Israel attacks civilians

[Billo_Really]

Maybe they should stop building on land that belongs to the government?

That land isn't the governments', you fuckin' internet troll!

And this is not a debatable issue. It's an "occupation", which does not imply ownership, because it is a temporary condition. Only in this case, it's lasted 45 years. That's why I think it's time for military action against you and your Israeli insurgents to blow your ******* lying asses back to the Green Line.

And you can shove your little troll response up your ass, when you get around to your fake rebuttal.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe they should stop building on land that belongs to the government?

That land isn't the governments', you fuckin' internet troll!

And this is not a debatable issue. It's an "occupation", which does not imply ownership, because it is a temporary condition. Only in this case, it's lasted 45 years. That's why I think it's time for military action against you and your Israeli insurgents to blow your ******* lying asses back to the Green Line.

And you can shove your little troll response up your ass, when you get around to your fake rebuttal.

You keep saying it's an occupation. Who did they take it from?

 

[Billo_Really]

You keep saying it's an occupation. Who did they take it from?

You don't take, what you occupy.

You might as well stop right there, because this is not a debatable issue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep saying it's an occupation. Who did they take it from?

You don't take, what you occupy.

You might as well stop right there, because this is not a debatable issue.

Who did they occupy it from?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep saying it's an occupation. Who did they take it from?

You don't take, what you occupy.

You might as well stop right there, because this is not a debatable issue.

When does Germany get back the land these foreigners have been occupying since the end of WWI?

 

[Billo_Really]

Who did they occupy it from?

Not interested in your trolling BS...





...we'll pick it up, when you have something of substance to say.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who did they occupy it from?

Not interested in your trolling BS...





...we'll pick it up, when you have something of substance to say.

Run away!

 

[Billo_Really]

When does Germany get back the land these foreigners have been occupying since the end of WWI?

That is a completely irrelevant issue with an entirely different set of circumstances. Germany had internationally recognized borders (that included the area) in question, Israel does not. If they did, it wouldn't be considered an "occupation", according to IHL.

I don't agree with the extent of the punishment towards Germany after WWI, but it is, what it is.

 

[Billo_Really]

Run away!

I'm still here, I'm just not going to entertain your trolling BS!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When does Germany get back the land these foreigners have been occupying since the end of WWI?

That is a completely irrelevant issue with an entirely different set of circumstances. Germany had internationally recognized borders (that included the area) in question, Israel does not. If they did, it wouldn't be considered an "occupation", according to IHL.

I don't agree with the extent of the punishment towards Germany after WWI, but it is, what it is.

That is a completely irrelevant issue with an entirely different set of circumstances.

In Germany's case, an aggressor lost and lost land.

In the case of the Arabs, an aggressor lost and lost land.

I'll wait for you to explain the difference.

 

[docmauser1]

WEST BANK, (PIC)-- Haaretz newspaper said the Israeli civil administration issued 13,000 demolition warnings against Palestinians accused of unlicensed construction in Area C of the West Bank.

Palistanians should've known that their settling-squatting occupation has a demolition hazard.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Poor Tinnie.

Have you read the Forth Geneva Convention? If not you need to read up before you criticize.

Yes, it shows that your terrorist buddies should not attack Israeli civilians.

Post quote.

 

[georgephillip]

WEST BANK, (PIC)-- Haaretz newspaper said the Israeli civil administration issued 13,000 demolition warnings against Palestinians accused of unlicensed construction in Area C of the West Bank.

Palistanians should've known that their settling-squatting occupation has a demolition hazard.

"Israeli soldiers seen standing by as settlers use live fire against Palestinians

"A violent series of events that culminated in Israeli settlers apparently opening fire with live ammunition on Palestinian villagers in the West Bank under the gaze of Israeli soldiers has been captured in a series of films posted on YouTube."

Israeli soldiers seen standing by as settlers use live fire against Palestinians - Telegraph

 

[docmauser1]

WEST BANK, (PIC)-- Haaretz newspaper said the Israeli civil administration issued 13,000 demolition warnings against Palestinians accused of unlicensed construction in Area C of the West Bank.

Palistanians should've known that their settling-squatting occupation has a demolition hazard.

"A violent series of events that culminated in Israeli settlers apparently opening fire with live ammunition on Palestinian villagers in the West Bank under the gaze of Israeli soldiers has been captured in a series of films posted on YouTube."

As we've established earlier, palistanian settling-squatting occupation comes with its very own occupational hazards. They've yet much to learn, of course.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Have you read the Forth Geneva Convention? If not you need to read up before you criticize.

Yes, it shows that your terrorist buddies should not attack Israeli civilians.

Post quote.

You want me to show you that civilians should not be attacked?
Damn, you have got to be the stupidest person I have ever dealt with.
Try this, you single digit IQ cretin.....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

 

[P F Tinmore]

Yes, it shows that your terrorist buddies should not attack Israeli civilians.

Post quote.

You want me to show you that civilians should not be attacked?
Damn, you have got to be the stupidest person I have ever dealt with.
Try this, you single digit IQ cretin.....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

NO quote, dude, dud, whatever?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post quote.

You want me to show you that civilians should not be attacked?
Damn, you have got to be the stupidest person I have ever dealt with.
Try this, you single digit IQ cretin.....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

NO quote, dude, dud, whatever?

I'll wait for your quote proving it is okay for your terrorist buddies to attack civilians.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You want me to show you that civilians should not be attacked?
Damn, you have got to be the stupidest person I have ever dealt with.
Try this, you single digit IQ cretin.....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949

NO quote, dude, dud, whatever?

I'll wait for your quote proving it is okay for your terrorist buddies to attack civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

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:...(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

 

[Hossfly]

NO quote, dude, dud, whatever?

I'll wait for your quote proving it is okay for your terrorist buddies to attack civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

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:...(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

What about exclusions, Blackstone?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

NO quote, dude, dud, whatever?

I'll wait for your quote proving it is okay for your terrorist buddies to attack civilians.

B. -- ' In occupied territories; ' protection is accorded to all persons who are not of the nationality of the occupying State.

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:...(2) ' the whole population ' of occupied territories (excluding nationals of the Occupying Power).

International Humanitarian Law - Fourth 1949 Geneva Convention

Clearly Israel isn't occupying Gaza, so Gazans have no right to attack Jews in Gaza (and there aren't any).
Explain what gives the Gazans the right to attack civilians in Israel?
And thanks for the link, now just cut and paste the part that says it's okay.