IDF demolishes home of Shlomit Krigman murderer

[Phoenall]

No but the War crimes tribune still stands at the hague, maybe thats why so many israeli´s refuse to go there

And the very court that you threaten the Jews with has already stated that there is no case to pursue. In other words no war crimes have taken place. On the other hand they have said that they found cases attributed to the Palestinians that need to be investigated.

 

[Phoenall]

Article 33(1) of the Fourth Geneva Convention imposes a concrete and absolute prohibition of collective punishment by emphasizing the principle of individual responsibility:

"No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

And once they take part in any action that is part of a military/resistance campaign they lose their protected status. And aiding and abetting terrorism is a criminal offence.

 

[Phoenall]

Certainly, the 4 year brother or sister of the alleged terrorist living in the house that is being demolished is a protected person.

And to leave them alone in the house with no furniture, water, heating, food and sanitation would be a crime in its own right. So they have to leave with their parents and find somewhere else to live.

 

[Phoenall]

An 18 month old sibling living in the same house owned by the parents who also did not personally commit any crime are protected persons. Haven't you figured out that you have been spouting nonsense?

Yup

Your an idiot

Read it as many times as necessary and then get back to us.

IV Geneva Convention
Art 5 Dipshit ;--)

Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Maybe you can point out in the GC where it says "unless the idiot has children"

Just hit him with the Juvenile clause that says the children under age 10 are not protected persons as they are not mature enough to understand that their actions may lead to military or legal procedures

 

[Phoenall]

An 18 month old sibling living in the same house owned by the parents who also did not personally commit any crime are protected persons. Haven't you figured out that you have been spouting nonsense?

Yup

Your an idiot

Read it as many times as necessary and then get back to us.

IV Geneva Convention
Art 5 Dipshit ;--)

Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Maybe you can point out in the GC where it says "unless the idiot has children"

First of all "your" is not the correct way to say "you're an idiot". "You're" is the correct way that in English one "contracts" hence the term "contraction" for "you are".

As I said before, in an occupied territory only the perpetrator can be punished. Not his parents, his siblings, his relatives, unless they actually committed the crime. That is the law. Your nonsensical assertions may be entertaining and makes you out to be the clown that you are, but they have no basis in fact. Ciao, ciao.

And the Geneva conventions are very clear in saying that using a building for any military/terrorist activity means the building can be destroyed. No mention of children or family members, the building is what is destroyed


DONT LIKE THE G.C. THEN PETITION YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO HAVE THEM CHANGED. REMEMBER THAT THEY THEN WORK IN EVERYONES FAVOUR INCLUDING THE JEWS.

 

[Phoenall]

As I said before, in an occupied territory only the perpetrator can be punished. Not his parents, his siblings, his relatives, unless they actually committed the crime.

Boston's point being that his relatives did commit crimes. Pay attention.

Bison is lying. His parents were simply his parents. They committed no crime.

They allowed the building to be used for a military/terrorist purpose, that is a crime.

 

[Phoenall]

As I said before, in an occupied territory only the perpetrator can be punished. Not his parents, his siblings, his relatives, unless they actually committed the crime.

Boston's point being that his relatives did commit crimes. Pay attention.

Bison is lying. His parents were simply his parents. They committed no crime.

Neither did the woman who the Palestinian animal killed. Don't like your home to be leveled? Raise a human being, not a terrorist animal. The parents of the Jewish woman that the Palestinian animal killed lost a lot more than just a "home", so maybe leveling just the culprit's home isn't enough. Make them be in pain and suffering for years, perhaps all their life, just like the Israeli woman's parents. Level the playing field, as one might say.

Maybe castrate the terrorist scum and cut of the left hand of his parents will do the trick

 

[Boston1]

An 18 month old sibling living in the same house owned by the parents who also did not personally commit any crime are protected persons. Haven't you figured out that you have been spouting nonsense?

Yup

Your an idiot

Read it as many times as necessary and then get back to us.

IV Geneva Convention
Art 5 Dipshit ;--)

Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Maybe you can point out in the GC where it says "unless the idiot has children"

Just hit him with the Juvenile clause that says the children under age 10 are not protected persons as they are not mature enough to understand that their actions may lead to military or legal procedures

Interesting, I must have missed that one. where is it ? Link ?

 

[Phoenall]

An 18 month old sibling living in the same house owned by the parents who also did not personally commit any crime are protected persons. Haven't you figured out that you have been spouting nonsense?

Yup

Your an idiot

Read it as many times as necessary and then get back to us.

IV Geneva Convention
Art 5 Dipshit ;--)

Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

Maybe you can point out in the GC where it says "unless the idiot has children"

Just hit him with the Juvenile clause that says the children under age 10 are not protected persons as they are not mature enough to understand that their actions may lead to military or legal procedures

Interesting, I must have missed that one. where is it ? Link ?

In most nations legislature which takes precedent over all of momtes might haves.

This might help



http://unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_summary.pdf

Article 5

(parental guidance and a child’s evolving capacities) Governments must respect the rights and responsibilities of parents and carers to provide guidance and direction to their child as they grow up, so that they fully enjoy their rights. This must be done in a way that recognises the child’s increasing capacity to make their own choices

Article 6

Every child has the right to life. Governments must do all they can to ensure that children survive and develop to their full potential.


Article 8

Children must not be separated from their parents against their will unless it is in their best interests (for example, if a parent is hurting or neglecting a child). Children whose parents have separated have the right to stay in contact with both parents, unless this could cause them harm.

Article 38

Governments must not allow children under the age of 15 to take part in war or join the armed forces. Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war and armed conflicts.
article