Elderly man , aged 85, dies after inhaling tear gas fired by Israeli forces

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We do know he was unlawfully targeted, a deliberate strike on the house or an indiscriminate strike, they both are unlawful targetings under international law.

Israel regularly attacks civilian houses and civilians with tear gas and tear gas canisters.

Focus, the targeted 85 year old man who.Israel murdered lived in Palestine.

We'll remind you of that, the next time you go off on one of your Tourettes Syndrome non sequitur religious rants.

And... actually... we're not discussing Palestine... we're discussing the death of an 85-year-old Palestinian, and whether his house was intentionally targeted or not, and if so, why.

We'll remind you of that, the next time you go off on one of your Tourettes Syndrome non sequitur religious rants.

We also do not yet know whether he was targeted.

Given that a tear-gas shell reportedly went through his window, intentional targeting of a particular individual seems unlikely at this early juncture.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

We are in the middle of nothing, it is obvious what happened.

Israel unlawfully targeted a civilian in his home, killing him.

And there could be a cow jumping over the moon. All I can do is laugh at the silly Zionist and the ways he tries to whitewash Israel's crimes. HOW pathetic!

There could, indeed, be a cow jumping over the moon, that is responsible for all this.

The point is, we do not yet know all the pertinent facts of the case.

There is no whitewashing going on here.

We are simply still in the middle of the discovery process, and cannot yet move to either indict or dismiss - insufficient evidence and testimony exists yet to do so.

Too early to say yet.

 

[aris2chat]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

 

[Indeependent]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

Islam has turned every area occupied by an Islamic animal into a non-civilian area.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

Islam has turned every area occupied by an Islamic animal into a non-civilian area.

You obviously are ignorant of the principles of international law.

 

[abu afak]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

MunnerDope,
Palestinkians have NO Military bases/areas. :^)
They wage War using Civilians and Civilian areas.

`

 

[aris2chat]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

MunnerDope,
Palestinkians have NO Military bases/areas. :^)
They wage War using Civilians and Civilian areas.

`

When rockets, fire bombs or even rocks are launched from those area, Israel has a right to respond. When protesters get too close to the fence, Israel sent a warning, with a tear gas canister in their direction, same as police anywhere in the world might do.

 

[Kondor3]

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

Islam has turned every area occupied by an Islamic animal into a non-civilian area.

You obviously are ignorant of the principles of international law.

As are you.

 

[Kondor3]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

Rubbish.

The Israelis were engaged in riot suppression, yes?

Every country in the world deals with rioters from time to time.

Tear-gas is an acceptable device for dispersing a crowd.

Crowds almost always consist of civilians who are acting in an unlawful and unruly manner.

Riot-suppression is a necessary precursor to the restoration of order.

It would be far easier to name a country that has NOT suffered riots or that has NOT resorted to tear-gas to suppress a riot at one point or another in the past 100 years.

And, sometimes, people get hurt, when tear-gas is used.

Dog bites man.

It's unfortunate that the Palestinian Old Man died, if, indeed, that's what killed him.

But the odds are EXTREMELY HIGH that he was not targeted.

And the odds are EXTREMELY HIGH that his house was not targeted.

Targeting is an intentional act.

It is possible, albeit unlikely, that his house was targeted, but that is not yet proven, nor even supported by any credible evidence that has come to light amongst us to date.

The odds against the Israelis knowing the old man was in the house, and then shooting a tear-gas canister through his window in order to flush him out, or to intentionally harm him, is sooooo unlikely that the odds approach... if not quite attain... impossibility.

Utilizing tear-gas as a riot-suppression device does not violate international law.

You are welcome to prove otherwise... including relevant citations AND relevant judicial opinions and interpretations AND national-level acknowledgements of the correctness of same, of a generic (non-IP-conflict) nature, by competent legal authority...

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

You obviously are ignorant of the principles of international law that require distinctions be made from targeting military targets and civilians.

It is not an accident when used in a civilian area, it would be an indiscriminate attack and unlawful .

MunnerDope,
Palestinkians have NO Military bases/areas. :^)
They wage War using Civilians and Civilian areas.

`

When rockets, fire bombs or even rocks are launched from those area, Israel has a right to respond. When protesters get too close to the fence, Israel sent a warning, with a tear gas canister in their direction, same as police anywhere in the world might do.

 

[aris2chat]

You obviously are ignorant of the principles of international law that require distinctions be made from targeting military targets and civilians.

MunnerDope,
Palestinkians have NO Military bases/areas. :^)
They wage War using Civilians and Civilian areas.

`

When rockets, fire bombs or even rocks are launched from those area, Israel has a right to respond. When protesters get too close to the fence, Israel sent a warning, with a tear gas canister in their direction, same as police anywhere in the world might do.

If military use a civilian area to operate from, it is legal to target that area. The fore mentioned military is in violation of the law, but cannot hide in civilian areas without endangering the civilians. Military/militant targets can be targeted, those areas become military targets by opponent.

When a palestinian colonel moved into a building, and uses that building, even a residence, for operational meeting it become a legal target. If artillery is placed on a hospital, that hospital becomes a target. If a tank is parked in a building's parking garage, that building becomes a target. If a room in a building is used as an armory or to make bombs, that building becomes a legal target. Fire rockets from a school, that school become a legal target. Can't use civilians to hide behind or they will become collateral damage in the process of targeting you. Just because civilians are around you, does not make you safe. You are endangering them by your actions. You are the one in violation of the law, not the military targeting you.

Palestinians know very well they are endangering their own people but if anyone gets hurt it makes for good headlines, even though the palestinians are in the wrong.
Can't operate from civilian areas and then yell olly olly oxen free and thumb your nose thinking you can't be touched.

Want to take it up with a judge of international law?

Targeting a bus hoping to catch a soldier, on or off duty however is not legal. If someone was firing from inside the bus, then you could target it.

Palestinians hijacking a bus and killing civilians after invading Israel is illegal. Targeting a school for no other reason that it is convenient or Israeli is illegal. Blowing up a pizzeria fruit market, a wedding reception or disco is illegal. There is no military operation or reason to target other than terrorizing civilians and maximize kills.

If a crowd is gathered near a military fence and a canister flies over their heads and into a window, it is not targeting those inside. How could they know there was an 85 yr old man inside to target? You don't use a laser tag to fire a tear gas canister. Why would they target an 85 yr old man? Was he a known terrorist?

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

It is very common knowledge that "tear gas" (CS gas, CR gas, CN gas) are considered in the general family of non-lethal and compliance technology, in use as Riot Control Agents (RCA); with the intention of being explicitly designed and primarily employed so as to incapacitate personnel.

• NOTE: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) also regulates the use of RCAs. It is generally understood that peacetime uses of RCAs, such as normal peacekeeping operations, law enforcement operations, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, counter-terrorist and hostage rescue operations, and noncombatant rescue operations conducted outside such international and non-international armed conflicts are unaffected by the Convention.

Islam has turned every area occupied by an Islamic animal into a non-civilian area.

You obviously are ignorant of the principles of international law.

As are you.

(COMMENT)

The CWC does not expressly prohibit the use of RCAs for extraterritorial peacekeeping activities as the phrase "including domestic riot control" is not exhaustive of "law enforcement" purposes.

If the Israelis used the same "tear gas" domestically as they used in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt), then it is outside the CWC prohibition. The prohibition states that each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents (RCAs) as a method of warfare.

Riot control agents

Riot control agents (RCAs) such as CS were the topic of long and heated debates during the CWC negotiations. At issue were their inclusion in the treaty and the restrictions that would be imposed upon their use.

In the end, a compromise was reached under which States Parties are to declare to the OPCW the RCAs they possess for law enforcement purposes. Though use is allowed for these purposes, it is prohibited as a method of warfare.

Furthermore, if a State Party considers that an RCA has been used against it as a method of warfare, it has the right to request assistance from the OPCW. Such a request will trigger an investigation of alleged use (IAU) by the Organisation, after which a decision will be made by the Executive Council regarding the provision of further assistance.

SOURCE: Riot control agents

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"The international humanitarian law rule of distinction in attacks holds that in the conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict parties to the conflict must target only lawful military objectives and never civilians or civilian objects. An attack that does not target one or more lawful military objectives is an indiscriminate attack. This includes the use of an inherently indiscriminate weapon. If conducted intentionally it may constitute a war crime."

Distinction in attacks (under IHL) | Weapons Law Encyclopedia

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Proportionality in attacks (under IHL)


The international humanitarian law rule of proportionality in attacks holds that in the conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict parties to the conflict must not launch an attack against lawful military objectives if the attack 'may be expected' to result in excessive civilian harm (deaths, injuries, or damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof) compared to the 'concrete and direct military advantage anticipated'. If conducted intentionally a disproportionate attack may constitute a war crime.

Proportionality in attacks (under IHL) | Weapons Law Encyclopedia

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

The legal prohibiting the use of human shields

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

7. 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.

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

THIS is a very important rule, that states a violation of these rules by one party does not absolve the other party of obligations owed to civilians.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57*[ Link ]*

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

 

[Hossfly]

THIS is a very important rule, that states a violation of these rules by one party does not absolve the other party of obligations owed to civilians.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57*[ Link ]*

</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type=

Protesters were rioting and throwing rocks. at soldiers. Tear gas was dispensed, an old man died. Rioters were dispersed. Mission accomplished. Sorry about the old man dying. Shit happens.