Praying at the temple mount

[Billo_Really]

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

UN resolutions affirming the right of Palestinian's to use force against the occupiers...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:
“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”​

General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)​

All of those, make it a legal right for the Palestinian's to use force against the most immoral army in the world.

 

[Lipush]

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?

Let us try it again.

This is what the Palestinians say happened:

This is what happened really:

 

[Billo_Really]

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

This is you...

An ideologue is someone who sees the world in the limiting terms of a doctrine or dogma.

It is limiting because the human world does not operate or evolve according to any one dogma.

ideologues must wear blinders that result in tunnel vision – a tunnel which, like a Procrustean bed, tries to force the world to fit their chosen ideology.

There are hundreds of ideologies out there, both religious and secular, and in every case the resulting tunnel vision eventually results in absurdities – claims about the world that, seen from outside of the ideology, make little or no sense.

So it is with the ideology of Zionism and the doctrinaire interpretations its adherents make about their own behavior and the behavior of others who oppose them.​

And there's no better example of it than this than...

Phoeny the Phraud:
"And if that was the case and he could prove it then he would get away free on a charge of murder."​

What's a Zionists favorite fish?
A red herring!

 

[Billo_Really]

Let us try it again.

This is what the Palestinians say happened:

This is what happened really:

And I just showed you the video of the IDF placing the knife near the body.

A video you refuse to comment on.

BTW, if what you said was true, how did she get the knife through the metal detector at the checkpoint?

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

Your assumption would be correct as a first approximation; as a prima facie case worthy of investigation.

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?

(COMMENT)

First, if you are the investigator, the question has to be asked, Is the destruction a matter of:

• Punishment?
• Military Necessity?
​

The code reads as follows:

Article 53: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
​

It depends on how the implementation is made.

There is no way that I could answer one way or the other. BUT, the allegation and the presentation of cursory evidence could be sufficient enough to warrant further investigation. Under the International Law, such events that take place out side of Area "C" bear a stronger weight to pursue and investigation then do Area "C" events.

Again, you are not wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Your assumption would be correct as a first approximation; as a prima facie case worthy of investigation.

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?

(COMMENT)

First, if you are the investigator, the question has to be asked, the the destruction a matter of:

• Punishment
• Military Necessity
​

The code reads as follows:

Article 53: Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
​

It depends on how the implementation is made.

There is no way that I could answer one way or the other. BUT, the allegation and the presentation of cursory evidence could be sufficient enough to warrant further investigation. Under the International Law, such events that take place out side of Area "C" bear a stronger weight to pursue and investigation then do Area "C" events.

Again, you are not wrong.

Most Respectfully,
R

Thanks - you always give me informative answers

 

[Lipush]

Let us try it again.

This is what the Palestinians say happened:

This is what happened really:

And I just showed you the video of the IDF placing the knife near the body.

A video you refuse to comment on.

BTW, if what you said was true, how did she get the knife through the metal detector at the checkpoint?

She didn't. It beeped.

 

[Indeependent]

Let us try it again.

This is what the Palestinians say happened:

This is what happened really:

And I just showed you the video of the IDF placing the knife near the body.

A video you refuse to comment on.

BTW, if what you said was true, how did she get the knife through the metal detector at the checkpoint?

In the video, which I just watched on my 25" monitor, you're little circle trick DID NOT contain a knife.
If it DID contain a knife, the knife would be 1" from the body.
BUT...the best part of your usual idiocy is that the image shows the knife about 3 feet from the body.
You lose again, asshole.

 

[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.

What was that he handed to him, exactly? You're trying to say it was the knife?

 

[Billo_Really]

What was that he handed to him, exactly? You're trying to say it was the knife?

In Iraq, they call them "drop weapons".

 

[Lipush]

What was that he handed to him, exactly? You're trying to say it was the knife?

In Iraq, they call them "drop weapons".

Where exactly did you spot a knife in that video?

 

[Billo_Really]

In the video, which I just watched on my 25" monitor, you're little circle trick DID NOT contain a knife.
If it DID contain a knife, the knife would be 1" from the body.
BUT...the best part of your usual idiocy is that the image shows the knife about 3 feet from the body.
You lose again, asshole.

So someone went and kicked it away to make it look like they were disarming the suspect.

 

[Billo_Really]

Where exactly did you spot a knife in that video?

If you would've watched the video, you would see one IDF soldier, handing the knife to another IDF soldier about 8 seconds in and then that other IDF soldier leaning over the body and dropping the knife next to it.

 

[Indeependent]

In the video, which I just watched on my 25" monitor, you're little circle trick DID NOT contain a knife.
If it DID contain a knife, the knife would be 1" from the body.
BUT...the best part of your usual idiocy is that the image shows the knife about 3 feet from the body.
You lose again, asshole.

So someone went and kicked it away to make it look like they were disarming the suspect.

I wouldn't know from personal experience, but I guess enough alcoholic beverages will make someone believe they see want they want to see.
Afterwards, when someone such as myself, who does NOT partake of fermented beverages, shows you what an asshole you are, you retreat into intellectualization land.
It must be awful for you to be SO wrong SO often.

 

[Indeependent]

Where exactly did you spot a knife in that video?

If you would've watched the video, you would see one IDF soldier, handing the knife to another IDF soldier about 8 seconds in and then that other IDF soldier leaning over the body and dropping the knife next to it.

Nah!
I watched the video carefully on a BIG monitor.
Nah!

 

[Billo_Really]

I wouldn't know from personal experience, but I guess enough alcoholic beverages will make someone believe they see want they want to see.
Afterwards, when someone such as myself, who does NOT partake of fermented beverages, shows you what an asshole you are, you retreat into intellectualization land.
It must be awful for you to be SO wrong SO often.

Maybe that's your problem? Maybe you should start drinking?

 

[Billo_Really]

Nah!
I watched the video carefully on a BIG monitor.
Nah!

You know, I don't know why it is, but I want to hate you, but I just can't.

 

[Indeependent]

Nah!
I watched the video carefully on a BIG monitor.
Nah!

You know, I don't know why it is, but I want to hate you, but I just can't.

Because I'm sincere.

 

[RoccoR]

Billo_Really, et al,

What is a binding resolution? What constitutes and International Law?

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

UN resolutions affirming the right of Palestinian's to use force against the occupiers...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:
“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”​

General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)​

All of those, make it a legal right for the Palestinian's to use force against the most immoral army in the world.

(COMMENT)

This is an example of an attempt to persuade people that these General Assembly Resolutions authorize the unrestricted use of force over and above the UN Charter [Chaptert I, Article 2(4)] as binding to members,

• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)

These resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law; they are NOT binding in the same fashion as the Charter. They merely reflect the views of some sovereign states (some of which did not want to go on record of opposing Islamic Radicalism). You will also note that the no Resolution since the 1988 Declaration of Independence (Jordan cut all ties to the West Bank in 1988) by the Palestinians has used the phrase "all available means" in relation to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Billo_Really]

Billo_Really, et al,

What is a binding resolution? What constitutes and International Law?

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

UN resolutions affirming the right of Palestinian's to use force against the occupiers...

United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/33/24 of 29 November 1978:
“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;”​

General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people;​

UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)​

All of those, make it a legal right for the Palestinian's to use force against the most immoral army in the world.

(COMMENT)

This is an example of an attempt to persuade people that these General Assembly Resolutions authorize the unrestricted use of force over and above the UN Charter [Chaptert I, Article 2(4)] as binding to members,

• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980)
• Non-binding Resolution relative to the Use of Force - NOT LAW: UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981)

These resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law; they are NOT binding in the same fashion as the Charter. They merely reflect the views of some sovereign states (some of which did not want to go on record of opposing Islamic Radicalism). You will also note that the no Resolution since the 1988 Declaration of Independence (Jordan cut all ties to the West Bank in 1988) by the Palestinians has used the phrase "all available means" in relation to the Palestinians.

Most Respectfully,
R

Tell you what, you stop bringing up 181 and I'll stop using GA resolutions.

Deal?