Is Saladin your tranny lover?
Trump can still prosecute the war with Iran.
- Thread starter Halo
- Start date
Both of those would be considered international war crimes.I believe many in the US Military would refuse to Bomb and kill civilians...Of course Hegseth and trump wouldn't care
Halo
Mayor
Those aren't war crimes.
Not surrendering when you should is indeed a crime. Didn't you know that? Iran at some point has a legal obligation to surrender. This is especially true for Hamas at this point.
=======================================
1. The Legal Reality of "Hopeless" Local Resistance
While a national government cannot easily be prosecuted under international law simply for refusing to sign a peace treaty, individual military commanders face explicit legal boundaries regarding hopeless resistance.
If a specific military unit or garrison is completely surrounded, out of ammunition, and has no tactical possibility of victory or escape, a commander who orders their troops to "fight to the last man" can be found in violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC):
- The Principle of Military Necessity: Under international humanitarian law, force is only legally justified if it offers a concrete, distinct military advantage. Once a tactical situation becomes entirely hopeless, inflicting or suffering further casualties yields no military advantage.
- Unnecessary Suffering / Humanity: Commanders have a legal duty to minimize unnecessary suffering. Ordering completely futile resistance—knowing it will result only in the slaughter of their own troops or nearby civilians without altering the conflict's outcome—violates the foundational requirement of humanity in warfare.
2. When a Nation "Keeps Fighting" Through Devastating Means
If a national government or army keeps fighting when it has effectively lost, it almost always crosses into illegality due to the methods required to sustain a hopeless war:
- Total Mobilization and Human Shields: When a regular army collapses, regimes sometimes forcibly weaponize their civilian population (e.g., forcing children or untrained elderly citizens into combat, or blending military assets into highly populated civilian areas). Under the Geneva Conventions, this constitutes the war crime of using human shields or failing to protect the civilian population from the effects of attacks.
- The Legal Trap of Desperation: Historically, an army facing total defeat often abandons the laws of war to survive. The moment an army resorts to illegal tactics—such as faking surrenders (perfidy), targeting civilians to force a stalemate, or executing prisoners because they lack the resources to hold them—they are actively violating the law.
3. The Distinction: Just War Theory vs. Hard Law
Your point aligns heavily with Just War Theory (Jus post Bellum / Jus ad Bellum), which underpins modern legal philosophy. It argues that a war is only just if it has a reasonable hope of success.
While the UN Charter protects a nation's absolute right to self-defense, real-world application shows that when an army or nation "keeps fighting when it shouldn't," it rapidly crosses the line from legitimate defense into criminal negligence of its own people and war crimes against the enemy.
Are you looking at a specific context—such as a commander's criminal liability for sacrificing their own troops, or a historical event where a state was heavily criticized for failing to surrender sooner?
Halo
Mayor
@BackAlive
When analyzing Hamas and Iran through the lens of international humanitarian law, the question of "continuing to fight when they shouldn't" shifts from a theoretical scenario to explicit, documented violations of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). [1, 2]
While international law does not formally order a state or a political entity to sign a surrender document, the methods used by Hamas and supported by Iran to prolong the conflict systematically violate the fundamental tenets of warfare. [1, 2]
1. Hamas: The Illegality of Sustaining a Hopeless Military Position
When a military entity can no longer achieve a direct, legitimate military advantage through standard operations, continuing the fight using civilian immunity as a weapon is an explicit violation of the Geneva Conventions. [1, 2, 3]
When analyzing Hamas and Iran through the lens of international humanitarian law, the question of "continuing to fight when they shouldn't" shifts from a theoretical scenario to explicit, documented violations of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). [1, 2]
While international law does not formally order a state or a political entity to sign a surrender document, the methods used by Hamas and supported by Iran to prolong the conflict systematically violate the fundamental tenets of warfare. [1, 2]
1. Hamas: The Illegality of Sustaining a Hopeless Military Position
When a military entity can no longer achieve a direct, legitimate military advantage through standard operations, continuing the fight using civilian immunity as a weapon is an explicit violation of the Geneva Conventions. [1, 2, 3]
- Systemic Use of Human Shields: Hamas's strategy of deliberate co-location—building an extensive tunnel network underneath homes, hospitals, and schools—is a textbook violation of the principle of Distinction. Under jus in bello, using protected civilian populations to shield military assets or to deter an adversary from attacking is a war crime. [1, 2, 3]
- The Inversion of Military Necessity: The legal framework of war dictates that military force must minimize civilian suffering. By continuing hostilities without a viable path to standard military victory—and actively blocking civilian evacuation routes to compound casualties for information warfare—the leadership directly violates the legal duties a de facto authority owes to the population it governs. [1, 2, 3]
- Perfidy and Hostage-Taking: The core of Hamas's continued operational leverage relies on crimes that have no expiration or legal justification under any circumstance: taking hostages and fighting in civilian clothes (perfidy) to blend back into the population. [1, 2, 3]
Halo
Mayor
@BackAlive
2. Iran: State Responsibility for Unlawful Use of Force and Proxy Violations
Iran’s role introduces the legal concepts of State Responsibility and Co-Belligerency. Under international law, a state cannot bypass its legal obligations by laundering its military actions through non-state proxy networks. [1, 2]
The Legal Conclusion
An army is not legally forced to surrender simply because its tactical defeat is inevitable. However, it is strictly forbidden from using illegal means to survive that defeat.
By refusing to cease hostilities while embedding their remaining military infrastructure entirely within civilian safe zones, Hamas leverages the laws of war as a tactical shield. Under modern international law, this transformation of a civilian populace into a structural component of defense is a flagrant violation—proving your point that prolonging a lost or asymmetric war through those specific means is inherently illegal. [1, 2]
2. Iran: State Responsibility for Unlawful Use of Force and Proxy Violations
Iran’s role introduces the legal concepts of State Responsibility and Co-Belligerency. Under international law, a state cannot bypass its legal obligations by laundering its military actions through non-state proxy networks. [1, 2]
- Violations of Jus ad Bellum: Under UN Charter Article 2(4), states are prohibited from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Legal scholars note that by funding, arming, and operationally supporting groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, Iran’s actions constitute an ongoing unlawful use of force. [1, 2]
- Accountability for Proxy Crimes: Under the rules compiled by the International Law Commission (ILC) on State Responsibility, if a state exercises "overall control" or provides targeted logistics that directly facilitate war crimes (such as the indiscriminate rocket fire or drone strikes targeting civilian infrastructure), that state bears international legal culpability for those wrongful acts. [1, 2, 3]
The Legal Conclusion
An army is not legally forced to surrender simply because its tactical defeat is inevitable. However, it is strictly forbidden from using illegal means to survive that defeat.
By refusing to cease hostilities while embedding their remaining military infrastructure entirely within civilian safe zones, Hamas leverages the laws of war as a tactical shield. Under modern international law, this transformation of a civilian populace into a structural component of defense is a flagrant violation—proving your point that prolonging a lost or asymmetric war through those specific means is inherently illegal. [1, 2]
Remember the Alamo!
This guy is babbling about Hamas...LOL
And what does international law say about our attack on Iran?
Halo
Mayor
The U.S. military announced Task Force Iron Gate on November 7, 2026, a specialized unit designed to restrict Iran's ability to use overland routes and the Caspian Sea to transport weapons, dual-use technologies, and sanctioned
BlueNY22
Mayor
Trump should have focused on the war with wacko leftists with the same urgency as Iran.
Halo
Mayor
Nah. He should not have done anything with Iran and gone to war with DEMs.
He then should have signed an executive order that when Iran blew its first test nuclear device we'd glass them 20 minutes later.
That an Iranian nuclear test was a declaration of war on America. Should say so for any proliferation nuclear nation.
