RoccoR
Gold Member
RE: Boycott Israel
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
BLUF: I know that there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I don't have that as an expectation. But if I don't respond, some outside observer (I don't suspect that the White House will be one of them) might think you are correct.
Well, I don't figure that when the 4000 rockets rain down on Israel, that they came from the Red Cross. Those 4000 Rockets broke the ceasefire. That is the act of an aggressor.
The Israeli response is a matter of hostile fire suppression. That is a responsibility of a functioning government. Even the US would respond if, over the last decade, well over 10000 rockets were fired into the US.
Well, that is not true at all. You can neutralize the offensive capability of an Army. You can break the will of the people to continue the struggle.
Politically, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been receiving political support from the external donor nations that have artificially kept them afloat.
Well, the notion that Israel is "bombing the crap out of civilians" is a childlike view supported by the White House and associates. But the actual suppressive action is the targeting of HoAP activities that are collocated and embedded within the civilian community.
The HoAP violate the following Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which result in civilian casualties::
Now I don't expect those sissy idiots in the White House and State Department to understand Customary and IHL, but I do expect you and your associates to understand. Even though the White House and associate don't understand that the deaths resulting in the exchange of fire with an Opponent which is continuously in violation of:
Most Respectfully,
R
SUBTOPIC: Act of Aggression
⁜→ P F Tinmore, Hollie, et al,
BLUF: I know that there is nothing I can say that will change your mind. I don't have that as an expectation. But if I don't respond, some outside observer (I don't suspect that the White House will be one of them) might think you are correct.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:Where do you get the idea that the Palestinians are the aggressors?
Well, I don't figure that when the 4000 rockets rain down on Israel, that they came from the Red Cross. Those 4000 Rockets broke the ceasefire. That is the act of an aggressor.
The Israeli response is a matter of hostile fire suppression. That is a responsibility of a functioning government. Even the US would respond if, over the last decade, well over 10000 rockets were fired into the US.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:You can defeat an army but you cannot defeat a people.
Well, that is not true at all. You can neutralize the offensive capability of an Army. You can break the will of the people to continue the struggle.
Politically, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have been receiving political support from the external donor nations that have artificially kept them afloat.
(COMMENT)P F Tinmore said:Every time Israel does something stupid, like bombing the crap out of civilians, the Palestinians gain support.
Well, the notion that Israel is "bombing the crap out of civilians" is a childlike view supported by the White House and associates. But the actual suppressive action is the targeting of HoAP activities that are collocated and embedded within the civilian community.
The HoAP violate the following Customary and International Humanitarian Law (IHL) which result in civilian casualties::
Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those:
(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Rule 23. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
Rule 24. Each party to the conflict must, to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.
Rule 97. The use of human shields is prohibited.
Now I don't expect those sissy idiots in the White House and State Department to understand Customary and IHL, but I do expect you and your associates to understand. Even though the White House and associate don't understand that the deaths resulting in the exchange of fire with an Opponent which is continuously in violation of:
- Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
- Intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military objectives;
- Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations;
Most Respectfully,
R