BREAKING: Family of Palestinian toddler burned alive sue Israel

[Shusha]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

 

[louie888]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

It's fact, illiterate.

 

[Shusha]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

It's fact, illiterate.

Got a link?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

 

[louie888]

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958

In before she flies the goalposts 6 million miles away.

 

[Shusha]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

I just wanted to know what you are using to support your arguments so I can properly counter it, without making assumptions about your legal rabbit holes.

 

[Hollie]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Your practice of selectively cutting / pasting / editing what you cut and paste is really dishonest. Enemy combatants are not protected.

Why do cut and paste with such dishonesty when you know so little?

 

[louie888]

I just wanted to know what you are using to support your arguments so I can properly counter it

You can't as it is quite clear.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Your practice of selectively cutting / pasting / editing what you cut and paste is really dishonest. Enemy combatants are not protected.

Why do cut and paste with such dishonesty when you know so little?

Palestinians are not enemy combatants. They are an occupied people. They have nothing to do with the war fostered upon them.

 

[Hollie]

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Link?

Why do you post here when you know so little?

Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Geneva Convention (IV) on Civilians, 1949 - 4 - - Commentary of 1958​

Your practice of selectively cutting / pasting / editing what you cut and paste is really dishonest. Enemy combatants are not protected.

Why do cut and paste with such dishonesty when you know so little?

Palestinians are not enemy combatants. They are an occupied people. They have nothing to do with the war fostered upon them.

Islamic terrorists are enemy combatants. When Islamic terrorists committ acts of war, that's called committing acts of war. Thats called "getting your muhammedan ass kicked by a better trained, equipped and motivated military".

You're welcome.

 

[Shusha]

P F Tinmore

Let's go back to the original post then. You claimed:

Wait, what?!

So Israeli police officers are legitimate military targets, while Gazan police officers are "civilians"? You can't have it both ways.

Either Israel attacked legitimate military targets or Arab Palestinians are attacking civilians. Which is it?

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

GCIV was not intended to, and does not, take nationals of an occupying power under its umbrella when it considers who is not and who is a "protected person" under that convention. If you had written that nationals of an occupying power are not covered under GCIV, then I might have agreed with you.

That is not what you wrote though. You wrote, "nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" and you supplied GCIV as proof that Israelis can not be considered "civilians".

This is in error. While Israelis may not be considered "protected persons" with respect to the GCIV, this does not mean that Israelis (nationals of the so-called occupying power) are never considered "civilians" and therefore have no protection under international law and can be killed with impunity. That concept is unconscionable in the face of customary IHL and other treaties and conventions.

All civilian peoples have rights to life under international law.

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants.

 

[louie888]

PFT was right and you moved the goalposts 6 million miles as I said you would.

 

[Shusha]

PFT was right and you moved the goalposts 6 million miles as I said you would.

The goal posts are in exactly the same place. Are police officers considered civilians or part of the military?

 

[fanger]

P F Tinmore

Let's go back to the original post then. You claimed:

Wait, what?!

So Israeli police officers are legitimate military targets, while Gazan police officers are "civilians"? You can't have it both ways.

Either Israel attacked legitimate military targets or Arab Palestinians are attacking civilians. Which is it?

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

GCIV was not intended to, and does not, take nationals of an occupying power under its umbrella when it considers who is not and who is a "protected person" under that convention. If you had written that nationals of an occupying power are not covered under GCIV, then I might have agreed with you.

That is not what you wrote though. You wrote, "nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" and you supplied GCIV as proof that Israelis can not be considered "civilians".

This is in error. While Israelis may not be considered "protected persons" with respect to the GCIV, this does not mean that Israelis (nationals of the so-called occupying power) are never considered "civilians" and therefore have no protection under international law and can be killed with impunity. That concept is unconscionable in the face of customary IHL and other treaties and conventions.

All civilian peoples have rights to life under international law.

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants.

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants

Israel has chosen not to consider Even student Police immune from attack
Gaza Police forces Graduation Day
(50 of them were killed in the first air israeli bombing) Graphic photos
Police Station on Graduation Day Attacked Dec 27 2008

 

[louie888]

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants

Israel has chosen not to consider Even student Police immune from attack
Gaza Police forces Graduation Day
(50 of them were killed in the first air israeli bombing) Graphic photos
Police Station on Graduation Day Attacked Dec 27 2008

LMAO

She is owned again after moving the goalosts 6 million miles.

 

[Hollie]

P F Tinmore

Let's go back to the original post then. You claimed:

Wait, what?!

So Israeli police officers are legitimate military targets, while Gazan police officers are "civilians"? You can't have it both ways.

Either Israel attacked legitimate military targets or Arab Palestinians are attacking civilians. Which is it?

The nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

GCIV was not intended to, and does not, take nationals of an occupying power under its umbrella when it considers who is not and who is a "protected person" under that convention. If you had written that nationals of an occupying power are not covered under GCIV, then I might have agreed with you.

That is not what you wrote though. You wrote, "nationals of an occupying power are not considered "civilians" and you supplied GCIV as proof that Israelis can not be considered "civilians".

This is in error. While Israelis may not be considered "protected persons" with respect to the GCIV, this does not mean that Israelis (nationals of the so-called occupying power) are never considered "civilians" and therefore have no protection under international law and can be killed with impunity. That concept is unconscionable in the face of customary IHL and other treaties and conventions.

All civilian peoples have rights to life under international law.

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants.

The question remains on the table as to whether or not police forces are considered civilian. I believe they are not. If you have evidence that they are, please provide. But note, that would mean that Israeli police forces are also immune from attacks. You can't have it both ways. Police forces are either considered civilian and therefore under the protection of international law, or they are considered branches of the military, in which case they are not protected as civilians, but only as combatants

Israel has chosen not to consider Even student Police immune from attack
Gaza Police forces Graduation Day
(50 of them were killed in the first air israeli bombing) Graphic photos
Police Station on Graduation Day Attacked Dec 27 2008

You cut and asked someone else's opinion. How novel an idea.

 

[fanger]

As per the rules, you should read them, sometime USMB Rules and Guidelines

 

[Shusha]

Israel has chosen not to consider Even student Police immune from attack
Gaza Police forces Graduation Day
(50 of them were killed in the first air israeli bombing) Graphic photos
Police Station on Graduation Day Attacked Dec 27 2008

Sure. Its the same argument that you routinely make about the stabbing attacks -- they are attacking police officers who are legitimate military targets.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[jillian]

View attachment 125771

Palestinian women look at the damage at the Dawabsha family's home in the West Bank village of Duma on August 4, 2015, after it was set on fire by suspected Jewish extremists on July 31, 2015, killing 18-month-old Ali Saad Dawabsha (AFP Photo/MENAHEM KAHANA)

View attachment 125772

Family of Palestinian toddler burned alive sue Israel

And on another thread here the Isreali shills claim that the perpetrators of such horrific violence should be treated as civilians and not as military targets.

This is a perfect opportunity for all of us to come together, realize the horror, denounce this, demand an end to the violent occupation and finally bring a lasting peace.

Let zionism finally join nazism in the annals (anals) of history.

they probably shouldn't use their children as human shields while they fire missiles into Israel, terrorist supporting scum.

 

[louie888]

Israel has chosen not to consider Even student Police immune from attack
Gaza Police forces Graduation Day
(50 of them were killed in the first air israeli bombing) Graphic photos
Police Station on Graduation Day Attacked Dec 27 2008

Sure. Its the same argument that you routinely make about the stabbing attacks -- they are attacking police officers who are legitimate military targets.

You can't have it both ways.

And after moving those posts, you now just ran off the field.