No Longer David:*The State of Israel As Goliath

[SherriMunnerlyn]

 

[irosie91]

"...Israeli soldiers told to cleanse Gaza..."

Hardly.

They were told to clear-out houses and buildings and city-blocks and sections of neighborhoods, to eliminate enemy positions and cover for the enemy.

If they had 'cleansed Gaza' every one of the Gazans would be dead or living in Egypt or Jordan.

They were told to cleanse the neighborhood , to shoot into cars and buildings and houses .

All documented by an Israeli filmmaker in her film.

Can you define your terms, sherri?? what does "cleanse" the city mean in the
context that it was used by military commanders of the IDF.
For a time in my life-----I lived in a very very rough neighborhood-----it was a
small Neighborhood but notable for a murder rate of approximately 100
per year. There were "DRUG" houses everywhere. Some of the dead I saw
(not actually considered "murdered') were people who caught bullets in their
heads during DRUG RAIDS------when the cops went in buildings to CLEAN OUT
THE DRUG TRADE-------the cops were trying to CLEANSE that part of the city.

The good news is that in recent years the murder rate over there is way down,

I lived there for only one year----but worked in the hospital there for several years.
During the time I lived there-----I kept my son in the apartment and blocked the
windows ------I would not so much as take him for a walk around the block or to
the local small grocery (which was------one day-----a few months after I left---
ALSO RAIDED. over there ya' never knew-----there was a man in a wheel
chair-------sitting every day-----on the corner. --just sitting----every once in
'awhile I gave him a dollar.---------one day I learned he was arrested for selling
drugs Ya' never know..........ya' take yer chances)

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Every house gets a shell, words right out of the mouth of the IDF soldier who received this command, speaking of the orders to cleanse in this video.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I teach my children to love one another, the doctor who suffered the murder of 3 daughters and a niece at the hand of Israelis.

And we hear a surviving daughter tell us this in this video.

In another video I posted, the doctor tells us right after his daughters were killed his 12 year old son told him not to be sad, their mother wanted them with her. Their mother died four months earlier from a terminal disease.

 

[Kondor3]

Good and loving people get hurt in wartime, when their so-called 'protectors' or 'masters' park military assets and bases and personnel and leadership in amongst them, as human shields...

 

[irosie91]

heresay your propaganda film is silly, sherri------in fact the soldiers clearly
stated that AN AREA OF THE CITY was THE TARGET-----------what is your point----
It is clear that THAT AREA was a military target----------the fact that your people
create arenas of war in the midst of civilian populations --------is a matter of the
DEPRAVITY OF YOUR PEOPLE.----------your "god" ADOLF ABU ALI-----did the same
thing in 1945-----he placed himself in his BERLIN BUNKER-----rendering Berlin
a MILITARY TARGET----------which included thousands of displaced civilians in the
streets of that bombed out city---------some thing never change-------nazi filth remains
nazi filth. of course you "god" adolf abu ali-----was confident that the allies
would not bomb--------he even had six small children with him-------until Magda shoved
cyanide down their throats in the name of isa/allah------after she had written a
letter lauding your 'god" adolf abu ali

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Good and loving people get hurt in wartime, when their so-called 'protectors' or 'masters' park military assets and bases and personnel and leadership in amongst them, as human shields...

Amnesty debunked that Zionist human shield lie.

 

[Kondor3]

Good and loving people get hurt in wartime, when their so-called 'protectors' or 'masters' park military assets and bases and personnel and leadership in amongst them, as human shields...

Amnesty debunked that Zionist human shield lie.

Then Amnesty International itself lies, or is simply mistaken, or you are misinterpreting their findings.

Tons of photographic evidence exists of Palestinian rocket launches from amongst crowded Palestinian population centers.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Good and loving people get hurt in wartime, when their so-called 'protectors' or 'masters' park military assets and bases and personnel and leadership in amongst them, as human shields...

Amnesty debunked that Zionist human shield lie.

Then Amnesty International itself lies, or is simply mistaken, or you are misinterpreting their findings.

Tons of photographic evidence exists of Palestinian rocket launches from amongst crowded Palestinian population centers.

More Truth in shit in a toilet then your Zionist propaganda.

Amnesty investigated the claim Hamas used civilians as human shields and found no evidence to support it in Cast Lead.

They found Israel used civilians as human shields, to include children, in Cast Lead in multiple incidents.

Deal with the facts, noone is interested in Zionist lying propaganda.

Another point, your definition of human shield is faulty too.

 

[Kondor3]

"...More Truth in shit in a toilet then your Zionist propaganda..."

No.

The truth lies in objective photographic evidence.

"...Amnesty investigated the claim Hamas used civilians as human shields and found no evidence to support it in Cast Lead..."

No.

What Amnesty International found was 'no evidence' to support the contention that Hamas forced Palestinians to remain in their homes nearby to which Hamas has positioned war-assets.

They did NOT issue a finding that Hamas did not place such assets next-to and in amongst those homes and neighborhoods.

The very act of such positioning is ipso facto a use of Human Shields designed to minimize the chances of an enemy attack, even if the civilians were not forced to stay there; a case de facto, if not entirely de jure.

Your failure to make that distinction clear tells us all we need to know concerning your reliability as a Presenter in this context.

"...Deal with the facts..."

Just did.

"...noone is interested in Zionist lying propaganda."

Nor that of lying and disingenuous and obtuse Palestinian propaganda, I'll wager.

"...Another point, your definition of human shield is faulty too..."

The Oxford Dictionary defines a human shield as:

"...a person or group of people held near a potential target to deter attack."

human shield: definition of human shield in Oxford dictionary - American English (US)

...and the International Red Cross and Geneva Convention protocols support that definition.

Amnesty's finding of no evidence that Hamas HELD its civilians in-place is inconclusive and does not mean (1) that they were not held or (2) that they could find any previously-held Palestinian with the courage to rat-out his Hamas captors or (3) that they had noplace else to go, even if they wanted to; wrongly feeling safer inside than out in the streets where the shooting was going on.

And it completely ignores the willful positioning of war-assets amongst civilian populations by Hamas, rendering a Human Shields Incident de facto, if not entirely de jour.

As I suspected... one-sided, lop-sized spin-doctoring... misinterpretation and ignoring of the case de facto in favor of the vaguely more favorable case de jour.

Pfffffttttt... amateurish kid-stuff Guardhouse Lawyer tactics...

Easily penetrated, discredited and set aside...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Definition of human shields

"The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations."

"Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks."

Several examples are set forth by The International Red Cross.

1. Military manuals of New Zealand and the UK give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.

2. Another example is condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.

3. Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition relate to the rounding up of civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.

Customary IHL - Rule 97. Human Shields

A dictionary is not the place to look for a definition of an act made unlawful by The Fourth Geneva Convention.

And if you desire to know the view of the IRC you specifically search for what they say about the term.

All illustrations involve acts of forcefully using civilians against their will and placing their lives in danger to shield a military target from attack.

What Israeli soldiers did was enter homes of civilians in Gaza and hold the occupants hostage for prolonged periods of time and use their presence to shield the soldiers from attack. Often, they made the civilians walk in front of them as they searched potential places of danger.

Simply firing weapons from near a house is not the illegal use of a human shield.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, yes, yes... very nice...

This is all known and conceded in previous posts...

You tell us nothing new here...

Again, you ignore the case de facto in favor of the case de jure.

De facto is far more important to those Palestinian families near whom Hamas has placed its war assets.

Screw the case de jure.

It's the case de facto that kills the innocent amongst them.

And it is the Palestinian sublimination of the case de facto that perpetuates the carnage caused by such Palestinian actions.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Yes, yes, yes... very nice...

This is all known and conceded in previous posts...

You tell us nothing new here...

Again, you ignore the case de facto in favor of the case de jure.

De facto is far more important to those Palestinian families near whom Hamas has placed its war assets.

Screw the case de jure.

It's the case de facto that kills the innocent amongst them.

And it is the Palestinian sublimination of the case de facto that perpetuates the carnage caused by such Palestinian actions.

The law is what matters, not babbling of Zionists.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"It can be concluded that the use of human shields requires an intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons*hors de combat*with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives."

Customary IHL - Rule 97. Human Shields

 

[P F Tinmore]

Definition of human shields

"The prohibition of using human shields in the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I and the Statute of the International Criminal Court are couched in terms of using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations."

"Most examples given in military manuals, or which have been the object of condemnations, have been cases where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attacks."

Several examples are set forth by The International Red Cross.

1. Military manuals of New Zealand and the UK give as examples the placing of persons in or next to ammunition trains.

2. Another example is condemnations of the threat by Iraq to round up and place prisoners of war and civilians in strategic sites and around military defence points.

3. Other condemnations on the basis of this prohibition relate to the rounding up of civilians and putting them in front of military units in the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Liberia.

Customary IHL - Rule 97. Human Shields

A dictionary is not the place to look for a definition of an act made unlawful by The Fourth Geneva Convention.

And if you desire to know the view of the IRC you specifically search for what they say about the term.

All illustrations involve acts of forcefully using civilians against their will and placing their lives in danger to shield a military target from attack.

What Israeli soldiers did was enter homes of civilians in Gaza and hold the occupants hostage for prolonged periods of time and use their presence to shield the soldiers from attack. Often, they made the civilians walk in front of them as they searched potential places of danger.

Simply firing weapons from near a house is not the illegal use of a human shield.

All illustrations involve acts of forcefully using civilians against their will and placing their lives in danger to shield a military target from attack.

There is no such thing as human shields for Israel. The presence of civilians does not shield from attack.

Israel will bomb an apartment building, killing civilians from multiple families, just to get one "terrorist."

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, yes, yes... very nice... This is all known and conceded in previous posts... You tell us nothing new here... Again, you ignore the case de facto in favor of the case de jure. De facto is far more important to those Palestinian families near whom Hamas has placed its war assets. Screw the case de jure. It's the case de facto that kills the innocent amongst them. And it is the Palestinian sublimination of the case de facto that perpetuates the carnage caused by such Palestinian actions.

The law is what matters, not babbling of Zionists.

And here I thought that dead Palestinian families were what mattered.

I just pointed-out for you that the Palestinians sublimation of the case de facto and obsessive clinging to the case de nure is directly responsible for the IDF targeting such areas and thereby causing the lion's share of Palestinian civilian casualties during the course of such fire-suppression sorties...

Translation...

I just pointed-out for you that the Palestinian's insistence upon positioning war-assets and bases and personnel and leadership cadre amongst Palestinian civilian populations was a de facto use of Human Shields - using the proximity of civilians to discourage enemy strikes against those assets...

No wonder the Palestinians suffered so many civilian casualties...

It's what any sensible tactician would expect, in suppressing enemy operations cynically pre-positioned only meters or scores of meters from heavy concentrations of civilians...

Don't want civilian casualties in high numbers?

Don't embed your war-assets amongst your civilian populations.

But that does not agree with either the Palestinians nor your doctrine of freedom of movement and concealment for your war assets...

Consequently, you ignore what IS, by hiding behind the technical and picayune LETTER of the Law... emphasizing the case de jure (the narrow letter of the law) rather than the case de facto (the actual impact that it has upon those families)...

Typical disregard for Human Life - even your OWN (side's) lives - so long as you get to continue lobbing rockets unimpeded by the letter of the law...

But what-the-hell... they go straight to heaven for dying a martyr's death for The Cause, when the proximity of such war-assets is the proximal cause for the deaths... even the little kids... right, Sherri?

Such a hypocritical and shameless hiding behind the LETTER of the law... the case de jure rather than what-is (the case de facto) is hideously revolting - risking families through such Hamas placements.

Caring more about placement of Hamas rocket-launchers and bases and personnel and leadership cadre than you (and they) do those innocent women and children and families...

Truly a heartless, bloodthirsty, irresponsible, contemptible and spit-worthy position...

 

[Kondor3]

"...There is no such thing as human shields for Israel. The presence of civilians does not shield from attack. Israel will bomb an apartment building, killing civilians from multiple families, just to get one 'terrorist.'"

In the context of Hamas et al doing all that can be done, to protect the lives of their own innocent civilian population...

The technical definition of Human Shields (the held-against-their-will component) doesn't matter a damn, Tinny.

What does matter is the cynical, cold and calculating Hamas penchant for positioning war-assets embedded within and amongst its civilian populations, in an attempt to discourage IDF strikes against such war-assets.

The reason WHY such Hamas actions matter is because the Israelis inflict civilian casualties while trying to get AT those war-assets.

The solution is simple.

Don't want the civilian casualties in such high numbers?

Move your war-assets.

Until then, the higher-than-necessary civilian casualty rates are on your heads, not those of the IDF.

Move your war-assets.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...There is no such thing as human shields for Israel. The presence of civilians does not shield from attack. Israel will bomb an apartment building, killing civilians from multiple families, just to get one 'terrorist.'"

In the context of Hamas et al doing all that can be done, to protect the lives of their own innocent civilian population, the technical definition of Human Shields doesn't matter a damn, Tinny.

What does matter is the cynical, cold and calculating Hamas penchant for positioning war-assets embedded within and amongst its civilian populations, in an attempt to discourage IDF strikes against such war-assets.

The reason WHY such Hamas actions matter is because the Israelis inflict civilian casualties while trying to get AT those war-assets.

The solution is simple.

Don't want the civilian casualties in such high numbers?

Move your war-assets.

Until then, the higher-than-necessary civilian casualty rates are on your heads, not those of the IDF.

Move your war-assets.

Israel's definition of human shields is a "terrorist" living at home with the wife and kids.

 

[irosie91]

Kondor----you still don't 'get it' You do not understand the LAW of isa-respecters. Its
roots are in the JUSTINIAN CODE -----which is a formalization of the laws created
by Constantine----Justin's grandfather and the first Emperor of the FIRST REICH ----
(aka holy roman empire). To be brief------the laws of isa-respect----absolutely
make UTTERLY illegal the use of armaments by non-isa respecters and make not
restriction on both the ownership of armaments by isa-respecters ---AND the use
thereof on non-isa respecters These details of the JUSTINIIAN CODE---formed
the basis of the laws that rendered the INQUISITION LEGAL and they were
ABSORBED into the SHARIAH CODE and----form part of the basis of the
Nuremburg laws. Sherri has the highest regard for these ancient and sanctified
laws. ------according to which----the only guilty party ----is ----ISRAEL (non-isa respecters)

Israel can have no complaint as to how isa-respecters arm themselves or how they
use their armaments. But even MORE important---Israel has no right to armaments at
all.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Israel's definition of human shields is a 'terrorist' living at home with the wife and kids."

Any opportunity to kill a dangerous scumbag is an opportunity to kill a dangerous scumbag.

Such folk are foolish to put their own people at-risk by living with them in time of war.

But that's only a small part of the usual collection of reasons for such operations - striking against rocket-launchers and militia bases and headquarters and cross-border tunnels and weapons caches, etc.

And that does NOTHING to address that FAR larger problem of Hamas intentionally positioning its war-assets amongst its own civilian populations so as to discourage IDF counterstrikes.

The logic of cause-and-effect is irrefutable.

Move your war assets.