P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,502
- 4,889
- 1,815
PF Tinmore, et al,
You are absolutely correct, and still entirely wrong in you application.
(COMMENT)A lot actually as it is against International Law to wage war on civilians, just as it is against International law to commit terrorist acts on civilians. It does not matter that the country is occupying the land, any attacks on civilians will just tighten the noose as defined in the Geneva conventions.
Even when the definition of protected persons is set out in this way, it may seem rather complicated. Nevertheless, disregarding points of detail, it will be seen that there are two main classes of protected person: (1) ' enemy nationals ' within the national territory of each of the Parties to the conflict and (2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).
</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=
What else you got?
You citation make a distinction between the "enemy population" (versus Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force) protected under the Geneva Convention from excesses from the Occupation Force. But the citizens from the country of the Occupation Force enjoy the protections of their home country; not occupation law.
Citizens of the country of the Occupation Force are protected by civil laws (both military, local civil and homeland law) and Article 68 of the Geneva Convention.
Again, as you say ... your rebuttal is irrelevant.
Most Respectfully,
R
I know there is a local problem with Israel but on the international level the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation.
And if you look closely, the terrorist label is a bunch of hooey.
