Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
how is it that war crimes can be committed, understood as crimes against humanity, yet not be prosecuted?
|
This is actually simple. If your people are victimized by a radical government and you manage to survive, you get a freebie.
No backsies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
shouldn't there at least be investigations undertaken in order to determine the accuracy of this report?
|
It's Israel.
Investigating them would be anti-Semitic. Shoot, doing anything that's not completely serving the interests of the occupying Israeli government would be antisemitism. I'm probably an anti-Semite for simply suggesting that Israel is occupying Palestine. Shame on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
and if the report is in fact accurate--or even if it is only partially accurate---wouldn't you think it important that this be carried out?
|
Having read the report, most of the things I could verify seemed to pan out as accurate. But no, we can't carry out anything against Israel because it's Israel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
what exactly does the idea of war crimes mean if the only context in which anyone is prosecuted for them is after a country looses a war?
|
That's not the case here. There was no war, there was an attack by a powerful government on an indigenous people that have basically no ability to defend themselves. It's an extermination and probably should be looked into not as a war crime, but actually genocide (not that it absolutely is genocide, but come on, it seems pretty obvious when you look at the numbers).
In all seriousness, eventually the US will get a president that has an objective take on Israel, so they will lose their veto power on the security council. Until then, Israel will continue to push Palestinians into the Mediterranean and Dead seas... at least those they don't kill.
But shame on Hamas and all that other false equivalence.