AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦

Yoko, Shinobu ni, eto… 🤔

עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 ❤️ 🇮🇱

  • 22 Posts
  • 41 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 14th, 2023
  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•Israel ‘hit squad’ kills three in West Bank hospital operationEnglish
    01·
    9 months ago

    Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions.

    Again, not a clear-cut issue. You cannot extrapolate a few lines from the Geneva Convention with your own definitions of what constitutes a “patient”. So again, since this misinformation is being repeated, I find it only fair to quote a few passages on why that is, at least, debatable and why it is still indeed very important to add that the 3 killed were terrorists, were carrying guns and were planning a terrorist attack.

    The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.

    (there wouldn’t be an article about it if it was an obvious question: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/ , you should contact that journal and ask them to retract that article since you seem to say that they’re wrong)

    Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.

    (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )

    Being an active terrorist member of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, carrying at least one gun, planning a terrorist attack, and very likely committing perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in a hospital, all of that is certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”. You’re free to consider the more general moral debate on whether it’s okay to assassinate terrorists hiding in a hospital, but it’s wrong and misleading to make the Geneva Convention say what it clearly doesn’t say at all.

    What would have clearly defended the terrorists’ right to care would have been if they surrendered and left Hamas. But in the absence of that, it’s, at best, still debatable whether the First Geneva Convention defends those terrorists’ right to hide as civilians in a hospital to “receive care” or not.

    With all this said, yes, it is very much indeed misinformation to maliciously leave out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•Israel ‘hit squad’ kills three in West Bank hospital operationEnglish
    01·
    9 months ago

    When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.

    Conveniently ignoring this doesn’t make your point true: being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.

    Your point would have been defensible if those three terrorists 1- surrendered and left Hamas, 2- weren’t carrying arms (at least one of them was carrying a gun), 3- weren’t accused of planning another terrorist attack and 4- didn’t commit perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in the hospital. Still being active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with one of the three being a commander, IS an act of hostility.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•Israel ‘hit squad’ kills three in West Bank hospital operationEnglish
    01·
    9 months ago

    Our two quotes aren’t in contradiction? Here’s what the first Geneva convention defines as “wounded or sick”:

    Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.

    (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )

    Being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.

    medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]

    Irrelevant as no medical facility got attacked (okay, they’ll probably have to replace the bedding) and most importantly not a single civilian got harmed in the process.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldtoWorld News@lemmy.world•Israel ‘hit squad’ kills three in West Bank hospital operationEnglish
    01·
    9 months ago

    Hospitals are OFF LIMITS

    To terrorists too? Your oversimplification makes it seem like a clear-cut case when it’s not.

    With the escalation of terrorism worldwide in recent years, situations arise in which the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, creating serious ethical problems. The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/

    So yes, sorry to insist on it again but it does matter and it is important to detail that the 3 assassinated were terrorists, and yes it should be considered misinformation to maliciously leave that out.

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.worldtoAsk Lemmy@lemmy.world•Am I the only one getting agitated by the word AI?
    0·
    9 months ago

    When I was doing my applied math PhD, the vast majority of people in my discipline used either “machine learning”, “statistical learning”, “deep learning”, but almost never “AI” (at least not in a paper or a conference). Once I finished my PhD and took on my first quant job at a bank, management insisted that I should use the word AI more in my communications. I make a neural network that simply interpolates between prices? That’s AI.

    The point is that top management and shareholders don’t want the accurate terminology, they want to hear that you’re implementing AI and that the company is investing in it, because that’s what pumps the company’s stock as long as we’re in the current AI bubble.