montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,127
- 280
You need to read the Hamas Covenant. You don't even know it is not a charter. LOL
Israel Should Just Employ the Geneva Conventions
- Thread starter Boston1
- Start date
You need to read the Hamas Covenant. You don't even know it is not a charter. LOL
- Thread starter
- #142
Most of Tinmore's questions either contain a blatantly false premise or are indicative of an inability to follow the topic.
I tend to ignore most.
The simple fact that the Jordanians illegally stripped the Arab Muslims of Israel of their Jordanian citizenship for political purposes leaving millions stateless is etched in stone.
There's really no arguing it.
The only question is why is this Israel's problem ? Israel, just like any other country has the right to expel hostile forces from its territory. Including the remnant Arab armies AND THEIR DECENDENTS from the 48 war of independence.
- Banned
- #143
As Rocco noted - get with the program.
Play your own game. Do you have a list of the Hamas leaders who disavowed that document?
Just curious.
- Banned
- #144
Still not doing your homework, LOL.
Come back after you have read the Charter. LOL
- Banned
- #145
I'm not sure there is enough room on the US Constitition for all members of congress to sign it.
Houston, we have a problem.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,371
- 4,684
- 1,815
The so called Hamas Charter was not used in their election campaign nor did it become Palestinian law after their election.
The only ones using it is Israel.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,371
- 4,684
- 1,815
- Banned
- #148
Indeed. Trying out for the Islamic swim team. - the backstroke?
Indeed, you might want to revise the title of the Hamas Charter to something like "The Happy-Fun Book of We Want To Kill the Jews... But Keep That On The Down-Low"
- Banned
- #149
You're digging an islamo-hole you can't get out of, tinny.
- Thread starter
- #150
Of course not, they were all executed and dragged through the streets
Typical terrorist response to anyone who suggests peace
- Banned
- #151
- Thread starter
- #152
Can you imagine sleeping under such a brutal occupation ?
The Arab Muslim occupation of Israel is outrageous. Employ the GC and get it over with
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,371
- 4,684
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #154
Israel would actually be within its rights to detain and execute unlawful or unprivileged combatants IE saboteurs and spies however, Israel is making every attempt to follow a higher path and take the high ground in its treatment of violent Arab Muslims.
As it sit the Arab Muslims in Gaza and in the Israeli territories are happy to execute prisoners without due process as Tinmore and others have so graciously pointed out. However I'd agree that Israel takes this higher road except for that Israel allows these unlawful combatants to remain in country. IMHO they should be summarily repatriated.
Quote
“The ICRC was uncertain which category of persons it was desired to cover. The present Conference was engaged in framing a Convention to protect members of armed forces and similar categories of persons, such as members of organized resistance movements, and another convention to protect civil- ians. Although the two Conventions might appear to cover all the categories concerned, irregular belligerents were not actually protected. It was an open question whether it was desirable to give protection to persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war; but in view of the fact that isolated cases might arise which deserved to be taken into account, it would appear necessary to provide for a general clause of protection, similar to the one con- tained in the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the Soviet Delegate had referred. It did not however seem expedient to introduce this conception into an Article, the main object of which was to define clearly all the categories of persons who should be protected by the present Convention [III].” 20
From this statement, three essential points can be singled out:
First, Mr Wilhelm interpreted the Stockholm drafts of GC III and IV as not protecting irregular belligerents or “persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war”. This is rather surprising, given that the per- sonal scope of application of GC IV was very broadly defined,21 unless he meant that such persons might be covered by the personal field of applica- tion but that the substantive provisions did not really accord protection (if he limited his statement to unlawful combatants on the battlefield as defended nowadays in the legal literature by, for example, Baxter, Draper and Kalshoven).
Second, he recognized the need for minimum protection of such per- sons, which can be derived from the Martens Clause.
Third, this protection should not be spelled out in a convention deal- ing with POWs.
The Danish delegate responded by saying that “it was not a question of granting the persons referred to in the paragraph the same rights and privi- leges as those of prisoners of war, but simply of affording “a minimum of pro- tection”, “of preventing such persons from being subjected to inhuman treat- ment or summarily shot”.22
Other delegates were not opposed to providing a minimum of protec- tion, but could not agree that such a protection clause be introduced in GC III. Thus the proposed paragraph 3 of draft Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4] was not retained.23 Instead the Conference essentially agreed upon what became the substance of Article 5 of GC III (i.e. protection as POWs for “persons resisting the enemy” until a competent tribunal determines their status). The second part of the latter proposal, which read: “Even in cases where the decision of the above-mentioned authorities would not allow these persons to benefit under the present Convention, they shall nevertheless remain under the safeguard and rule of the principles of International Law as derived
from the usages prevailing among civilized nations, of human rights and the demands of the public conscience”, was likewise not retained.24 In the end, the Danish delegate only asked as cited in the quotation below, for the Summary Record to mention that his view regarding interpretation of Article 3 had met with no objections.25 The Committee’s discussions were summarized as follows in the Report to the Plenary Assembly:
“Certain Delegations wished to extend the application of the Convention to cover still other categories of persons. They had particularly in mind civil- ians who had taken up arms to defend their life, their health, their near ones, their livelihood, under an attack which violated the laws and conditions of war and desired to ensure that such civilians falling into enemy hands should not be shot after summary judgment but should be treated according to the provisions or at least the humanitarian principles of the Convention. Numerous possible solutions of this problem were carefully considered but in the end a majority of the Committee came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to take the course proposed without the risk of indirectly weak- ening the protection afforded to persons coming under the various cate- gories of Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4]. One Delegation pointed out, in particu- lar, that the acceptance of the proposed extension would be tantamount to rejecting the principles generally accepted at The Hague, and recognized in the Prisoner of War Convention. It was, according to the views of this Delegation, essential that war, even illegal war, should be governed by those principles. Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.” 26
In the plenary debates on Article 5 of GC III (decision by a competent tribunal in case of doubt) the issue of persons not fulfilling the conditions to qualify as POWs, but participating nevertheless in hostilities (i.e. unlawful combatants), arose again. Captain Mouton (Netherlands), arguing in favour of
a court decision instead of a decision by a “competent authority”, claimed that the latter approach would mean “in practice that (...) the military commander on the spot ... decides whether a person who has fallen into his hands comes under Article 3 [GC III] or does not belong to Article 3. (...) It means that if he decides that he does not belong to Article 3 he will be considered to be a franc tireur and be put against the wall and shot on the spot.”
End Quote
From the previous link provided ;--)
As it sit the Arab Muslims in Gaza and in the Israeli territories are happy to execute prisoners without due process as Tinmore and others have so graciously pointed out. However I'd agree that Israel takes this higher road except for that Israel allows these unlawful combatants to remain in country. IMHO they should be summarily repatriated.
Quote
“The ICRC was uncertain which category of persons it was desired to cover. The present Conference was engaged in framing a Convention to protect members of armed forces and similar categories of persons, such as members of organized resistance movements, and another convention to protect civil- ians. Although the two Conventions might appear to cover all the categories concerned, irregular belligerents were not actually protected. It was an open question whether it was desirable to give protection to persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war; but in view of the fact that isolated cases might arise which deserved to be taken into account, it would appear necessary to provide for a general clause of protection, similar to the one con- tained in the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the Soviet Delegate had referred. It did not however seem expedient to introduce this conception into an Article, the main object of which was to define clearly all the categories of persons who should be protected by the present Convention [III].” 20
From this statement, three essential points can be singled out:
First, Mr Wilhelm interpreted the Stockholm drafts of GC III and IV as not protecting irregular belligerents or “persons who did not conform to the laws and customs of war”. This is rather surprising, given that the per- sonal scope of application of GC IV was very broadly defined,21 unless he meant that such persons might be covered by the personal field of applica- tion but that the substantive provisions did not really accord protection (if he limited his statement to unlawful combatants on the battlefield as defended nowadays in the legal literature by, for example, Baxter, Draper and Kalshoven).
Second, he recognized the need for minimum protection of such per- sons, which can be derived from the Martens Clause.
Third, this protection should not be spelled out in a convention deal- ing with POWs.
The Danish delegate responded by saying that “it was not a question of granting the persons referred to in the paragraph the same rights and privi- leges as those of prisoners of war, but simply of affording “a minimum of pro- tection”, “of preventing such persons from being subjected to inhuman treat- ment or summarily shot”.22
Other delegates were not opposed to providing a minimum of protec- tion, but could not agree that such a protection clause be introduced in GC III. Thus the proposed paragraph 3 of draft Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4] was not retained.23 Instead the Conference essentially agreed upon what became the substance of Article 5 of GC III (i.e. protection as POWs for “persons resisting the enemy” until a competent tribunal determines their status). The second part of the latter proposal, which read: “Even in cases where the decision of the above-mentioned authorities would not allow these persons to benefit under the present Convention, they shall nevertheless remain under the safeguard and rule of the principles of International Law as derived
from the usages prevailing among civilized nations, of human rights and the demands of the public conscience”, was likewise not retained.24 In the end, the Danish delegate only asked as cited in the quotation below, for the Summary Record to mention that his view regarding interpretation of Article 3 had met with no objections.25 The Committee’s discussions were summarized as follows in the Report to the Plenary Assembly:
“Certain Delegations wished to extend the application of the Convention to cover still other categories of persons. They had particularly in mind civil- ians who had taken up arms to defend their life, their health, their near ones, their livelihood, under an attack which violated the laws and conditions of war and desired to ensure that such civilians falling into enemy hands should not be shot after summary judgment but should be treated according to the provisions or at least the humanitarian principles of the Convention. Numerous possible solutions of this problem were carefully considered but in the end a majority of the Committee came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to take the course proposed without the risk of indirectly weak- ening the protection afforded to persons coming under the various cate- gories of Article 3 [GC III, Art. 4]. One Delegation pointed out, in particu- lar, that the acceptance of the proposed extension would be tantamount to rejecting the principles generally accepted at The Hague, and recognized in the Prisoner of War Convention. It was, according to the views of this Delegation, essential that war, even illegal war, should be governed by those principles. Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.” 26
In the plenary debates on Article 5 of GC III (decision by a competent tribunal in case of doubt) the issue of persons not fulfilling the conditions to qualify as POWs, but participating nevertheless in hostilities (i.e. unlawful combatants), arose again. Captain Mouton (Netherlands), arguing in favour of
a court decision instead of a decision by a “competent authority”, claimed that the latter approach would mean “in practice that (...) the military commander on the spot ... decides whether a person who has fallen into his hands comes under Article 3 [GC III] or does not belong to Article 3. (...) It means that if he decides that he does not belong to Article 3 he will be considered to be a franc tireur and be put against the wall and shot on the spot.”
End Quote
From the previous link provided ;--)
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,371
- 4,684
- 1,815
They had particularly in mind civil- ians who had taken up arms to defend their life, their health, their near ones, their livelihood, under an attack which violated the laws and conditions of war and desired to ensure that such civilians falling into enemy hands should not be shot after summary judgment but should be treated according to the provisions or at least the humanitarian principles of the Convention.
Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.” 26
Nevertheless, another Delegation asked that the Summary Record should mention that no objections had been raised, during the dis- cussion in the Special Committee, against his view that Article 3 should not be interpreted in such a way as to deprive persons, not covered by the provi- sions of Article 3, of their human rights or of their right of self-defence against illegal acts.” 26
All people have the right to defend themselves, their family, their property, and their country. Period.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration
anotherlife
Gold Member
I wonder why they haven't imported the Israel war into Europe yet, even after its 50 years runtime now.
- Banned
- #157
EYUP. Of course, under the auspices of islamo-barbarism, there's no reason to believe that Islamo-justice is served by a trial, with you know, a period of discovery, or with witnesses present. Islamo-barbarian justice of the Arab-Moslem kind is served by Islamic terrorists who mow down people in their barbarian version of street justice.
Criminal gangs of Islamic terrorists meting out islamo-justice to their fellow Islamic terrorists.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 83,371
- 4,684
- 1,815
Collaboration is a big problem in Gaza. Killing people at random, as you imply, does not address that problem.
IOW, you are full of crap.
anotherlife
Gold Member
Do you know what the problem is with the Geneva convention? That it stops the Jews from doing what they like the most, that is tormenting their neighbors. So they will never accept it, they didn't in the Soviet Union, and they don't in Israel either.
- Banned
- #160
So, tell us about the trial proceedings.
Otherwise, define what constitutes "collaboration" with reference to Joooooos obviously.
I just think it's so cute that the Islamic terrorists in Gaza are nothing more than ISIS lite.
Similar threads
