Praying at the temple mount

[Phoenall]

And yet the farthest mosque of the time was on the road between Mecca and Medina. So he could have walked it in one night from the sacred mosque.

The history of the al aqsa mosque is well known and was written down by muslim scholars as follows


The earliest mosque that was certainly built here was constructed by the Umayyads around 710 AD, only a few decades after the Dome of the Rock. Under Abbasid rule, it reached its greatest extent by the end of the 8th century with 15 aisles.

Unfortunately nothing of the ancient mosque survives today: it was destroyed by earthquakes twice in its first 60 years of existence and has been rebuilt at least five times. The last major rebuild was in 1035 by Caliph az-Zahir.




Al-Aqsa Mosque - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The mosque was originally a small prayer house built by the Rashidun caliph Umar, but was rebuilt and expanded by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik and finished by his son al-Walid in 705 CE. After an earthquake in 746, the mosque was completely destroyed and rebuilt by the Abbasid caliph al-Mansur in 754, and again rebuilt by his successor al-Mahdi in 780. Another earthquake destroyed most of al-Aqsa in 1033, but two years later the Fatimid caliph Ali az-Zahir built another mosque which has stood to the present day.



And even the muslims say that the al aqsa mosque was not holy in islam


Religious significance in Islam[edit]
In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the entire Noble Sanctuary. The mosque is believed to be the second house of prayer constructed after the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Post-Rashidun-era Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Quranic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey"). This specific verse in the Quran cemented the significant religious importance of al-Aqsa in Islam.[60] The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims traditionally identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque, even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.[citation needed] Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.[61][clarification needed]

Face it numbnuts.

99.99% of muslims believe the Farthest Mosque is in Jerusalem and was visited by Muhammad during his Night Journey as told in the Quran.

And that fact isn't going to change no matter how many times you dispute it with your inane posts. .......

Not according to Islamic scholars

even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.

They were better positioned in time and geography to say what was what than you are who believes any islamonazi propaganda that is spread.

From Wikipedia, on the highlighted who:

Unsupported attributions
Shortcuts:

• WP:WEASEL
• WP:AWW

... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it is often said ...


Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[4]

The examples given above are not automatically weasel words, as they may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, where the article body or the rest of the paragraph supplies attribution. Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the Neutral point of view. Equally, editorial irony and damning with faint praise have no place in Wikipedia articles.

Articles including weasel words should ideally be rewritten such that they are supported by reliable sources, or they may be tagged with the {{weasel}} or {{by whom}} or similar templates so as to identify the problem to future readers (who may elect to fix the issue).

And if you look at the Islamic writtings you find that the mosque in mecca was built in 2130 BCE with the al aqsa 40 years later in 2090 BCE. This is before the building of the first Temple over 2100 years before the invention of islam even . So you can take it from there if you want to believe an Islamic source for anything

Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)


from the second most holy book in islam the hadiths

 

[Phoenall]

If the Mosque was first built in 705, you are talking about 1300 years of religious belief. I think that's more than enough time to authenticate it as a holy site for Islam, along with the other religions. Geez what a stupid argument this is.

ACCORDING TO THE HADITHS IT WAS BUILT 2100 YEARS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF ISLAM


Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)



The mosque in mecca was built by a Jewish patriarch in 2130 BCE according to the muslims.-

So you can see how disjointed and out of synch the whole of islam is.

 

[Coyote]

ACCORDING TO THE HADITHS IT WAS BUILT 2100 YEARS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF ISLAM


Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)



The mosque in mecca was built by a Jewish patriarch in 2130 BCE according to the muslims.-

So you can see how disjointed and out of synch the whole of islam is.

I think that can be said of any religion who's roots lie in ancient history - lots of contradictions and translations. We certainly see that in the bible. Ultimately it doesn't really matter - it's what people believe and they've believed in it as an important holy site for 1300 years. It is what it is - a very important holy site to 3 world religions.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

I think you have made a mistake.

I don't believe that anyone who followed the 1907 Hague Convention (Articles 29-31) was found guilty of a War Crime during the Nuremberg Trails. There were German Military Officers that were guilty of aiding and abetting War Crimes, or the furtherance of War Crimes; or what would be considered today as the Customary IHL pertaining to land warfare (and separately warfare at sea).

Article 30 is extended thus:The Convention contains several provisions in this respect which extend the principle and make it precise. Thus Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".Article 3 although it applies only to armed conflicts not of an international character, contains rules of absolutely general application. The prohibition mentioned is, moreover, confirmed by Article 5 and Articles 64-76.It should also be noted that paragraph 2 of Article 68 authorizes the Occupying Power under certain conditions to inflict the death penalty on protected persons found guilty of espionage.
​

Rocco would have been a great SS officer during the Nazi occupation but afterwards, he would have had trouble.. German military that punished and exacted justice on the local population that attacked them were hung or served lifetime sentences. One of the last to be caught was Erich Priebke, who as a German officer exacted justice and punished Italian partisans that attacked German soldiers, was pursued by the Italian authorities for 50 years and was extradited to Italy after 50 years where he was found guilty of murder and crimes against humanity. He claimed he was simply following the law and orders.

No matter how you try to justify the actions of an occupation force, you will be proven wrong Rocco.

(COMMENT)

You will note that I did not advocate "simply following orders;" or stepping outside existing law. You will kindly note that I advocated following the law and the Geneva Code as outlined in Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

BTW, There is no country in the world more sensitive to the backlash of the "War Crimes" than the Jewish Community. It was not that long ago (maybe 7 years) that Lithuania's Chief Prosecutor opened a pretrial investigation of Jewish Partisans of 1944 (anti-NAZI) wartime actions in Kaniukai. Yitzhak Arad, former chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, was quoted as saying: "The murderers are now becoming national heroes, and we, the few surviving victims who took up arms and fought the murderers, are under investigation as criminals."
​

No one has every been punished for following the Fourth Geneva Convention as I have advocate; even in regards to the "right to punish or exact justice." It is important to remember that the Occupation is "provisional" in nature. It will only last until the Palestinians successfully negotiate a peace. The Occupying Power understands that Neither occupation itself --- nor the law of war --- grant any authority to transfer sovereignty over the territory occupied.

It is, in point of fact, that you are advocating the violation of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

et al,

I chuckle ever time I hear this.

...And an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

(PHILOSOPHY)

THE right to defend --- your life and the lives of your loved ones when faced with a deadly threat --- is not bestowed on upon anyone, it is a BASIC INSTINCT --- and extension of the "fight or flight" reflex; a natural species behavior that contribute to survival. It is not really a "human right" that represents a socially adopted imperative and taught to the population. It is not a learned reaction from watching demonstrations communicated by other species. It is a mandatory choice that one is faced with when the consequence is either one survives --- or --- does not survive --- preservation is lost.

The techniques of effective self-defense and the employment of countermeasure to a threat are learned skills sets; but the nature process to the decision to either "fight or flight" (hold, defend or attack --- versus --- retreat, withdraw or hide) is the natural and inherent impulse or reaction to an external stimuli.

While the effective ability of "fight or flight" responses clearly can be learned; it is an innate reaction that operates largely outside consciousness. Most societies and cultures have, imbedded within it, the "Code of Honor" and the initiation of "bravery · courage · valor · intrepidity · boldness and daring" that recognize that special quality to fight in defense of others --- or to fight for a cause greater than themselves. But in the end, it is a matter of preservation.

The second rung Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, (after: air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep) is comprised of the set of Safety Needs (protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear).

(COMMENT)

Relative to the Species of Human, there is no such thing as a situation in which "self defense" cannot be claimed. Fault, legality, purpose and reason simply does not enter into the equation when faced with the choice: "fight or flight."

The choice is no the inverse side of the equation: "attack or not attack." (Aggression or Peacefulness)

Form the Justice side of the house: One must remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which deal with the PUNISHMENT for (in this case Palestinian) actions intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case Israel); or the PENALTY on those protected persons (in this case Palestinian) in cases of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons of the Occupying Power.

(SUMMATION --- ∑---)

Not only do the Israelis have the right to self-defense, but they have the right to punish or exact justice upon those that attack them.

No matter which Palestinian entity frames the argument,

Most Respectfully,
R

What you're saying is that an assassin, after breaking into the home of his target, experiences more resistance than he expected (from the home owner), can tell the cops later, that he killed his target in self defense, because he was in fear for his life.

 

[Phoenall]

ACCORDING TO THE HADITHS IT WAS BUILT 2100 YEARS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF ISLAM


Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)



The mosque in mecca was built by a Jewish patriarch in 2130 BCE according to the muslims.-

So you can see how disjointed and out of synch the whole of islam is.

I think that can be said of any religion who's roots lie in ancient history - lots of contradictions and translations. We certainly see that in the bible. Ultimately it doesn't really matter - it's what people believe and they've believed in it as an important holy site for 1300 years. It is what it is - a very important holy site to 3 world religions.

Yet other peoples were writing down history by the 7C and much of it is corroborated by other writings. In the case of islam they took parts of the Torah and Bible to use for their own ends. Now with the evidence available to us we can see that this is indeed the case and that the stories are exaggerations or even outright lies. They claim islam was around 2100 years before it was invented and that is why the world belongs to them as they populated the world back then.

 

[Phoenall]

et al,

I chuckle ever time I hear this.

...And an occupational force cannot claim self defense.

(PHILOSOPHY)

THE right to defend --- your life and the lives of your loved ones when faced with a deadly threat --- is not bestowed on upon anyone, it is a BASIC INSTINCT --- and extension of the "fight or flight" reflex; a natural species behavior that contribute to survival. It is not really a "human right" that represents a socially adopted imperative and taught to the population. It is not a learned reaction from watching demonstrations communicated by other species. It is a mandatory choice that one is faced with when the consequence is either one survives --- or --- does not survive --- preservation is lost.

The techniques of effective self-defense and the employment of countermeasure to a threat are learned skills sets; but the nature process to the decision to either "fight or flight" (hold, defend or attack --- versus --- retreat, withdraw or hide) is the natural and inherent impulse or reaction to an external stimuli.

While the effective ability of "fight or flight" responses clearly can be learned; it is an innate reaction that operates largely outside consciousness. Most societies and cultures have, imbedded within it, the "Code of Honor" and the initiation of "bravery · courage · valor · intrepidity · boldness and daring" that recognize that special quality to fight in defense of others --- or to fight for a cause greater than themselves. But in the end, it is a matter of preservation.

The second rung Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, (after: air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sex, sleep) is comprised of the set of Safety Needs (protection from elements, security, order, law, stability, freedom from fear).

(COMMENT)

Relative to the Species of Human, there is no such thing as a situation in which "self defense" cannot be claimed. Fault, legality, purpose and reason simply does not enter into the equation when faced with the choice: "fight or flight."

The choice is no the inverse side of the equation: "attack or not attack." (Aggression or Peacefulness)

Form the Justice side of the house: One must remember Article 68 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which deal with the PUNISHMENT for (in this case Palestinian) actions intended to harm the Occupying Power (in this case Israel); or the PENALTY on those protected persons (in this case Palestinian) in cases of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power, or of intentional offenses which have caused the death of one or more persons of the Occupying Power.

(SUMMATION --- ∑---)

Not only do the Israelis have the right to self-defense, but they have the right to punish or exact justice upon those that attack them.

No matter which Palestinian entity frames the argument,

Most Respectfully,
R

What you're saying is that an assassin, after breaking into the home of his target, experiences more resistance than he expected (from the home owner), can tell the cops later, that he killed his target in self defense, because he was in fear for his life.

And if that was the case and he could prove it then he would get away free on a charge of murder. He would not get away free for the breaking and entry charge though. The law is there to protect against wrongful punishment, which is why it is always changing

 

[Coyote]

ACCORDING TO THE HADITHS IT WAS BUILT 2100 YEARS BEFORE THE INVENTION OF ISLAM


Abu Dhar al-Ghifari|Abu Dhar]] narrated: I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-,Haram (in Mecca)." I said, "Which was built next?" He replied "The mosque of Al-Aqsa ( in Jerusalem)." I said, "What was the period of construction between the two?" He said, "Forty years." He added, "Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time)



The mosque in mecca was built by a Jewish patriarch in 2130 BCE according to the muslims.-

So you can see how disjointed and out of synch the whole of islam is.

I think that can be said of any religion who's roots lie in ancient history - lots of contradictions and translations. We certainly see that in the bible. Ultimately it doesn't really matter - it's what people believe and they've believed in it as an important holy site for 1300 years. It is what it is - a very important holy site to 3 world religions.

Yet other peoples were writing down history by the 7C and much of it is corroborated by other writings. In the case of islam they took parts of the Torah and Bible to use for their own ends. Now with the evidence available to us we can see that this is indeed the case and that the stories are exaggerations or even outright lies. They claim islam was around 2100 years before it was invented and that is why the world belongs to them as they populated the world back then.

Yet, often that history was iffy and not always corroborated. How many parts of the Bible were discarded during political and religious changes? It ultimately makes no difference when you are talking about 1300 years of a place being an important holy site. Just give it up and acknowledge that it belongs to 3 faiths and everyone needs to learn to share and treat it like the holy place their faith purports it to be.

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I think you have made a mistake.

I don't believe that anyone who followed the 1907 Hague Convention (Articles 29-31) was found guilty of a War Crime during the Nuremberg Trails. There were German Military Officers that were guilty of aiding and abetting War Crimes, or the furtherance of War Crimes; or what would be considered today as the Customary IHL pertaining to land warfare (and separately warfare at sea).

Article 30 is extended thus:The Convention contains several provisions in this respect which extend the principle and make it precise. Thus Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples".Article 3 although it applies only to armed conflicts not of an international character, contains rules of absolutely general application. The prohibition mentioned is, moreover, confirmed by Article 5 and Articles 64-76.It should also be noted that paragraph 2 of Article 68 authorizes the Occupying Power under certain conditions to inflict the death penalty on protected persons found guilty of espionage.
​

Rocco would have been a great SS officer during the Nazi occupation but afterwards, he would have had trouble.. German military that punished and exacted justice on the local population that attacked them were hung or served lifetime sentences. One of the last to be caught was Erich Priebke, who as a German officer exacted justice and punished Italian partisans that attacked German soldiers, was pursued by the Italian authorities for 50 years and was extradited to Italy after 50 years where he was found guilty of murder and crimes against humanity. He claimed he was simply following the law and orders.

No matter how you try to justify the actions of an occupation force, you will be proven wrong Rocco.

(COMMENT)

You will note that I did not advocate "simply following orders;" or stepping outside existing law. You will kindly note that I advocated following the law and the Geneva Code as outlined in Article 68 (Penalty) of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

BTW, There is no country in the world more sensitive to the backlash of the "War Crimes" than the Jewish Community. It was not that long ago (maybe 7 years) that Lithuania's Chief Prosecutor opened a pretrial investigation of Jewish Partisans of 1944 (anti-NAZI) wartime actions in Kaniukai. Yitzhak Arad, former chairman of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem, was quoted as saying: "The murderers are now becoming national heroes, and we, the few surviving victims who took up arms and fought the murderers, are under investigation as criminals."
​

No one has every been punished for following the Fourth Geneva Convention as I have advocate; even in regards to the "right to punish or exact justice." It is important to remember that the Occupation is "provisional" in nature. It will only last until the Palestinians successfully negotiate a peace. The Occupying Power understands that Neither occupation itself --- nor the law of war --- grant any authority to transfer sovereignty over the territory occupied.

It is, in point of fact, that you are advocating the violation of law.

Most Respectfully,
R

You have made an error, Just a little example, German soldiers of the occupation forces that were prosecuted and convicted for the crime of Sippenhaft (collective punishment). It was a common practice of the Nazis in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the Occupation Forces were held to share the responsibility for those crimes. The Israelis commit this crime on a regular basis.

Quoting propaganda, does not make your nonsensical Zionist diatribes any more reasonable or true.

There is nothing "provisional" about the occupation of Palestine. The Jews have no intention of lifting the occupation/blockade they have imposed.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

No. I did not make a mistake. You just didn't read what I wrote.

You have made an error, Just a little example, German soldiers of the occupation forces that were prosecuted and convicted for the crime of Sippenhaft (collective punishment). It was a common practice of the Nazis in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the Occupation Forces were held to share the responsibility for those crimes. The Israelis commit this crime on a regular basis.

Quoting propaganda, does not make your nonsensical Zionist diatribes any more reasonable or true.

There is nothing "provisional" about the occupation of Palestine. The Jews have no intention of lifting the occupation/blockade they have imposed.

(COMMENT)

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Lipush]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

The so-called Al-Aqsa was built on the ruins of the Jewish Temple. It's like telling them in their faces that their mosque shouldn't really be there...

 

[Lipush]

I can only imagine Muslims hitting the synagogues in Israel.

They most likely would have been treated as weirdos, in that case.

They wouldn't have been stoned or butchered. That's the kind of thing your beloved Palestinians do.

 

[Lipush]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegaly migrate? The Temple Mount was and still is the TEMPLE mount, before Muhammad came down with his flying horse and declaired it his. You built your house on the ruins of another who was forced out, invent a total different wheel of events, in which according to (your own history) you were the ones kicked out instead of the one benefiting from the kicking, and then try to force the Jews out of their own sites.... Yeah, no wonder there's war.

 

[Billo_Really]

They most likely would have been treated as weirdos, in that case.

They wouldn't have been stoned or butchered. That's the kind of thing your beloved Palestinians do.

They would've been shot in the back, then a knife placed next to their body.

That's the kind of thing your beloved IDF does.

 

[Coyote]

montelatici, et al,

No. I did not make a mistake. You just didn't read what I wrote.

You have made an error, Just a little example, German soldiers of the occupation forces that were prosecuted and convicted for the crime of Sippenhaft (collective punishment). It was a common practice of the Nazis in which relatives of persons accused of crimes against the Occupation Forces were held to share the responsibility for those crimes. The Israelis commit this crime on a regular basis.

Quoting propaganda, does not make your nonsensical Zionist diatribes any more reasonable or true.

There is nothing "provisional" about the occupation of Palestine. The Jews have no intention of lifting the occupation/blockade they have imposed.

(COMMENT)

I only quoted Customary IHL. No propaganda at all. You are just trying to justify the Arab Palestinian use of violence to intimidate and coerce the Palestinian agenda. There is absolutely no law (Customary or IHL) that permits making threats or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Israel. And no law that permits hostilities directed against the Occupation Powers to inflict harm.

Your example does not even remotely resemble what I was talking about. The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime," relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” possibly an Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR), as well as a potential violation of Article 78 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, is generally considered a war crime. I did not suggest to violate this rule. You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, this is a side track, but wouldn't this "The implementation of "families sharing the responsibility for a crime, relative to war, is a violation of Rule #103, is a variation of the imposition of “collective penalties,” mean that the Israeli practice of punishing the families of criminals by demolishing their homes is a violation?

 

[Lipush]

They most likely would have been treated as weirdos, in that case.

They wouldn't have been stoned or butchered. That's the kind of thing your beloved Palestinians do.

They would've been shot in the back, then a knife placed next to their body.

That's the kind of thing your beloved IDF does.

Nah, that's just pallywood

 

[Billo_Really]

Illegaly migrate? The Temple Mount was and still is the TEMPLE mount, before Muhammad came down with his flying horse and declaired it his. You built your house on the ruins of another who was forced out, invent a total different wheel of events, in which according to (your own history) you were the ones kicked out instead of the one benefiting from the kicking, and then try to force the Jews out of their own sites.... Yeah, no wonder there's war.

Don't even talk to me about someone being forced out. Don't even go there!

Tell you what, you allow the "right of return" and I'll let you pray at the mosque.

 

[Billo_Really]

Nah, that's just pallywood

What's fake about it?

Are those Arab actors portraying the IDF?

Would the real IDF allow Palestinian's to shoot on location?

And how would the production crew get a knife past the checkpoint?

So what's fake about it, bitch?

 

[Penelope]

I can only imagine Muslims hitting the synagogues in Israel.

They most likely would have been treated as weirdos, in that case.

They wouldn't have been stoned or butchered. That's the kind of thing your beloved Palestinians do.

Your right, they would of been shot.

 

[Penelope]

Why is it such a big deal that Jews not pray at the Temple Mount. Why the hell shouldn't they. They should feel free to pray any damn where they feel like it. It's not like they close down a street and get in the way of business while praying to Mecca like the Islamics do.

It's bullshit they made such a deal.

You illegally migrate into the area; drive out half the residents using Jewish terrorism; declare yourself a Jewish State; then only allow the land to be farmed with Jewish labor; stick your white-trash settlers into an area you don't even own; then want THEM to share THEIR mosque with you!

Listen you selfish pieces of shit, you need to BACK THE FUCK OFF!

Illegaly migrate? The Temple Mount was and still is the TEMPLE mount, before Muhammad came down with his flying horse and declaired it his. You built your house on the ruins of another who was forced out, invent a total different wheel of events, in which according to (your own history) you were the ones kicked out instead of the one benefiting from the kicking, and then try to force the Jews out of their own sites.... Yeah, no wonder there's war.

Dear, King Herod built the temple mount. Its not yours, never was. There is no proof of Sol's temple and the Persians owned the land when some of the Hebrews went back.