Attacks on Civilians

[irosie91]

The most brilliant minds in the world have settled
the problem of "civilian" vs "non -civilian"
THE KORANIC SCHOLARS of Al Azhar University
have determined that ALL JEWS ARE LEGAL TARGETS
REGARDLESS OF AGE OR GENDER OR LOCATION---
thus----by their logic ALL ISA-RESPECTERS are also
legal targets regardless of age or gender of location.

We should all thank the brilliant and holy koranic
scholars of AL AZHAR university for their
contribution to the advancement and welfare of
mankind-----and sherri too----for overcomining
any SHIITE connections and adhering to the
WISDOM of the sunni scholars of AL AZHAR

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

So the word 'Palestine' did not appear on western maps for 600 years?

What was the British Mandate territory called, by the way?

Seriously, Todd, you are about as many IQ points short of discussing this subject as Hamas is of peaceful leaders.

There has never been a nation of Palestine.

 

[Coyote]

i think you have to set the bar highter than that. as an ex-artilleryman i think not targeting civilians is insufficient. i think you cannot be negligent of civilians in a mission directed at a legitimate target and, in fact, you have some obligation to protect them.

on the other side of the coin is human shieldss. there are two kinds o human shields. voluntary and involuntary. i think most of the human shields used by HAMAS were voluntary, where the civilian population willingly surrounded some positions so that, in SOME cases, eliminates their immunity, or at least qualifies it.

you really do have to take these things on a case by case basis but as a very general rule, civilians are to be protected.

I agree - when targeting is careless of civilians, then it is no different than deliberately targeting them.

Human shields though....you make excellent points, I had not thought of it in that way before - good post! Wish I could give you rep

Like when Israel drops a bomb on an apartment building because a militant lived there. Twenty some civilians were killed, many injured.

Israels response: We did not target those civilians.

Exactly. As the OP stated - even if military members live amongst them that doesn't give them the right to attack civilians.

 

[Coyote]

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

So the word 'Palestine' did not appear on western maps for 600 years?

What was the British Mandate territory called, by the way?

Seriously, Todd, you are about as many IQ points short of discussing this subject as Hamas is of peaceful leaders.

There has never been a nation of Palestine.

Like clockwork comes the talking points.

So you agree, basically, that it is wrong to attack non-combatents, ie civilians?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the word 'Palestine' did not appear on western maps for 600 years?

What was the British Mandate territory called, by the way?

Seriously, Todd, you are about as many IQ points short of discussing this subject as Hamas is of peaceful leaders.

There has never been a nation of Palestine.

Like clockwork comes the talking points.

So you agree, basically, that it is wrong to attack non-combatents, ie civilians?

Absolutely.

 

[Coyote]

I agree. Israeli civilians can't be targeted. They're protected. Despite Tinny's claim.

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

You might ask the Israeli government that since they refer to it as "Occupied Territories". Maybe they know something you don't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Israeli civilians ARE occupying Palestinian territory. However they are still civilians and protected as are Palestinian civilians.

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

You might ask the Israeli government that since they refer to it as "Occupied Territories". Maybe they know something you don't.

They know that there used to be a nation of Palestine?

Maybe you can tell me when it existed?

 

[Coyote]

There has never been a Palestine, how can Palestinian territory be occupied?

You might ask the Israeli government that since they refer to it as "Occupied Territories". Maybe they know something you don't.

They know that there used to be a nation of Palestine?

Maybe you can tell me when it existed?

I don't play parrot games, so try it with some one else.

Or, I would suggest you take it up with the Israeli government and ask THEM why they call it Occupied Territories. Maybe it's just a silly little typo on their part eh? But I think not.

 

[MHunterB]

"Occupied Territories or Disputed Territories?"

Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

 

[Hossfly]

I agree - when targeting is careless of civilians, then it is no different than deliberately targeting them.

Human shields though....you make excellent points, I had not thought of it in that way before - good post! Wish I could give you rep

Like when Israel drops a bomb on an apartment building because a militant lived there. Twenty some civilians were killed, many injured.

Israels response: We did not target those civilians.

Exactly. As the OP stated - even if military members live amongst them that doesn't give them the right to attack civilians.

I posted a response in Post #74 that clarifies a military response. Rocco is an expert on military law and I am confident he would back me up. The US military for instance does not take any offensive action without research by an army of their lawyers to make sure any response is legal or not. Check out that post. Like it or not, moral or not, just because people think actons are illegal does not make it so. There are rules of engagement and the US and IDF obey those rules.

 

[MHunterB]

Professor Louis Rene Beres -- The Myth Of The "Occupied" Territories

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalem. Professor Beres's columns appear often in major American, Israeli and European newspapers.

Louis Rene Beres

Professor of International Law

Department of Political Science

Purdue University

West Lafayette IN 47907 USA

E MAIL [email protected]


Media references to territories administered by Israel since the June 1967 war now routinely describe them as "occupied." Yet, this description conveniently overlooks the pertinent history of these lands, especially the authentic Israeli claims supported by international law, the unwitting manner in which West Bank and Gaza fell into Israel's hands after sustained Arab aggression and the overwhelming security considerations involved. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a State of Palestine was not promised by authoritative UN Security Council Resolution 242; indeed, a State of Palestine has never existed.

 

[Coyote]

If one argues that those territories are not "occupied" (which I don't buy that argument) then the ethical situation is worse. We have Israel attacking it's own population in much the way Syria is since the Palestinians are inhabitants of those territories.

Either way you choose to believe it, attacking civilians is wrong and the occupation argument doesn't change that.

 

[irosie91]

If one argues that those territories are not "occupied" (which I don't buy that argument) then the ethical situation is worse. We have Israel attacking it's own population in much the way Syria is since the Palestinians are inhabitants of those territories.

Either way you choose to believe it, attacking civilians is wrong and the occupation argument doesn't change that.

either way----in war "civilians" end up IN THE FRAY. Fret not---the
brilliant minds of the isa-respecters have solved the problem-----they have
DEFINED all jews as MILITARY and all muslims as CIVLILIAN----even
sluts with bombs on the over used whoreish asses are "civilians' by
declaration of the noble and holy SCHOOL OF KORANIC STUDIES
of AL AZHAR UNIVERSITY-------the definitions have been in force for
more than 50 years (according to my muslim informants----I heard
about them ---almost 45 years ago)

This information was confirmed in 1971---during the east-west
pakistani civil war when I learned that the MUSLIM GIRLS of
east pakistan were declared ----by the HOLY method of TAKFIR
to be elegible as rape victims by the west pakistani army------
I am not at all surprised that sherri endorses the concept

 

[sealadaigh]

Professor Louis Rene Beres -- The Myth Of The "Occupied" Territories

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalem. Professor Beres's columns appear often in major American, Israeli and European newspapers.

Louis Rene Beres

Professor of International Law

Department of Political Science

Purdue University

West Lafayette IN 47907 USA

E MAIL [email protected]


Media references to territories administered by Israel since the June 1967 war now routinely describe them as "occupied." Yet, this description conveniently overlooks the pertinent history of these lands, especially the authentic Israeli claims supported by international law, the unwitting manner in which West Bank and Gaza fell into Israel's hands after sustained Arab aggression and the overwhelming security considerations involved. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a State of Palestine was not promised by authoritative UN Security Council Resolution 242; indeed, a State of Palestine has never existed.

does this man receive recompense from the israeli jewish state in any way?

if the west bank is not occupied, what exactly is it? it has to be something. the israeli jewish state certainly acts like its only eastern border is the jordan river? if it is not occupied and is israels, than why are some settlements declared illegal?

 

[sealadaigh]

If one argues that those territories are not "occupied" (which I don't buy that argument) then the ethical situation is worse. We have Israel attacking it's own population in much the way Syria is since the Palestinians are inhabitants of those territories.

Either way you choose to believe it, attacking civilians is wrong and the occupation argument doesn't change that.

either way----in war "civilians" end up IN THE FRAY. Fret not---the
brilliant minds of the isa-respecters have solved the problem-----they have
DEFINED all jews as MILITARY and all muslims as CIVLILIAN----even
sluts with bombs on the over used whoreish asses are "civilians' by
declaration of the noble and holy SCHOOL OF KORANIC STUDIES
of AL AZHAR UNIVERSITY-------the definitions have been in force for
more than 50 years (according to my muslim informants----I heard
about them ---almost 45 years ago)

This information was confirmed in 1971---during the east-west
pakistani civil war when I learned that the MUSLIM GIRLS of
east pakistan were declared ----by the HOLY method of TAKFIR
to be elegible as rape victims by the west pakistani army------
I am not at all surprised that sherri endorses the concept

sherri does not endorse the raping of either women or girls by anyone. why would you say such a horrible thing?

you are a sick, sick woman.

 

[sealadaigh]

Professor Louis Rene Beres -- The Myth Of The "Occupied" Territories

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalem. Professor Beres's columns appear often in major American, Israeli and European newspapers.

Louis Rene Beres

Professor of International Law

Department of Political Science

Purdue University

West Lafayette IN 47907 USA

E MAIL [email protected]


Media references to territories administered by Israel since the June 1967 war now routinely describe them as "occupied." Yet, this description conveniently overlooks the pertinent history of these lands, especially the authentic Israeli claims supported by international law, the unwitting manner in which West Bank and Gaza fell into Israel's hands after sustained Arab aggression and the overwhelming security considerations involved. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations; a sovereign State of Palestine did not exist before 1967 or 1948; a State of Palestine was not promised by authoritative UN Security Council Resolution 242; indeed, a State of Palestine has never existed.

the article you posted links back to this homepage...

NewsWithViews - Where Reality Shatters Illusion

 

[MHunterB]

That's not the professor's home page.......interesting, though. It appears to be a wide range of OPINION pieces about current events (or near-current)

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Well, the professor may of course have his opinion, but the link I just posted here is to a court decision holding East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. The International Court of Justice is the highest intl legal authority in our world and they have already decided this issue.

 

[member]

If one argues that those territories are not "occupied" (which I don't buy that argument) then the ethical situation is worse. We have Israel attacking it's own population in much the way Syria is since the Palestinians are inhabitants of those territories. Either way you choose to believe it, attacking civilians is wrong and the occupation argument doesn't change that.

"We have Israel attacking it's own population in much the way Syria is..."

yeah, its the .................same.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Well, the professor may of course have his opinion, but the link I just posted here is to a court decision holding East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza are occupied by Israel. The International Court of Justice is the highest intl legal authority in our world and they have already decided this issue.

Israel attacked no nation named Palestine, how could she occupy Palestinian territory?