Quassam rockets not as big a deal as Israel claims

[Desperado]

In 2001 - 4 rockets fired - 1 Israeli dead \ 179 Palestinian's killed
In 2002 - 34 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 373 Palestinian's killed
In 2003 - 155 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 370 Palestinian's killed
In 2004 - 281 rockets fired - 7 Israeli dead \ 625 Palestinian's killed

Since April of 2001 up to the present - 7,361 rockets fired - 59 Israeli dead \ 4,717 Palestinian's killed

We can conclude two things from the numbers above:
1. Palestinian's do not know how to aim their rockets
2. Palestinian's do need to find a different manufacturer other than Quassam rockets, they might have better luck with "Acme Rockets"

 

[Billo_Really]

In 2001 - 4 rockets fired - 1 Israeli dead \ 179 Palestinian's killed
In 2002 - 34 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 373 Palestinian's killed
In 2003 - 155 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 370 Palestinian's killed
In 2004 - 281 rockets fired - 7 Israeli dead \ 625 Palestinian's killed

Since April of 2001 up to the present - 7,361 rockets fired - 59 Israeli dead \ 4,717 Palestinian's killed

We can conclude two things from the numbers above:
1. Palestinian's do not know how to aim their rockets
2. Palestinian's do need to find a different manufacturer other than Quassam rockets, they might have better luck with "Acme Rockets"

The rockets cannot be aimed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks, but why would I care about the interpretation you posted?
Show me in the actual text, cretin.

Here's the actual text un-edited.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

That's pretty clear.

I don't see that in the text. You have a link?

 

[Desperado]

In 2001 - 4 rockets fired - 1 Israeli dead \ 179 Palestinian's killed
In 2002 - 34 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 373 Palestinian's killed
In 2003 - 155 rockets fired - 0 Israeli dead \ 370 Palestinian's killed
In 2004 - 281 rockets fired - 7 Israeli dead \ 625 Palestinian's killed

Since April of 2001 up to the present - 7,361 rockets fired - 59 Israeli dead \ 4,717 Palestinian's killed

We can conclude two things from the numbers above:
1. Palestinian's do not know how to aim their rockets
2. Palestinian's do need to find a different manufacturer other than Quassam rockets, they might have better luck with "Acme Rockets"

The rockets cannot be aimed.

Now that seems like it would be a major design flaw,

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Find a different interpretation.

That is what it says. You are just blowing smoke.

You're the one claiming Israeli civilians and not protected.

That is what it says.

Great, show me the section in the text that proves your claim.

Full text.

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Awesome, now cut and paste the section from that text that proves your claim.

 

[docmauser1]

Since April of 2001 up to the present - 7,361 rockets fired - 59 Israeli dead \ 4,717 Palestinian's killed

Israel should react by firing 7,717 rockets in the general direction of gazastan and thereby attain proportionality as per the international community, of course.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Since April of 2001 up to the present - 7,361 rockets fired - 59 Israeli dead \ 4,717 Palestinian's killed

Israel should react by firing 7,717 rockets in the general direction of gazastan and thereby attain proportionality as per the international community, of course.

That would be one way to go, another might be to supply the people of southern Israel with Qassam rockets of their own that they could fire when they wanted to and at whatever they wanted to. If as the OP claims, Qassam rockets are no big deal, no one would have reason to complain about this. In fact, Israel could set up a factory in the South to manufacture these rockets and allow some Arabs from Gaza to work there in an effort to improve relations between Israelis and Gaza Arabs and soon everyone would call the Israeli Qassams rockets for peace.

 

[freedombecki]

Only about 1/4 of the Palestinians were allowed to vote.

Things would be quite different if everybody could vote.

No, all the Arab Israelis were able to vote.

What I said is true.

I believe toomuchtime may have the correct diagnosis, PFT. Israeli leaders were telling international councils as early as 1977 that their citizens were always allowed to vote. From early on. (voting dialog for Palestinians living in Israel starts at 3:30 on timer.)

[ame="http://youtu.be/lixYEZ9M_dU"]benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P F Tinmore]

No, all the Arab Israelis were able to vote.

What I said is true.

I believe toomuchtime may have the correct diagnosis, PFT. Israeli leaders were telling international councils as early as 1977 that their citizens were always allowed to vote. From early on. (voting dialog for Palestinians living in Israel starts at 3:30 on timer.)

benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube

OK, but what about all the Palestinians who were removed from their homes and voting rolls before the elections?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Thanks, but why would I care about the interpretation you posted?
Show me in the actual text, cretin.

Find a different interpretation.

That is what it says. You are just blowing smoke.

You're the one claiming Israeli civilians and not protected.

That is what it says.

Great, show me the section in the text that proves your claim.

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

Or take it up with Israel.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Find a different interpretation.

That is what it says. You are just blowing smoke.

You're the one claiming Israeli civilians and not protected.

That is what it says.

Great, show me the section in the text that proves your claim.

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

Or take it up with Israel.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

The answer is, you made a claim and now can't back it up. I'm shocked.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You're the one claiming Israeli civilians and not protected.

That is what it says.

Great, show me the section in the text that proves your claim.

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

Or take it up with Israel.

The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.

In 2003 we went to Cairo. The Egyptians asked whether Hamas is ready to stop the martyrdom operations or not. We gave the Egyptians a better offer. We were ready to have an agreement to stop targeting civilians [on] both sides. The army is supposed to fight, but civilians should be out of it. The Egyptians agreed and passed it on to the Israelis.

Ariel Sharon sent Efraim Halevi, who was the head of Shin Bet at the time. The Egyptians, who were the mediators, negotiated with Halevi. When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

The answer is, you made a claim and now can't back it up. I'm shocked.

Stop whining. That is the internationally recognized interpretation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

Or take it up with Israel.

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

The answer is, you made a claim and now can't back it up. I'm shocked.

Stop whining. That is the internationally recognized interpretation.

I know, you lied about the text.
I don't care that the terrorists and their supporters, like you, think civilians are legal targets.
You're disgusting.

 

[freedombecki]

What I said is true.

I believe toomuchtime may have the correct diagnosis, PFT. Israeli leaders were telling international councils as early as 1977 that their citizens were always allowed to vote. From early on. (voting dialog for Palestinians living in Israel starts at 3:30 on timer.)

benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube

OK, but what about all the Palestinians who were removed from their homes and voting rolls before the elections?

Were their homes made insecure by shelling?

 

[P F Tinmore]

I believe toomuchtime may have the correct diagnosis, PFT. Israeli leaders were telling international councils as early as 1977 that their citizens were always allowed to vote. From early on. (voting dialog for Palestinians living in Israel starts at 3:30 on timer.)

benjamin netanyahu 28 years old - YouTube

OK, but what about all the Palestinians who were removed from their homes and voting rolls before the elections?

Were their homes made insecure by shelling?

That and more.

 

[ima]

Since Israel is controlling Gaza and the WB and keep taking more land, shouldn't the Pals there be able to vote in Israeli elections, since they aren't considered a country and therefore are a de facto part of Israel?

 

[freedombecki]

OK, but what about all the Palestinians who were removed from their homes and voting rolls before the elections?

Were their homes made insecure by shelling?

That and more.

Then it seems to me the terrorists shouldn't have been shelling nearby, and that the only right thing to do would be to clear the area of housing where small children and families are present and being so terribly threatened, in order to remove the threat of terrorists from the neighborhood and vicinity,

 

[AnjelicaT]

I know you don't like the answer but you should take that up with the Red Cross.

The answer is, you made a claim and now can't back it up. I'm shocked.

Stop whining. That is the internationally recognized interpretation.

I know, you lied about the text.
I don't care that the terrorists and their supporters, like you, think civilians are legal targets.
You're disgusting.

He so is

 

[P F Tinmore]

Were their homes made insecure by shelling?

That and more.

Then it seems to me the terrorists shouldn't have been shelling nearby, and that the only right thing to do would be to clear the area of housing where small children and families are present and being so terribly threatened, in order to remove the threat of terrorists from the neighborhood and vicinity,

You are going off topic.

 

[freedombecki]

That and more.

Then it seems to me the terrorists shouldn't have been shelling nearby, and that the only right thing to do would be to clear the area of housing where small children and families are present and being so terribly threatened, in order to remove the threat of terrorists from the neighborhood and vicinity,

You are going off topic.

I asked if their homes were made insecure by shelling to which you answered "that and more."

The OP stated, and I quote, "All the talk about the rocket attacks, is just a smoke screen to hide the real truth that Israel is the problem for acheiving peace"

Everything I have said is salient to the OP's lopsided blamegame, and your allegation of my being "off topic" smacks of "my way or the highway." That just doesn't wash.