Rock Terror Attack on Children's Bus in Samaria

[irosie91]

In US law----killing a person simply for trespassing is actually very illegal.
in all the states I know about-----killing a child for trespass is OBVIOUSLY
illegal. In my state----if one owns property with buildings on it----and
someone sets up housekeeping in one of the buildings-----the only
way to remove that person is via a court procedure------you cannot even
do a LOCK OUT of the trespasser. If you PADLOCK his door----(ie the
door to the place he is squatting) that's a crime

It is not at all clear to me why a person who claims to be a lawyer in
the USA would try to justify the killing of a child for "being there"
illegally.

It would be consistent with INTERNATIONAL LAW----for Israel to
suspend the citizenship of all muslims in Israel (maldives did it for
all non muslims) ----I wonder if our board lawyer would consider such
a move "legal" in her 'isa-respecting' world

 

[toastman]

About the same as there is in the anti-palestinian camp. I noticed a distinct dearth of condemnation from some when a Palestinian bus was attacked and children injured as a result of settlers throwing rocks.

It's way beyond the pale to be attacking children like this!

Yes it is-----However----the proof that Israeli kids were attacked is a named
infant in an ICU ------the report that rocks were thrown at a bus of
palestinian kids -------had no details at all other than "people were
injured" The lack of detail----suggests lack of credibility. A prior
report of "injuries due to tear gas" was supported by a video that
revealed no injuries----just WOMEN SCREAMING OBSCENITIES---
and thrashing about---pawing at members of the IDF-----followed
by some women were "treated in hospitals for HYSTERIA"

It doesn't lack credibility, there was more detail than there is in this particular OP (which you apparently credit).

The only thing I'm seeing from you is that you don't want to condemn the actions when it's some children attacked by Israeli's.

Adults should never be attacking children. Never.

There is absolutely NO justification for INTENTIONALLY attacking a child. none whatsoever. And that goes for the Jewish Extremists as well, obviously

 

[irosie91]

About the same as there is in the anti-palestinian camp. I noticed a distinct dearth of condemnation from some when a Palestinian bus was attacked and children injured as a result of settlers throwing rocks.

It's way beyond the pale to be attacking children like this!

Yes it is-----However----the proof that Israeli kids were attacked is a named
infant in an ICU ------the report that rocks were thrown at a bus of
palestinian kids -------had no details at all other than "people were
injured" The lack of detail----suggests lack of credibility. A prior
report of "injuries due to tear gas" was supported by a video that
revealed no injuries----just WOMEN SCREAMING OBSCENITIES---
and thrashing about---pawing at members of the IDF-----followed

by some women were "treated in hospitals for HYSTERIA"

It doesn't lack credibility, there was more detail than there is in this particular OP (which you
apparently credit).

The only thing I'm seeing from you is that you don't want to condemn the actions when it's
some children attacked by Israeli's.


Adults should never be attacking children. Never.

Wrong again I have CONSISTENTLY stated that GROWN PEOPLE
throwing rocks should be shot and children throwing rocks should
be arrested ------BOTH SIDES I have suggested that Israel issue a
strong statement ----that SUCH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND and carry
it out. I am confident that doing so will stop jews from throwing rocks---
but not so sure that doing so will stop arab muslims from this
activity which is clearly very socially accepted ----by arab muslim
communities ----over the past 1400 years.

Many ---on this board have SUPPORTED THE RIGHT of
arab muslims to fling rocks Can you support your statement
by citing an instance in which anyone objected to a jew being
arrested for throwing rocks?. I do believe that there are
reports of jews throwing rocks----and no report of an arrest for it---
but the fact is that MOST arab muslim rock throwers are not
arrested either. If a jew were arrested for throwing rocks at
people or moving vehicles----I would have no objection---regardless
of his age------if he were shot for flinging them at people's--
especially children's heads----I would still have no objection.

shall I cite cases where people have supported ISLAMIC RIGHT
to fling rocks and objected to arrests ---for you?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Than it's the governments' issue with INTL law. By Israeli law (the one which they are ordered to obey), they do nothing wrong. And they don't have to pay the price for it. the government should, if anything.

Civilians are to obey the law of the country.

International law applies to all peope by treaty obligations and international legal obligations of our nations.

So, people in a nation are bound by intl law.

If what you said were true, then noone would have been prosecuted for what was done in the holocaust, why dont you think about that for a moment?

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

For those in the US, The Supremacy Clause makes US treaties the law of the land.

 

[irosie91]

For those in the US, The Supremacy Clause makes US treaties the law of the land.

so? to what issue are you referring, if any?

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"Article VI, Clause 2*of the*United States Constitution, known as the*Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law*when a conflict arises between federal law and either the*state constitution*orstate law*of any*state."

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Coyote]

Yes it is-----However----the proof that Israeli kids were attacked is a named
infant in an ICU ------the report that rocks were thrown at a bus of
palestinian kids -------had no details at all other than "people were
injured" The lack of detail----suggests lack of credibility. A prior
report of "injuries due to tear gas" was supported by a video that
revealed no injuries----just WOMEN SCREAMING OBSCENITIES---
and thrashing about---pawing at members of the IDF-----followed

by some women were "treated in hospitals for HYSTERIA"

It doesn't lack credibility, there was more detail than there is in this particular OP (which you
apparently credit).

The only thing I'm seeing from you is that you don't want to condemn the actions when it's
some children attacked by Israeli's.


Adults should never be attacking children. Never.

Wrong again I have CONSISTENTLY stated that GROWN PEOPLE
throwing rocks should be shot and children throwing rocks should
be arrested ------BOTH SIDES

Where?

I have suggested that Israel issue a
strong statement ----that SUCH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND and carry
it out.

Where?

I agree with that, and it should be enforced equally and children should be treated equally under it.

I am confident that doing so will stop jews from throwing rocks---
but not so sure that doing so will stop arab muslims from this
activity which is clearly very socially accepted ----by arab muslim
communities ----over the past 1400 years.

Many ---on this board have SUPPORTED THE RIGHT of
arab muslims to fling rocks

Who's this "many"?

Can you support your statement
by citing an instance in which anyone objected to a jew being
arrested for throwing rocks?.

I don't recall seeing any threads were a Jew was arrested for throwing rocks so I haven't seen anyone objecting or supporting.

I do believe that there are reports of jews throwing rocks----and no report of an arrest for it---but the fact is that MOST arab muslim rock throwers are not
arrested either.

Far more Arab Muslims are arrested for rock throwing than Jewish settlers. They also far more likely to be met with violence and even shot. [/quote]

If I jew were arrested for throwing rocks at
people or moving vehicles----I would have no objection---regardless
of his age------if he were shot for flinging them at people's--
especially children's heads----I would still have no objection.

Then why is it when ever there is an account of settlers throwing rocks at palestinians you discount it? This is the first I've heard you state you would object.

shall I cite cases where people have supported ISLAMIC RIGHT
to fling rocks and objected to arrests ---for you?

Sure. I would be interested in seeing cases where people here have supported some ISLAMIC RIGHT to fling rocks. I can guess at least one who might have but I suspect it's very few.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

For those in the US, The Supremacy Clause makes US treaties the law of the land.

so? to what issue are you referring, if any?

THE Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty Israel is a party to. IT provides that Occupiers cannot move settlers onto occupied lands. THE settlers violate The Fourth Geneva Convention by their presence in the OPT.

 

[Coyote]

Yes it is-----However----the proof that Israeli kids were attacked is a named
infant in an ICU ------the report that rocks were thrown at a bus of
palestinian kids -------had no details at all other than "people were
injured" The lack of detail----suggests lack of credibility. A prior
report of "injuries due to tear gas" was supported by a video that
revealed no injuries----just WOMEN SCREAMING OBSCENITIES---
and thrashing about---pawing at members of the IDF-----followed
by some women were "treated in hospitals for HYSTERIA"

It doesn't lack credibility, there was more detail than there is in this particular OP (which you apparently credit).

The only thing I'm seeing from you is that you don't want to condemn the actions when it's some children attacked by Israeli's.

Adults should never be attacking children. Never.

There is absolutely NO justification for INTENTIONALLY attacking a child. none whatsoever. And that goes for the Jewish Extremists as well, obviously

I have no tolerance for adults attacking children - adults know better, they are the mature rational ones (in theory) - whether it's parents aiding and abetting their children's facebook attacks, or adults throwing stones at school kids or terrorizing children in the streets - it's absolutely wrong

 

[irosie91]

International law applies to all peope by treaty obligations and international legal obligations of our nations.

So, people in a nation are bound by intl law.

If what you said were true, then noone would have been prosecuted for what was done in the holocaust, why dont you think about that for a moment?

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

You heroes who were convicted of crimes in the Nuremburg trials were
not simply CITIZENS ----they were the LEADERS ----the persons responsible
for the crimes as persons in positions of RESPONSIBILITY including
there people who made the laws legalizing genocide
German citizens were not convicted for being complicit by obeying laws
or even "turning people in" ----or ignoring the realities. Such a move
would have brought about the convictions of every german identified
CHEERING adolf abu ali In the Nuremburg trials----even your clone--
MAGDA GOEBBELS could be convicted only of the murder of her own
children----had she not swallowed some of the kids' cyanide herself

 

[Coyote]

International law applies to all peope by treaty obligations and international legal obligations of our nations.

So, people in a nation are bound by intl law.

If what you said were true, then noone would have been prosecuted for what was done in the holocaust, why dont you think about that for a moment?

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

My understanding is that international law does not govern the actions of individuals within a country - national law does that - but I am not an expert in law and I willingly admit it.

I strenously object to the settler movement and I think they are the source of much that is wrong in the Occupied Territories but the primary fault lies with a government that encourages or, at best turns a blind eye and eventually legalizes it - it gives defacto legal permission to the settlers. If they didn't, if they maintained that such enroachments were strictly illegal and prohibited them and enforced it - then what the settlers are doing would be on their own heads like any tresspassers.

 

[Lipush]

International law applies to all peope by treaty obligations and international legal obligations of our nations.

So, people in a nation are bound by intl law.

If what you said were true, then noone would have been prosecuted for what was done in the holocaust, why dont you think about that for a moment?

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

No, you're wrong.

If you were right, and civilians were indeed ordered to keep Intl law, and not only the one of their country, that means (if we are on the Nazi Germany example), that ALL German civilians should have been put to court on Nurenberg trials, because ALL of them would have been to stand for the crimes of the army of Hitler. including women and children.

Yeah, THAT makes sense, right?!

Why don't you just stop and think for a moment, before saying things?

 

[Lipush]

For those in the US, The Supremacy Clause makes US treaties the law of the land.

so? to what issue are you referring, if any?

THE Fourth Geneva Convention is a treaty Israel is a party to. IT provides that Occupiers cannot move settlers onto occupied lands. THE settlers violate The Fourth Geneva Convention by their presence in the OPT.

Most settlers don't even know what the Geneva convention means. And they are not supposed to!

They see a house in Ariel is cheap, they go and buy it and live there. It's not their job to check if by some foreign law, it's ok or not. If it's not, then the government should tell them and stop them.

Many of them don't even now what they Geneva convention laws say, and they don't even know what to make of it.

And they simply shouldn't. they are not lawyers, they don't understand it!

 

[MHunterB]

International law applies to all peope by treaty obligations and international legal obligations of our nations.

So, people in a nation are bound by intl law.

If what you said were true, then noone would have been prosecuted for what was done in the holocaust, why dont you think about that for a moment?

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

NO, because those Germans were in uniform or otherwise acting as *agents of their government* - making their acts 'official policy'.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

No, they aren't - international law governs the conduct of nations and governments. Lipush is right - you can't punish citizens for doing what is legal in their own country.

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

No, you're wrong.

If you were right, and civilians were indeed ordered to keep Intl law, and not only the one of their country, that means (if we are on the Nazi Germany example), that ALL German civilians should have been put to court on Nurenberg trials, because ALL of them would have been to stand for the crimes of the army of Hitler. including women and children.

Yeah, THAT makes sense, right?!

Why don't you just stop and think for a moment, before saying things?

OK, Einstein, explain the basis of the conviction of Germans over the holocaust!

 

[irosie91]

Why don't you just stop and think for a moment, before saying things?

OK, Einstein, explain the basis of the conviction of Germans over the holocaust!

easy---the people running things ----decided to run them according to the laws of
ISA -- RESPECTERS ------the laws responsible for MOST of the genocidal deaths
comitted in the history of mankind ----they were convicted of promoting the filth
of isa-lovers first elaborated by constantine---1700 years ago. The filth of isa-respect
laws----do have precedent----in roman and greek history and in the people collectively
called "amalek" in the middle east, The LEADERS were held responsible--
not the average citizen

 

[Lipush]

NO, I am right. IF I was wrong that would mean all of the convictions of Germans over the Holocaust were illegitimate? IS that your position?

No, you're wrong.

If you were right, and civilians were indeed ordered to keep Intl law, and not only the one of their country, that means (if we are on the Nazi Germany example), that ALL German civilians should have been put to court on Nurenberg trials, because ALL of them would have been to stand for the crimes of the army of Hitler. including women and children.

Yeah, THAT makes sense, right?!

Why don't you just stop and think for a moment, before saying things?

OK, Einstein, explain the basis of the conviction of Germans over the holocaust!

I just did!

those who were convicted on Nurenberg were militry and leaders.

Not civilians! duh.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

no, you're wrong.

If you were right, and civilians were indeed ordered to keep intl law, and not only the one of their country, that means (if we are on the nazi germany example), that all german civilians should have been put to court on nurenberg trials, because all of them would have been to stand for the crimes of the army of hitler. Including women and children.

Yeah, that makes sense, right?!

Why don't you just stop and think for a moment, before saying things?

ok, einstein, explain the basis of the conviction of germans over the holocaust!

i just did!

Those who were convicted on nurenberg were militry and leaders.

Not civilians! Duh.

your link?