BREAKING: Family of Palestinian toddler burned alive sue Israel

[louie888]

Its not. No one said he was.

You just did. That is what this thread is about, illiterate.

 

[Lipush]

Buildings with combatants on their grounds, or inside, with weapon cache's stored within are no longer civilian structures but are military strongholds welcome to attack.

There were no weapons aor combatants in the residential buildings bombed.

But you agree that, at least in theory, if there were, they are legit military objectives, yes?

How the hell is a Palestinian toddler you people burned alive a legit military objective?

You are sicker than I thought.

Ali Dawabshe was an innocent baby. He was not a legitimate target.

Now. let's see if you can repeat after me:

Shalhevet Pass was an innocent baby. She was not a legitimate target.

 

[P F Tinmore]

My opinion was that Police are civilian but In this case Israel has shown how it expects police officers to be treated, now I say treat the israeli police how they treat others

I usually see you argue that police are legit targets. I'm okay with that. Its a consistent argument.

Its Tinmore's hypocritical argument that gets in my craw.

Palestinian police never attack Israelis. Israeli police attack Palestinians. There is no equivalence.

Links?

I don't think there is a link that says that particular thing. But if you follow the news you will not find any attacks on Israelis by Palestinian police. However, you will regularly see Israeli police attacking Palestinians.

So I would give them different status.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Buildings with combatants on their grounds, or inside, with weapon cache's stored within are no longer civilian structures but are military strongholds welcome to attack.

There were no weapons aor combatants in the residential buildings bombed.

But you agree that, at least in theory, if there were, they are legit military objectives, yes?

Not really. It would be an aggression against a dependent people.

 

[Shusha]

Its not. No one said he was.

You just did. That is what this thread is about, illiterate.

OMG. Pay attention. Follow along. It isn't really that hard.

A child is NEVER a legitimate military target.

A building with weapons, or military personnel or other objects of military usefulness is a military objective.

The presence of a child in a building or place which is a military objective does NOT invalidate the military objective.

 

[montelatici]

Its not. No one said he was.

You just did. That is what this thread is about, illiterate.

OMG. Pay attention. Follow along. It isn't really that hard.

A child is NEVER a legitimate military target.

A building with weapons, or military personnel or other objects of military usefulness is a military objective.

The presence of a child in a building or place which is a military objective does NOT invalidate the military objective.

Residential buildings with families living in them are not military targets and cannot be military objectives.

 

[Shusha]

Residential buildings with families living in them are not military targets and cannot be military objectives.

Sure they can. If military objectives are hidden within them.

Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

 

[Shusha]

Also:

Article 12(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety

 

[Shusha]

And:

Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides:
The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations

 

[Shusha]

Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts

 

[Shusha]

If a military objective is placed within a civilian area -- its the placing of the objective which amounts to a war crime.

 

[montelatici]

If a military objective is placed within a civilian area -- its the placing of the objective which amounts to a war crime.

No, you are making things up. The war crime is the killing of civilians, women and children when the attacker knows that they will be killing civilians.

 

[Shusha]

If a military objective is placed within a civilian area -- its the placing of the objective which amounts to a war crime.

No, you are making things up. The war crime is the killing of civilians, women and children when the attacker knows that they will be killing civilians.

No. You are just flat out wrong. The deaths of civilians and the knowledge of said deaths is NOT the test of a war crime.

The tests of a war crime are:

Was there a military objective?
Was that military objective targeted (as opposed to indiscriminate attacks or specific targets against civilians)?
Was the loss of human (civilian) life disproportionate to the value of the military objective?

 

[Coyote]

Almost any military operation includes some civilian casualties - that doesn't make them a war crime.

 

[Shusha]

Oh, imagine if we built a world where every single civilian death constitutes a war crime (with real consequences). You would no longer be able to conduct a war. Except in cyber space. Cool idea.

 

[Coyote]

Buildings with combatants on their grounds, or inside, with weapon cache's stored within are no longer civilian structures but are military strongholds welcome to attack.

There were no weapons aor combatants in the residential buildings bombed.

But you agree that, at least in theory, if there were, they are legit military objectives, yes?

Not really. It would be an aggression against a dependent people.

There is something to be said for that - for instance, ISIS has forced civilians into areas to be used as human sheilds...how would you rate that in an attack?

 

[montelatici]

If a military objective is placed within a civilian area -- its the placing of the objective which amounts to a war crime.

No, you are making things up. The war crime is the killing of civilians, women and children when the attacker knows that they will be killing civilians.

No. You are just flat out wrong. The deaths of civilians and the knowledge of said deaths is NOT the test of a war crime.

The tests of a war crime are:

Was there a military objective?
Was that military objective targeted (as opposed to indiscriminate attacks or specific targets against civilians)?
Was the loss of human (civilian) life disproportionate to the value of the military objective?

There were no military objectives when Israel bombed schools and residential apartment buildings. The reports that the UN tried to publish indicating that the Israelis committed war crimes were snuffed out by the U.S. in support of Israel.

 

[montelatici]

Almost any military operation includes some civilian casualties - that doesn't make them a war crime.

70% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians, mostly women and children. Your dog won't hunt. Now all the mods are Israel Firsters.

 

[louie888]

OMG. Pay attention. Follow along. It isn't really that hard.

A child is NEVER a legitimate military target.

A building with weapons, or military personnel or other objects of military usefulness is a military objective.

The presence of a child in a building or place which is a military objective does NOT invalidate the military objective.

OMG. Pay attention. Follow along. It isn't really that hard.

A child is NEVER a legitimate military target.

A building with weapons, or military personnel or other objects of military usefulness is a military objective. Of course it is, asswipe. BUT BECAUSE KNOWN LIARS CLAIM THAT IS THE CASE DOES NOT MAKE IT SO!

SANE PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THE IDEA THAT the presence of a child in a building or place which is a military objective does NOT invalidate the military objective. And especially when that "military objective" comes from known liars with a history of mass murder based upon those very lies.

 

[Coyote]

Almost any military operation includes some civilian casualties - that doesn't make them a war crime.

70% of the Palestinian casualties were civilians, mostly women and children. Your dog won't hunt. Now all the mods are Israel Firsters.

Israel firsters? No. Rational thinkers.

You have to look at each campaign individually.