
Every siege or invasion of a city in
history has led to significant civilian deaths, doubly so in a small area like
Gaza where there has never been any safe areas for civilians to be evacuated to.
The only thing Hamas is guilty of is not immediately surrendering to a massively more powerful enemy. Apart from standing together in a big field and
saying "please bomb us" there is no way they could have fought except in urban
areas.
If you are a firm partisan of one side you can call this "using human shields", but neutral observers don't have to believe this stupid accusation.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 at 12:06:58 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[…]
You do realise that this business about "human shields" is just one side's >> propaganda, not a self-evident fact?
So what propaganda phrase does Hamas use?
Every siege or invasion of a city in
history has led to significant civilian deaths, doubly so in a small area like
Gaza where there has never been any safe areas for civilians to be evacuated >> to.
Perhaps Egypt could have done more to help their Arab brothers. Any idea
why they didn’t?
The only thing Hamas is guilty of is not immediately surrendering to a
massively more powerful enemy. Apart from standing together in a big field and
saying "please bomb us" there is no way they could have fought except in urban
areas.
Hamas could have mounted a full-scale invasion of southern Israel, instead
of a brutal raid designed to provoke a violent response followed by a
retreat to the cover of the civilian population and infrastructure of Gaza.
If you are a firm partisan of one side you can call this "using human
shields", but neutral observers don't have to believe this stupid accusation.
One wonders what your ‘neutral observers’ say in private, when not bound by
the stupid duty of toeing the ‘correct’ line for public consumption.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 25 Dec 2024 at 12:06:58 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
[…]
You do realise that this business about "human shields" is just one side's >> propaganda, not a self-evident fact?
So what propaganda phrase does Hamas use?
Every siege or invasion of a city in
history has led to significant civilian deaths, doubly so in a small area like
Gaza where there has never been any safe areas for civilians to be evacuated >> to.
Perhaps Egypt could have done more to help their Arab brothers. Any idea
why they didn’t?
On 25 Dec 2024 at 11:59:01 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 25/12/2024 11:36, Max Demian wrote:
Maybe the prospect of Israelis cowering in bomb shelters is some sort of >>> recompense.
The Israelis have been under attack with rockets for years.
They have been largely small, unguided rockets, most of which have been intercepted in recent years.
On 24/12/2024 19:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza >>>>> that isn't populated?"
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that >>>>>>>>>> collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic >>>>>>>>> to create support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible? >>>>>
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide >>>>> amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human >>>> shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent
country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand
can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
You keep attempting to justify Hamas using civilians as human shields.
It's expedient, but that does not make it right.
One reason it's expedient for Hamas is that they want civilian
casualties, for political purposes. It's what they set out to provoke in
the 7 October raid. I don't think the Israelis should have obliged them
by retaliating, but unfortunately they didn't ask my opinion.
On 2024-12-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 19:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza >>>>>> that isn't populated?"
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that >>>>>>>>>>> collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about >>>>>>>>>>> the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable >>>>>>>>>>> collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic
to create support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same >>>>>>>>> dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to >>>>>>>> achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible? >>>>>>
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide >>>>>> amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human >>>>> shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent
country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand
can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
You keep attempting to justify Hamas using civilians as human shields.
Not only do I not "keep" attempting to do so, I haven't done so even once.
I have simply been pointing out that what you've been saying has been nonsensical.
It's been a sad and transparent fact throughout the whole Gaza situation since October '23 that anyone even remotely suggesting that perhaps
Israel is going a bit over the top in how many civilians it's killing
gets accused of "anti-semitism" or "defending Hamas" when they are of
course doing neither of those things.
It's expedient, but that does not make it right.
One reason it's expedient for Hamas is that they want civilian
casualties, for political purposes. It's what they set out to provoke in
the 7 October raid. I don't think the Israelis should have obliged them
by retaliating, but unfortunately they didn't ask my opinion.
My pet theory is similar but slightly different, in that their entire
plan was to get Israel to overreact and thus erode support for Israel
amongst the international community. Hamas does not have the power to
destroy Israel, but the Israeli government does. If so, Israel has
played along perfectly with this plan, which has been spectacularly successful. Unfortunately, while US support for Israel remains as
utterly unconditional as it has been so far, it doesn't seem to make
much difference.
On 26 Dec 2024 at 11:50:13 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2024-12-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 19:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza >>>>>>> that isn't populated?"
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that >>>>>>>>>>>> collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about
the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable
collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic
to create support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave >>>>>>>>> Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to
achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas?
Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible? >>>>>>>
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide >>>>>>> amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human >>>>>> shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you
think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent
country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand >>>> can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
You keep attempting to justify Hamas using civilians as human shields.
Not only do I not "keep" attempting to do so, I haven't done so even once. >> I have simply been pointing out that what you've been saying has been
nonsensical.
It's been a sad and transparent fact throughout the whole Gaza situation
since October '23 that anyone even remotely suggesting that perhaps
Israel is going a bit over the top in how many civilians it's killing
gets accused of "anti-semitism" or "defending Hamas" when they are of
course doing neither of those things.
It's expedient, but that does not make it right.
One reason it's expedient for Hamas is that they want civilian
casualties, for political purposes. It's what they set out to provoke in >>> the 7 October raid. I don't think the Israelis should have obliged them
by retaliating, but unfortunately they didn't ask my opinion.
My pet theory is similar but slightly different, in that their entire
plan was to get Israel to overreact and thus erode support for Israel
amongst the international community. Hamas does not have the power to
destroy Israel, but the Israeli government does. If so, Israel has
played along perfectly with this plan, which has been spectacularly
successful. Unfortunately, while US support for Israel remains as
utterly unconditional as it has been so far, it doesn't seem to make
much difference.
Since the US has an established reputation for supporting the most despotic and evil of regimes if doing so suits US geopolitical interests this should not come as a great surprise to anyone.
On 2024-12-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Dec 2024 at 11:50:13 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2024-12-25, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 19:19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 14:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-24, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 24/12/2024 13:25, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-23, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/12/2024 17:25, Roger Hayter wrote:Do you really think their aim is simply to die as quickly as possible?
On 22 Dec 2024 at 15:59:14 GMT, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
It is, without irony, accepted by all military parties that >>>>>>>>>>>>> collateral damage is allowable. NATO experts advising the ICC about
the Gaza war assure us that 45,000 Palestinians is quite reasonable
collateral damage.
That’s a new take on ‘human shields’, Hamas’ favourite tactic
to create support from the uncritical and unthinking.
I believe the populations of Dresden and Hiroshima got up to the same
dastardly action. Believe what you want to believe. Where else is >>>>>>>>>>> there for Hamas to go in Gaza that isn't populated? Especially when >>>>>>>>>>> resting on leave or having surgical treatment.
About 50% of Gaza is agricultural/not heavily built, and if the brave
Hamas fighters are really seeking martyrdom, it would be far easier to
achieve that if they were not embedded in the civilian population. >>>>>>>>>>
So, why are they choosing to fight from the civilian areas? >>>>>>>>>
I answered the question: "Where else is there for Hamas to go in Gaza >>>>>>>> that isn't populated?"
And, you explained (most succinctly, if I may say so), why they hide >>>>>>>> amongst the civilian population instead.
If not, what is the point of your comment?
I hope it's clearer now.
So if they don't immediately commit suicide they're evil users of human >>>>>>> shields?
The Ukrainians seem to be able to steer a middle course. Why do you >>>>>> think that Hamas is not capable of doing likewise?
Again, what is the point of your question? Ukraine is an independent >>>>> country with its own air force, defences, etc. Israel on the other hand >>>>> can bomb flat any part of Gaza they want at any time with impunity.
You know this. So why are you asking?
You keep attempting to justify Hamas using civilians as human shields.
Not only do I not "keep" attempting to do so, I haven't done so even once. >>> I have simply been pointing out that what you've been saying has been
nonsensical.
It's been a sad and transparent fact throughout the whole Gaza situation >>> since October '23 that anyone even remotely suggesting that perhaps
Israel is going a bit over the top in how many civilians it's killing
gets accused of "anti-semitism" or "defending Hamas" when they are of
course doing neither of those things.
It's expedient, but that does not make it right.
One reason it's expedient for Hamas is that they want civilian
casualties, for political purposes. It's what they set out to provoke in >>>> the 7 October raid. I don't think the Israelis should have obliged them >>>> by retaliating, but unfortunately they didn't ask my opinion.
My pet theory is similar but slightly different, in that their entire
plan was to get Israel to overreact and thus erode support for Israel
amongst the international community. Hamas does not have the power to
destroy Israel, but the Israeli government does. If so, Israel has
played along perfectly with this plan, which has been spectacularly
successful. Unfortunately, while US support for Israel remains as
utterly unconditional as it has been so far, it doesn't seem to make
much difference.
Since the US has an established reputation for supporting the most despotic >> and evil of regimes if doing so suits US geopolitical interests this should >> not come as a great surprise to anyone.
Even assuming a completely amoral calculus, I am surprised that
the advantages to the USA of supporting Israel are not outweighed
by the disadvantages, at this point.
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Max Demian wrote:
Maybe the prospect of Israelis cowering in bomb shelters is some sort of >>> recompense.
The Israelis have been under attack with rockets for years.
They have been largely small, unguided rockets, most of which have been intercepted in recent years.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 47:11:10 |
| Calls: | 9,802 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,189,988 |