-
We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you
Warfare HAMAS attack on Israel, Oct 2023 & Iran’s Proxies.
- Thread starter Musashi
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 14,407
- Points
- 293
If they're dumb enough to intervene there's not going to be a Lebanese army left soon.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
- Messages
- 835
- Points
- 158
Of course, it was Iran themselves that intentionally double tapped school next to IRGC compound.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 14,407
- Points
- 293
I haven't heard anything about this afterwards, have you?
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 1,541
- Points
- 239
How dare you suggest that the Lebanese are working together with the Hezzies... ;-)
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2022
- Messages
- 835
- Points
- 158
Pete Hegseth dropped a 'largely unnoticed' war crime on live TV: experts
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offhandedly made a remark about the Trump administration's attack on Iran during his speech on Friday that experts warned, if he's serious, could be a war crime — even just for him to say out loud."No quarter, no mercy for our enemies," said Hegseth. "Yet some...
www.rawstory.com
Thank God US have psychopaths in charge of their military.
Source:
p.210-211 (actual page 238-239 of the PDF file)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2023
- Messages
- 1,561
- Points
- 199
"if he's serious"Pete Hegseth dropped a 'largely unnoticed' war crime on live TV: experts
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offhandedly made a remark about the Trump administration's attack on Iran during his speech on Friday that experts warned, if he's serious, could be a war crime — even just for him to say out loud."No quarter, no mercy for our enemies," said Hegseth. "Yet some...
Thank God US have psychopaths in charge of their military.
View attachment 557088
View attachment 557089
Source:
p.210-211 (actual page 238-239 of the PDF file)
Unless there are specific orders for military units to do this, you can just put this down to fierce rhetoric more than anything. Think of it as chest beating "we will not stop hitting you hard" kind of PR unless there is evidence to the contrary.
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 15,763
- Points
- 338
Pete Hegseth dropped a 'largely unnoticed' war crime on live TV: experts
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth offhandedly made a remark about the Trump administration's attack on Iran during his speech on Friday that experts warned, if he's serious, could be a war crime — even just for him to say out loud."No quarter, no mercy for our enemies," said Hegseth. "Yet some...
Thank God US have psychopaths in charge of their military.
View attachment 557088
View attachment 557089
Source:
p.210-211 (actual page 238-239 of the PDF file)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No.
And let me strongly emphasize on the HAHAHAHAHAHAHA part of it.
This is absolute BS.
And here is why.
No quarter ORDERS do violate LOAC. Giving that order is a war crime even if it's not carried out.
HOWEVER that is NOT an order the SecWar, Pete Hegseth gave.
And that is why people so gleefully running around with that brainrot level of legal analysis are FOS.
Being something I studied and got to deal with at some point, I can tell I know the difference between what SECWAR said in a press briefing yesterday and a war crime. Apparently you, and those you quoted, and those agreeing with you, don't.
However, relying only on "I am right and you are wrong" won't carry the point home in addition to being a gross of appeal to authority.
Therefore, I will do you a favor and spell it out for you, step by step, in simple language that you'll hopefully understand. *fingers crossed and knocking on wood there*
So. Let's start off with what Hegseth ACTUALLY said:
"It's a mess for them. Who's in charge? Iran may not even know. With every passing hour, we know and we know they know, that the military capabilities of their evil regime are crumbling. They can barely communicate, let alone coordinate; they're confused and we know it.
Our response? We will keep pressing. We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
You can check the transcript, it is public:
(https://war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4434484/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-and-chairman-of-the-joint-chiefs-air-force-gen-da/)
Good, now that what has been ACTUALLY said is out of the way, let's take a look at what that means.
If we consider this "no quarter" observation in context, we see Hegseth's intent is to convey that the Department of War's intent is to exert maximum pressure on the adversary.
We know their military capabilities "are crumbling".
We know is US aree not going to back off.
In other words: Keep pushing, keep advancing. > "No quarter. No mercy."
Something people tend to dismiss, out of malice or simply because they intellectually can't do it, is how crucially important it is to make the distinction between "content" and "intent" are important. These two things are very different. And being able to understand they are different is how one is thus able to make the distinction between political rhetoric from "war crime".
In other words, how to tell what is REALITY from BS.
On that you get awarded an F.
Now, let's go all the way back to Hague, II (1899) & Hague, IV (1907), for sh*ts an giggles, shall we?
The Regulations annexed to both Conventions make it forbidden, "To declare that no quarter will be given" (pic 1, from Hague, IV).
Good? Okay.
Isn't that what SECWAR just "declared"?
If the development of LOAC had stopped at 1907, maybe the argument you are trying to push could be made, however even by that standard it wouldn't hold water.
Well, isn't that too, because it didn't.
Short research in History would point out the fact, in negotiations for later treaties, delegates decided to be more clear about what exactly that prohibition should entail.
So, next we'll consider 2 later treaties the US hasn't ratified but was deeply involved in shaping: Additional Protocol I (1977) to 1949 Geneva Conventions & Rome Statute (1998).
These sources confirm Hegseth's political rhetoric is NOT a LOAC violation or war crime and that, incidentally, the US DoW doctrine is in fact consistent with relevant text of these treaties.
AP I.
So, as we can see from art. 40, it clarifies (about 7 decades after Hague IV, but who cares), "It is prohibited TO ORDER that there shall be no survivors, TO THREATEN an adversary therewith or TO CONDUCT hostilities on this basis".
Let's do some semantics and linguistics, shall we. I promise, it's very fun.
What de we have in that article? 3 specific verbs + 1 condition.
Namely, just in case it isn't clear enough: no ordering, no threatening, or no conducting (these are the verbs) armed hostilities under condition, or conditions, (that's the condition) of NO SURVIVORS.
Now, let's go back a few minutes back in time. Remember when you read actual text of Hegseth's remarks?
Do you genuinely believe SECWAR just ordered or threatened there will be no survivors, even if an enemy IRGC member tries to surrender? Or that we are now as a result conducting hostilities on that basis?
Your comments and posting history would, unfortunately, suggest that yes. But that is an assumption.
But be honest, or try.
Did Hegseth ordered and threatened what he is being accused of having said?
No.
And no one with half a brain, and no one in the military is going to hear/read this and go: "SECWAR just ordered me to take no prisoners."
Get serious dude...
Moving on!
Next is art. 8(2)(b)(xii) of Rome Statute which essentially copies text of Hague IV, art. 23(d) to make "declaring no quarter will be given" a war crime, which, conveniently, follows AP I:
As does, even more conveniently, DoD Law of War Manual.
What are we learning from this. That, yes, actual no quarter ORDERS do violate LOAC. In fact to make it even more simple, the mere order alone is a war crime.
What isn't though, is max pressure political rhetoric. Why? Because it is NOT an ORDER.
Which means what?
Which means Hegseth's comments are neither LOAC violation nor war crime.
Don't try to playing back-bench weekend-legal expert.
Similar threads
