No Longer David:*The State of Israel As Goliath

[irosie91]

easy-----RULES OF ENGAGEMENT -----any site from which the enemy SHOOTS---
is a legal target of war. In fact any conveyance which conveys weapons is
a LEGAL TARGET OF WAR. Any site used as weapon dump is a legal
target of war the islamo nazi pig habit of storing babies
in their missile launchers does not protect the pigs or their weapons
from being LEGAL TARGETS OF WAR---------the loss of the babies is
MURDER BY THE ISLAMO NAZI PIGS The fact that the jihado pigs
in the service of isa/allah ----do not wear uniforms does not render them
civilians------they are jihado pigs SLUT WAFA IDRIS did not wear a uniform
when she tied a bomb to her stinking ass -------unfortunately SLUT WAFA did
manage to kill------in the service of the pig "god" isa/allah-----but the good
news is that she also blew her own stinking whore ass to hell

If the disgusting whore had been DISCOVERED as the bonb on ass whore
that she was ------before she detonated-------a life could have been saved
if she had been shot in her whore head. Such a shot would have been legal--
but sherri would have cried FOUL

 

[Kondor3]

What is all of that supposed to change?...

It is supposed to change your credibility on the subject of Hospital Immunity to that of 'pwned'. Which it did most handsomely.

Israels attacks upon hospitals remain unlawful targeting of civilians and civilian objects. There were no military operations carried out by Palestinians from the hospitals attacked. The hospitals were civilian hospitals unlawfully targeted and attacked.

We do not know that such strikes were (1) intentional nor (2) unlawful.

And, after your earlier PCHR fiasco and an even more spectacular Epic Fail with the critical Hospital Immunity issue, we sure-as-hell aren't going to take YOUR word for that.

 

[Kondor3]

Your turn, where is your evidence hospitals were proper military targets?

The same place where you're keeping your evidence that they were not legitimate military targets, quite likely.

On the eastern side of Can't-Prove-a-Negative-Never-Never-Land.

Seriously, though...

I have no clue whether they were legitimate military targets.

Making such a determination is best left to the parties involved - ALL the parties - with all being given equal weight.

All I need-do HERE is to introduce Legal Grounds for overriding Hospital Immunity.

Which I have now successfully accomplished, despite your earlier arrogant and foolhardy assertion that no such loss-of-immunity existed at-law.

Those legal grounds serve, de facto, to introduce the concept of 'Doubt' into the equation.

We may now proceed to interject the rationale for the Benefit-of-a-Doubt, and Reasonable Doubt.

Which will be all that is required to deflect such charges, in settings where that is given any credence whatsoever as a possibility, and where it is judged objectively in the plurality rather than singularly and arbitrarily.

Life's a bitch, when a locked-in-sure-fire Kangaroo Court turns out to be a REAL Court after all, ain't it?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

Well, I have to agree with Sherri (barring any unusual circumstances).

Your turn, where is your evidence hospitals were proper military targets?

(COMMENT)

I think this makes her case. "In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the conflict."

"No persons residing, in whatever capacity, in a hospital and safety zone shall perform any work, either within or without the zone, directly connected with military operations or the production of war material."

Article 18

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.​

SOURCE: Fourth Geneva Convention

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

"...Well, I have to agree with Sherri (barring any unusual circumstances)..."

Did the Israelis claim responsibility at all?

If so, did they stipulate accident or collateral damage or intentional targeting?

If intentional targeting, did the Israelis maintain that the hospital(s) lost immunity, as described herein...

"..."

...due to activities occurring on the premises which were injurious to one of the parties?

I truly don't know.

If the answer to that question is 'No - it was admitted as intentional and they did not so stipulate - then, Sherri may very well have a point on a case-by-case basis.

I would have no problem conceding that, if that was truly the case.

If the answer to that question is 'Yes' - the IDF admitted that it was intentional but they stipulated that the hospital had lost immunity in accordance with Article 13 criteria - then, the issue goes to trial, so-to-speak, to determine whether activities were taking place on the premises which met the criteria for a loss of immunity as stipulated in Article 13 (as cited here just a little while ago), or, at a bare-bones minimum, whether the Israelis had Probable Cause - as judged by a Reasonable Person - to suspect that such immunity-destroying activities were, indeed, taking place on-campus or so close nearby so as to inflict collateral damage during the course of a legitimate strike off-campus.

If you have not yet had the chance to peruse that Article 13 (it only takes a moment), I suggest you take it out for a quick test-drive.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

What is all of that supposed to change?...

It is supposed to change your credibility on the subject of Hospital Immunity to that of 'pwned'. Which it did most handsomely.

Israels attacks upon hospitals remain unlawful targeting of civilians and civilian objects. There were no military operations carried out by Palestinians from the hospitals attacked. The hospitals were civilian hospitals unlawfully targeted and attacked.

We do not know that such strikes were (1) intentional nor (2) unlawful.

And, after your earlier PCHR fiasco and an even more spectacular Epic Fail with the critical Hospital Immunity issue, we sure-as-hell aren't going to take YOUR word for that.

You need to learn to read English and read the
provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You need to learn to read English and read the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful."

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world... operative LONG before Operation Cast Lead.

Do you require additional time to refresh your memory concerning the utility of Amendments or the concept of Supersession in a statutory or treaty context?

Or, perhaps, additional time, to refresh your memory on the purpose and mechanics of the Discovery process?

 

[irosie91]

"...You need to learn to read English and read the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful."

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world.

Kondor----be grateful -----sherri insists that it would be legal for Israel to
launch a missile with a nuclear war head DIRECTLY ONTO
gaza-------assuming that the launcher is mounted on the roof of a
hospital ----------if-----the missile is not precisely AIMED. I like her
approach. I wish Israel would take note of how isa-repecters think
and that which they define as LEGAL ----so they can comply with the
ISA RESPECTING APPROACH

another important issue is UNIFORMS If an IDF person is not wearing
a uniform-------it is legal for him to shoot the brains out as many
people as he can reach------and ILLEGAL for anyone to shoot back

as per the ISA-RESPECTING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

 

[Hollie]

"...You need to learn to read English and read the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful."

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world.

Kondor----be grateful -----sherri insists that it would be legal for Israel to
launch a missile with a nuclear war head DIRECTLY ONTO
gaza-------assuming that the launcher is mounted on the roof of a
hospital ----------if-----the missile is not precisely AIMED. I like her
approach. I wish Israel would take note of how isa-repecters think
and that which they define as LEGAL ----so they can comply with the
ISA RESPECTING APPROACH

another important issue is UNIFORMS If an IDF person is not wearing
a uniform-------it is legal for him to shoot the brains out as many
people as he can reach------and ILLEGAL for anyone to shoot back

as per the ISA-RESPECTING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

That's a great point.

The cowardly Islamic terrorists of Hezbollah, like the cowardly Hamas Islamic terrorist groups, shelter themselves among the civilian population. It’s a tactic we see frequently among all cowardly Islamic terrorist groups.

It was curious to see that Hezbollah suddenly found military style uniforms after the end of the 2006 war it initiated against Israel. It’s a shame that they cared so little for the civilian population that they couldn’t manage to fight Israel wearing uniforms to identify themselves as an enemy combatant. That would have been in accordance with Geneva Convention standards but as we know, cowardly Islamic terrorist groups don’t feel a need to either operate per Geneva Convention standards or to put civilians out of harms way.

 

[irosie91]

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU,
another important issue is UNIFORMS If an IDF person is not wearing
a uniform-------it is legal for him to shoot the brains out as many
people as he can reach------and ILLEGAL for anyone to shoot back

as per the ISA-RESPECTING RULES OF ENGAGEMENT

That's a great point.

The cowardly Islamic terrorists of Hezbollah, like the cowardly Hamas Islamic terrorist groups, shelter themselves among the civilian population. It’s a tactic we see frequently among all cowardly Islamic terrorist groups.


whether they HAVE uniforms or not-----they will not wear them WHEN THE TIME
COMES-----they will continue to be "civilians" for isa-respecting purposes
It was curious to see that Hezbollah suddenly found military style uniforms after the end of the 2006 war it initiated against Israel. It’s a shame that they cared so little for the civilian population that they couldn’t manage to fight Israel wearing uniforms to identify themselves as an enemy combatant. That would have been in accordance with Geneva Convention standards but as we know, cowardly Islamic terrorist groups don’t feel a need to either operate per Geneva Convention standards or to put civilians out of harms way.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"...You need to learn to read English and read the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful."

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world... operative LONG before Operation Cast Lead.

Do you require additional time to refresh your memory concerning the utility of Amendments or the concept of Supersession in a statutory or treaty context?

Or, perhaps, additional time, to refresh your memory on the purpose and mechanics of the Discovery process?

Obviously, you are an idiot.

 

[Kondor3]

"...You need to learn to read English and read the provisions of The Fourth Geneva Convention that clearly make attacks on hospitals unlawful."

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world... operative LONG before Operation Cast Lead.

Do you require additional time to refresh your memory concerning the utility of Amendments or the concept of Supersession in a statutory or treaty context?

Or, perhaps, additional time, to refresh your memory on the purpose and mechanics of the Discovery process?

Obviously, you are an idiot.

Oh, like anyone else, I can be, but not today...

You've cornered the market on that one for the day...

My condolences...

And, more to the point, you've done nothing to either...

1. refute the superseding impact of Article 13 of the June 10, 1977 additional protocols, amending the Fourth Convention protocols of 1949

...or...

2. demonstrated Israeli culpability for hospital strikes at-law, in light of the qualifying and ameliorating effects of Article 13

Not that you truly ever stood a snowball's chance in Hell of pulling-off either of those, once you had opened that door and stepped through it with your grotesquely erroneous and foolhardy pontifications...

It's pretty obvious that you've got nothing left up your sleeve in the matter-at-hand except name-calling...

The last gasp of a Decidely Deficient Dogmatic...

Gotcha...

How does it feel to be bested - soundly and repeatedly within a span of mere hours - by an 'idiot'?

Now... slink away in ignoble defeat... as you so richly deserve, today...

Not one of your better days here, was it?

Better luck next time.

I could almost feel sorry for you on this one, and would otherwise feel guilty-as-Hell for being so mean, but...

Given your sterling record as a congenial soul and an ethical and objective colleague, well... I'll get over it.

The best thing to do with an obsessive-compulsive propaganda fountain is to shut it down and clean its clock once in a while...

No charge... all part of the friendly service... thus endeth the lesson...

 

[MHunterB]

et al,

Well, I have to agree with Sherri (barring any unusual circumstances).

Your turn, where is your evidence hospitals were proper military targets?

(COMMENT)

I think this makes her case. "In no circumstances may hospital and safety zones be the object of attack. They shall be protected and respected at all times by the Parties to the conflict."

"No persons residing, in whatever capacity, in a hospital and safety zone shall perform any work, either within or without the zone, directly connected with military operations or the production of war material."

Article 18

Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.​

SOURCE: Fourth Geneva Convention

Most Respectfully,
R

Of course if they violate the stuff in bold, all bets - and protections - are off.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Human Rights Watch calls Israels attacks on hospital with white phosphorous war crimes.

I shall believe them and choose to not believe you about Israels war crimes in Cast Lead.

"During Israel's 22-day military operations in Gaza, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, named Operation Cast Lead, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital. Senior Military Analyst Marc Garlasco discusses Human Rights Watch's on the ground investigation and findings."

Rain of Fire: White Phosphorus in Gaza | Human Rights Watch


RELATED MATERIALS

REPORT:*Rain of FireNEWS RELEASE:*Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Not to worry. My ability to read and comprehend English is at least as good as your own.

YOU, on the other hand, need to read the Additional Protocols to the the Fourth Convention of 1949, enacted by the UN General Assembly on June 10, 1977, which clarifies and stipulates and supersedes anything found to the contrary in the original 1949 text.

You know... Amendments...

...passed by the General Assembly itself, and duly ratified by the nations of the world... operative LONG before Operation Cast Lead.

Do you require additional time to refresh your memory concerning the utility of Amendments or the concept of Supersession in a statutory or treaty context?

Or, perhaps, additional time, to refresh your memory on the purpose and mechanics of the Discovery process?

Obviously, you are an idiot.

Oh, like anyone else, I can be, but not today...

You've cornered the market on that one for the day...

And you've done nothing to either...

1. refute the superseding impact of Article 13 of the June 10, 1977 additional protocols, amending the Fourth Convention protocols of 1949

...or...

2. demonstrated Israeli culpability for hospital strikes at-law, in connection with the provisions of Article 13

Not that you truly ever stood a snowball's chance in Hell of pulling-off either of those, once you had opened that door and stepped through it with your grotesquely erroneous and foolhardy pontifications...

It's pretty obvious that you've got nothing left up your sleeve except name-calling...

The last resort of a Decidely Deficient Dogmatic...

Gotcha...

How does it feel to be bested - soundly and repeatedly within a span of mere hours - by an 'idiot'?

Now... slink away in ignoble defeat... as you so richly deserve, today...

Not one of your better days here, was it?

Better luck next time.

The best thing to do with an obsessive-compulsive propaganda fountain is to shut it down and clean its clock once in a while...

No charge... all part of the friendly service... thus endeth the lesson...

Not bested by an ignorant Zionist like you.

Human Rights Watch investigated Israels attacks on a hospital in Cast Lead with chemical weapons and identifies the attack as a war crime!

Go crawl back into your Zionist hate hole.

 

[Hollie]

Human Rights Watch calls Israels attacks on hospital with white phosphorous war crimes.

I shall believe them and choose to not believe you about Israels war crimes in Cast Lead.

"During Israel's 22-day military operations in Gaza, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, named Operation Cast Lead, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) repeatedly exploded white phosphorus munitions in the air over populated areas, killing and injuring civilians, and damaging civilian structures, including a school, a market, a humanitarian aid warehouse and a hospital. Senior Military Analyst Marc Garlasco discusses Human Rights Watch's on the ground investigation and findings."

Rain of Fire: White Phosphorus in Gaza | Human Rights Watch


RELATED MATERIALS

REPORT:*Rain of FireNEWS RELEASE:*Israel: White Phosphorus Use Evidence of War Crimes

You can spare us your phony and contrived melodrama

Israel says white phosphorus use in Gaza "exceeded authority"

Israel says white phosphorus use in Gaza "exceeded authority" - CSMonitor.com

Israel said this weekend that two senior military officers were reprimanded for their role in the war in Gaza last year, in particular for their involvement in the highly controversial use of white phosphorus.

I'm sure you will continue to ignore the habit of your Islamic co-religionists to wage war from civilian areas.

 

[Beachboy]

Let's see if we can get a photographic visual on the future Islam promises.

Trick photography, or something to think about?

​

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Why would any person accept the opinion of a Christian news source over the findings of investigations by human rights groups like Human Rights Watch?

Attacks on a civilian hospital with a chemical weapon, white phosphorous, are war crimes.

I will pull up the discussion of the attacks on hospitals from the full reports by the human rights groups when I get to a computer, posting now from my phone and I cannot even pull up Amnesty's Report from my phone.

Here is the HRW video addressing war crimes committed when Israel attacked a hospital in Gaza with white phosphorous weapons in Cast Lead.

 

[Kondor3]

Human Rights Watch calls Israels attacks on hospital with white phosphorous war crimes.

They can call it a 'Tuna on rye with chips', but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Not bested by an ignorant Zionist like you..."

Awwwww... you didn't like my Summation... I'm crushed!