Civilians vs Combatents

[Challenger]

I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.

Really? The Mandate system was the workaround adopted by Britain and France to gain new "colonies" from the defeated Ottomans without them being called "colonies"; a diplomatic fig leaf that was required due to their previous declaration that they had not gone to war to obtain new territories for their respective empires.

So, Syria is a French colony?

Was. After they denied the Syrians self determination in 1920 and carved up the old Ottoman areas at San Remo. Syria only became independant in 1946

 

[Challenger]

No it doesn't. You can come to a power-sharing agreement. it worked well with deeply entrenched religious and ethnic hatreds in Northern Ireland (Scottish Protestant colonists against Catholic Irish natives). Hamas has said several times it would consider a long term truce; all it needs is for the Zionists to negotiate in good faith, something, they've never done in the past. The continuance of this conflict is to the advantage of the Zionists; while it goes on they can continue to steal land and disposess the natives.

Okay, let's assume this is true, and Hamas doesn't actually have a goal of the destruction of Israel and the reclamation of all of the territory to be under Arab Muslim rule. (Crazy idea, but let's go with it for now).

What, exactly, is there to negotiate with Gaza? What negotiations has Israel failed to make "in good faith" with Gaza? Israel unilaterally disengaged. Israel made the territory suitably Judenrien. There is a well-defined border. Israel has not interferred with the complete control of the government in Gaza to govern. What the heck does Gaza still WANT that has not already been unilaterally granted by Israel?

The right to keep attacking? THAT is not a "long term truce" or ceasefire or peace agreement. That is the continuation of the conflict.

The PIRA's goal was the destruction of Northern Ireland and it's incorporation into Eire. No idea is crazy if there's the political will to talk seriously about peace, something Zionist Israel has never been interested in. As for Gaza Zionist israel controls their air space, their territorial waters and maintains a seige on land. You tell me "what the heck Gaza wants", it's not rocket science to negotiate a long term truce in exchange for the lifting of the siege, all you need is the political will from the Zionist side. HAMAS would by happy enough to be left alone right now to rebuild Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?

It is a war crime to use indiscriminate weapons (weapons which can not be targeted). Skill is not a factor with indiscriminate weapons, by their nature. So a slingshot is not a correct analogy.

A barrel of acid dropped from a helicopter into a civilian crowd would be a better analogy. There is no way to target who gets hit with the acid. The nature of the weapon does not permit the acid to discriminate between military targets and civilian ones. This is a war crime.

A response which has the ability to target a military object (like a helicopter with an acid barrel) and is targeted to that military object is not a war crime, even if civilians unintentionally are hurt or killed in the process.

 

[Shusha]

You tell me "what the heck Gaza wants", it's not rocket science to negotiate a long term truce in exchange for the lifting of the siege, all you need is the political will from the Zionist side. HAMAS would by happy enough to be left alone right now to rebuild Gaza.

We agree. Its not rocket science. All you need is the political will. IF Hamas would be happy enough to be left alone to "rebuild", WHY do they continue to attack? Why do they use concrete to build tunnels instead of homes and schools and hospitals?

Why don't they just stop attacking? The cause of the "not being left alone" is the attacks.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​

The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.

Is that why the Palestinians are demanding BDS is scrapped. I don't know where you drag your claims up from so how about a link proving your claims ?

He lowered his voice. “And the P.A. isn’t doing anything to help. We’re barely making enough money to make ends meet, while they fixate on appeasing the occupation.”

The Palestinian Authority spends 27 percent of its budget on its security forces, turning the territories into a virtual police state. Within my circles, people say that if Israel doesn’t arrest you, the P.A. will. “You think you’re safe because you’re in Ramallah?” they joke. “The P.A. is preparing a nice big file on you to turn over to the Israelis.” Beneath the black humor is a loathing of the Palestinian Authority, for its complacency over the occupation and its disconnect from the people.

Abu Jamal was still venting. “You think there is no money? There is money. The P.A. has money. Look around you, it’s everywhere: the fancy cars they drive to the villas they build.” He shook his head. “It’s going to explode, we’re all going to explode.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/ramallahs-mean-streets.html?_r=1

 

[Hollie]

Shusha,

This is a question of “cession.” And there is a difference between a “domestic cession” (the cession of the Southern States from the Union) and “international cession” (America’s cession from the British Empire). While they both have an act by which one party attempts to (consensually or non-consensually) transfer or replace the sovereignty of one ruler and replace it with its own sovereignty over the territory previously ruled by another.

• First Question: Arab Muslim Palestinians (West of Jordan) versus Arab Muslim Palestinians (East of Jordan). Yes, these are very separate and distinct versions of the original Arab Muslim Ottoman. At one time the Arab Muslim Ottoman was all on people covering the all the Vilayets of Lebanon and Syria, plus the Independent Sanjuk of Jerusalem. However, over time there were the evolutionary effects of politically, economically and commercially; as well as the spread of developmental advancements (or lack thereof). We clearly see this distinction in the conflict of Black September 1970; two variations of Palestinians locked in combat (Western ‘vs’ Eastern).

• Your question of the inhabitance of Nazareth (IL), separate development and economics “could” cause a separate evolution and become something separate and distinct. But it would probably have to experience one hell’u’va dramatic change. But City States like Jerusalem, Mecca, Singapore, Shang-hi, etc have successfully evolved.

• The right-of-self-determination is a separatist movement; the success of which is bound by the attitude of the parent government and the capacity of the separatist government to independently survive.
​

Rocco, do you think it would be fair to argue that the Arab Muslim Palestinians, as we currently define them as distinct from the Jordanians, the Syrians and the Egyptians, did not, in fact, achieve their rights to self-determination until they achieved that distinction? Therefore, some time after 1967?

Let me pose a theoretical question in order to illuminate my meaning. Do the people of Nazrath (predominately Arabs) currently have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Do the people of Tel Aviv have the collective right to self-determination, seperately and distinctly from either Israel or Palestine? Why or why not? What conditions must be in place before this collective right comes into play?

I'm not sure I have an answer to this, but its an interesting question, yes?

And for clarity of my position, I think it matters not one bit when rights are achieved and Tinmore is making a foolish argument to claim that it does matter. The reality is they both have rights NOW and that is what we should be considering and acting upon.

(COMMENT)

The question of the right-of-self-determination is immaterial. It is (in this case) a separatist movement that is possible anywhere; just as the suppression of that movement is a dissenting opinion in force. HOWEVER, the Arab Palestinians did, at one point, use their right-of-self-determination in a political-combinative Process when in April 1950 they collectively meld the two-Banks together and making them politically one.

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t. The “right” does not preclude or prevent the parent sovereign from taking such action as necessary preserve the integrity of the sovereignty. Again, Jordan and Black September serves as an example. And the right to alter the sovereignty was suppressed.

For some people, the articulation of a “right” actually means something. But as the signatories of the US Declaration of Independence understood, failure would be fatal. The “right-of-self-determination” is a concept --- which does not protect you from the noose if you fail.

Most Respectfully,
R

The right-of-self-determination is really inconsequential as a “right” that needs articulated. Either the citizenry moves together to accomplish a common objective --- or they don’t.​

The Palestinians have always had a non elected "leadership" that were at odds with the people.

The Palestinians are now uniting under BDS to speak in one voice. This renders the official parties, like Fatah and Hamas, irrelevant.

Is that why the Palestinians are demanding BDS is scrapped. I don't know where you drag your claims up from so how about a link proving your claims ?

He lowered his voice. “And the P.A. isn’t doing anything to help. We’re barely making enough money to make ends meet, while they fixate on appeasing the occupation.”

The Palestinian Authority spends 27 percent of its budget on its security forces, turning the territories into a virtual police state. Within my circles, people say that if Israel doesn’t arrest you, the P.A. will. “You think you’re safe because you’re in Ramallah?” they joke. “The P.A. is preparing a nice big file on you to turn over to the Israelis.” Beneath the black humor is a loathing of the Palestinian Authority, for its complacency over the occupation and its disconnect from the people.

Abu Jamal was still venting. “You think there is no money? There is money. The P.A. has money. Look around you, it’s everywhere: the fancy cars they drive to the villas they build.” He shook his head. “It’s going to explode, we’re all going to explode.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/opinion/ramallahs-mean-streets.html?_r=1

Islamics are going to explode?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?

It is a war crime to use indiscriminate weapons (weapons which can not be targeted). Skill is not a factor with indiscriminate weapons, by their nature. So a slingshot is not a correct analogy.

A barrel of acid dropped from a helicopter into a civilian crowd would be a better analogy. There is no way to target who gets hit with the acid. The nature of the weapon does not permit the acid to discriminate between military targets and civilian ones. This is a war crime.

A response which has the ability to target a military object (like a helicopter with an acid barrel) and is targeted to that military object is not a war crime, even if civilians unintentionally are hurt or killed in the process.

 

[Hollie]

Israeli response to attacks from Islamic terrorists in Gaza

 

[Shusha]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

 

[Hollie]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.

 

[Hollie]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.

What I posted is the truth. Killing Jews as a religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that the Islamist struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and their eventual extermination by muhammedans is intrinsic to Islamism. Hamas includes this message in its charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Let's review what I wrote, shall we?

"Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic terrorism carries consequences."

What part of the above is untrue?


We can certainly explore HAMAS's many aggressions, its stated determination to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew therein, its use of islamo-tunnels to wage war against Israeli civilians, its use of human shields to discourage retaliatory fire by Israel.
But then, all of that has been explained to you on many prior occasions, yet, you continue to cheer and flail your Pom Poms for dead islamo's when after all, dead islamo's are worth their weight in propaganda as cheap currency. .

 

[P F Tinmore]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.

What I posted is the truth. Killing Jews as a religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that the Islamist struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and their eventual extermination by muhammedans is intrinsic to Islamism. Hamas includes this message in its charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Let's review what I wrote, shall we?

"Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic terrorism carries consequences."

What part of the above is untrue?


We can certainly explore HAMAS's many aggressions, its stated determination to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew therein, its use of islamo-tunnels to wage war against Israeli civilians, its use of human shields to discourage retaliatory fire by Israel.
But then, all of that has been explained to you on many prior occasions, yet, you continue to cheer and flail your Pom Poms for dead islamo's when after all, dead islamo's are worth their weight in propaganda as cheap currency. .

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism crap?

 

[Hollie]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.

What I posted is the truth. Killing Jews as a religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that the Islamist struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and their eventual extermination by muhammedans is intrinsic to Islamism. Hamas includes this message in its charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Let's review what I wrote, shall we?

"Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic terrorism carries consequences."

What part of the above is untrue?


We can certainly explore HAMAS's many aggressions, its stated determination to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew therein, its use of islamo-tunnels to wage war against Israeli civilians, its use of human shields to discourage retaliatory fire by Israel.
But then, all of that has been explained to you on many prior occasions, yet, you continue to cheer and flail your Pom Poms for dead islamo's when after all, dead islamo's are worth their weight in propaganda as cheap currency. .

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism crap?

Still ducking direct questions. What part of my comments above are not true?

 

[Phoenall]

Hamas uses the best weapons it has available to it.

So committing war crimes (firing indiscriminately into civilian areas) is acceptable if that's all you got? And this from the one who insists that Israel accurately pin point targets in Gaza so as never to harm a hair on a single civilian head. Double standards much?

Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?

Niether as the civilian in both cases should have been removed to a place of safety, unless your attack is of a terrorist nature and then it is a war crime and you should be charged with it.

That was the criteria used by the UN in determining that the qassams are illegal weapons, because their nature means they cant be guided

 

[Phoenall]

Once again you post a long video which presents many different ideas and fail to make any comments with which to start a discussion.

I didn't watch the entire video, largely because it is not especially interesting or full of fresh ideas. But something around minute 5 piqued my interest and poses this question:

Can men of a certain age (teenagers through late 30's) be civilians? Can they be victims?

The answer seems obvious to me: Of course they CAN. The question is, ARE they?

For example, when an event is portrayed as being an attack on civilians, outside a school for example, and the presence of women and children is implied, if not stated and yet the dead are ALL men of a certain age -- what are the chances that those men ARE civilians?

I am glad you noticed that little detail. Most would not. But this explains why, when the world says the the civilian deaths in Gaza is 80%, Israel's numbers are 50%. Israel ASSUMES that all males of fighting age are, in fact, militants. This is not true but Israel uses it to give a lower number than everyone else.

This video also gets into Israel's use of indiscriminate weapons. It also explains Israel's use of its Dahiya Doctrine which is Israel's plan for mass destruction of civilian infrastructure and, of course, any civilians who happen to get in the way.

You've managed to do nothing more than float silly conspiracy theories and ignore the facts. Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists. Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians.

Islamic terrorism carries consequences.

How many times does the above need to be written out for you?

Just keep saying it in hopes that someday it may become true.

What I posted is the truth. Killing Jews as a religious practice is a basic message of Hamas, which believes that the Islamist struggle against Jews—not only Israelis—and their eventual extermination by muhammedans is intrinsic to Islamism. Hamas includes this message in its charter: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).


Let's review what I wrote, shall we?

"Israel responds to acts of Islamic terrorism / acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic civilians are put at risk of death by your Islamic terrorist heroes who wage acts of war from areas that are populated by Islamic civilians."

What part of the above is untrue?


"Islamic terrorism carries consequences."

What part of the above is untrue?


We can certainly explore HAMAS's many aggressions, its stated determination to destroy Israel and slaughter every Jew therein, its use of islamo-tunnels to wage war against Israeli civilians, its use of human shields to discourage retaliatory fire by Israel.
But then, all of that has been explained to you on many prior occasions, yet, you continue to cheer and flail your Pom Poms for dead islamo's when after all, dead islamo's are worth their weight in propaganda as cheap currency. .

Are you still pimping Israel's terrorism crap?

Are you still denying that hamas is a terrorist organisation, along with fatah, PLO and the muslim brotherhood. It is not Israel's but the civilised world that see them as terrorists.

 

[Phoenall]

I don't see the Mandate System as being an extension of a Colonial Power.

Really? The Mandate system was the workaround adopted by Britain and France to gain new "colonies" from the defeated Ottomans without them being called "colonies"; a diplomatic fig leaf that was required due to their previous declaration that they had not gone to war to obtain new territories for their respective empires.

So, Syria is a French colony?

Was. After they denied the Syrians self determination in 1920 and carved up the old Ottoman areas at San Remo. Syria only became independant in 1946

LINK ? ? ?

 

[Challenger]

Why don't they just stop attacking? The cause of the "not being left alone" is the attacks.

Zionist Israel provokes and has provoked most of the attacks from Gaza; a tactic they've used since the 1930's and taught to them by Orde Wingate.

 

[Challenger]

Not at all, it's merely a measure of the disparity in weaponry that exists between the various Gazan Resistance movements and the IDF/IAF. If I try and hit a soldier with a slingshot, miss and hit a bystander, that's the nature of the weapon I'm using and my skill or lack thereof. If the soldier responds with a burst of automatic fire and hits not only me but the bystander, is he a war criminal, am I?

It is a war crime to use indiscriminate weapons (weapons which can not be targeted). Skill is not a factor with indiscriminate weapons, by their nature. So a slingshot is not a correct analogy.

A barrel of acid dropped from a helicopter into a civilian crowd would be a better analogy. There is no way to target who gets hit with the acid. The nature of the weapon does not permit the acid to discriminate between military targets and civilian ones. This is a war crime.

A response which has the ability to target a military object (like a helicopter with an acid barrel) and is targeted to that military object is not a war crime, even if civilians unintentionally are hurt or killed in the process.

Artillery and mortars are indiscriminate as are unguided bombs and rockets fired from aircraft. The IDF/IAF are therefore war criminals.