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

[SherriMunnerlyn]

This attack was on a civilian house with a civilian who was killed inside, obviously in a civilian area. Either it was a direct attack or indiscriminate attack , both unlawful.under Protocol 1, Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

[Kondor3]

"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

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

 

[Indeependent]

"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

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

So there was a riot.

 

[Kondor3]

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

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

 

[Kondor3]

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=

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

 

[Kondor3]

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=

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

The charge is that an 85-year-old man died from tear-gas inhalation or related.

No human shield usage was alleged during the course of the incident.

Non sequitur.

 

[Kondor3]

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=

This was not a military conflict (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

The Humanitarian Law (Geneva Convention) really is not applicable.

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.

(COMMENT)

Law Enforcement Agencies (all over the world) use CS/CN as a RCA, including nearly all the Arab League Countries, to disperse in the most non-lethal fashion possible.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Kondor3]

This attack was on a civilian house with a civilian who was killed inside, obviously in a civilian area. Either it was a direct attack or indiscriminate attack , both unlawful.under Protocol 1, Fourth Geneva Convention.

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

--------------------

This police action focused upon riot suppression.

Chances are excellent that the tear-gas shell in question broke the old man's window by accident rather than being intentionally fired into the house.

How many tear-gas shells were fired during the course of this riot-suppression action?

How many of those shells landed in or near the old man's house?

There are a great many things that we do not yet know about this incident.

It is FAR too early in the discovery process to be slinging-about unfounded allegations of targeting and the like.

It's too bad the old man died.

People DO die in riot-suppression actions, directly, and indirectly, as is the case here.

Did the old fellow's respiratory system give out?

Did the old fellow have a heart attack?

Was the cause of death the chemicals in the tear-gas shell?

Was the cause of death the sudden exertion of having to evacuate his house quickly?

Was the old man frightened to death and his ticker just couldn't take it?

Why were Palestinians rioting in the proximity of his house?

Did they not know that there was an 85-year-old man in there with a bad ticker?

I mean, after all, it's their neighborhood.

There are a great many unanswered questions about this incident, and we need to hear from both sides, before proceeding to indictment, never mind judgment.

Anything less than multi-faceted discovery renders such false premature judgments on a par with any Kangaroo Court one could conjure up.

The Israeli authorities used tear-gas to disperse the rioters as every country in the world uses tear-gas to disperse rioters - including the United States.

And an old man died.

Bad luck, but...

Shit happens.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

It is an Occupation so the rules governing Occupation apply.

That takes us to The Fourth Geneva Convention.

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=

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

The charge is that an 85-year-old man died from tear-gas inhalation or related.

No human shield usage was alleged during the course of the incident.

Non sequitur.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel.occupies Palestine. 24/7 for the past 45 years.

The rules of Occupation prohibit targeting civilians and civilian objects.

I did not claim there was a human shield issue raised by this killing.

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=

This was not a military engagement (attack).

This was a police action - riot suppression.

The charge is that an 85-year-old man died from tear-gas inhalation or related.

No human shield usage was alleged during the course of the incident.

Non sequitur.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel needs to stop murdering Palestinian civilians in acts that are war crimes.

 

[Kondor3]

Israel needs to stop murdering Palestinian civilians in acts that are war crimes.

1. Israel rejects the assertion that it is an occupying power.

2. Occupying powers are entitled to suppress riots and to restore order.

3. The incident was a matter of riot suppression - whether under the aegis of 'occupation' or not.

4. People get hurt sometimes during the course of riot suppression.

5. There was nothing about the tear-gas shell breaking the old man's window that constitutes 'intentional targeting'.

6. Until 'intentional targeting' of the old man can be proven, 'Murder' and 'War Crimes' are off the table.

If you feel differently, feel free to file charges at the Hague or the ICC.

Those judicial types will laugh you out of the courtroom even faster than we do here.

 

[Billo_Really]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It wasn't accidental, it was deliberate.

This wasn't the first time the IDF has fired tear gas at someone.

They have "priors".

And judging the responses from all the Israeli kiss-asses in this thread, these IDF pricks think they can continue to get away with it.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

I shall take the word of the UN that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza.


Watch "UN: We still consider Gaza "occupied"" on YouTube

 

[Kondor3]

gas canister flying accidentally into his window is not targeting.

It wasn't accidental, it was deliberate...

You may present your evidence pertaining to this incident at your discretion.

Until you do, we can safely ignore this allegation.

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Kondor3]

I shall take the word of the UN that Israel occupies East Jerusalem and the West Bank and Gaza...

Doesn't matter.

Occupied or no.

Israeli forces were engaged in riot suppression, not a military action.

 

[Billo_Really]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Funny how you take the opposite position when it comes to the Palestinian's.

What a fuckin' hypocrite you are!

 

[Kondor3]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Funny how you take the opposite position when it comes to the Palestinian's.

What a fuckin' hypocrite you are!

Non sequitur.

You may produce your incident-specific evidence of deliberate targeting, in order to substantiate your claim...

"...It wasn't accidental, it was deliberate..."

...at any time.

Until then, it will be safe to assume that you are just talking out of your ass, with respect to your allegation.

Present your incident-specific evidence... if you have any.

 

[MHunterB]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Funny how you take the opposite position when it comes to the Palestinian's.

What a fuckin' hypocrite you are!

Billo-bully must've been looking in his mirror when he posted that.......