Israeli Settlers: Are They ‘Civilians’ or Legitimate Military Targets?

[fanger]

What leaves Hollow Hollie Befuddled is the actual wording "″Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam invalidates it, just as it invalidated others before it″.
Hamas Covenant - Wikipedia

 

[Shusha]

When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

ALL people who do not take part in the hostilities are civilians. I can't even believe we are discussing this. There is no legal basis for killing civilians. And its beyond disgusting that you are attempting to find one.

 

[montelatici]

When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

ALL people who do not take part in the hostilities are civilians. I can't even believe we are discussing this. There is no legal basis for killing civilians. And its beyond disgusting that you are attempting to find one.

Was it illegal for the native Americans to kill European settlers?

 

[Hollie]

When we reached the definition of civilians, we accepted the definition put forward by the Geneva Accord. The Israelis were surprised, as they did not expect that. We said that the settlers are not civilians and the answer was, yes, they are not.

ALL people who do not take part in the hostilities are civilians. I can't even believe we are discussing this. There is no legal basis for killing civilians. And its beyond disgusting that you are attempting to find one.

Was it illegal for the native Americans to kill European settlers?

It's not illegal for an Israeli to use deadly force to protect his/her life from an attack by an Islamic terrorist.

 

[Shusha]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

 

[Hollie]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

What The Monty is hoping for is that others will do the Jew killing that he is too impotent to do.

 

[Shusha]

The contrast between the rejection of civilians being arrested for committing crimes and the calling for the civilians to be killed as legitimate targets is appalling. How dare Jews arrest criminals? But of course Jews are legitimate targets.

 

[montelatici]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

No.

 

[montelatici]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

No.

So, your position is that the Native Americans should have not resisted the settler's existential threat to their people. How do you come to that conclusion? Is it because after the fact it is clear that resistance was futile or that the Native Americans had no right to exist.

 

[Shusha]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

 

[Roudy]

"is killing innocent Israeli civilians who are settlers legit"? Only a terrorist loving IslamoNazi, copying from an antisemitic conspiracy website would even propose such an insane question.

 

[montelatici]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

My question was clear, you fail to answer it. Do a native people, like the native americans, have a moral right to kill and attack civilian settlers intent on eliminating them as a people? Why can't you answer a simple question?

 

[Roudy]

When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it.

You get that from the Koran or the Hamas charter?

 

[Roudy]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

My question was clear, you fail to answer it. Do a native people, like the native americans, have a moral right to kill and attack civilian settlers intent on eliminating them as a people? Why can't you answer a simple question?

Well then, Jews also have a right to defend themselves, by whatever means, against IslamoNazi animals trying to commit a second holocaust on Jews in their religious, cultural, and ancestral homeland. Capice?

 

[Roudy]

...But do remember to celebrate the deaths of Islamic terrorists when they are cut down for doing what Islamic terrorists do.

So you celebrate when the IDF terrorists kill themselves which is 5 times more often than from Hamas and Fatah combined?

Interesting...

Is this the thanks the IDF gets for assisting the Pali IslamoNazis get to their much desired Islamic heaven with the 72 virgin donkeys?

 

[montelatici]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

My question was clear, you fail to answer it. Do a native people, like the native americans, have a moral right to kill and attack civilian settlers intent on eliminating them as a people? Why can't you answer a simple question?

Well then, Jews also have a right to defend themselves, by whatever means, against IslamoNazi animals trying to commit a second holocaust on Jews in their religious, cultural, and ancestral homeland. Capice?

The Zionists are European settlers in Palestine. Capisci?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

It is you who is dancing around the facts. The Palestinians have been attacked by a settler colonial project for a hundred years. And they do have the right to defend themselves. Settlers are a necessary, integral, and active part of that project. if it was not for the settlers, Israel would be no more than an office in Tel Aviv, if that. That is probably why they are exempt from protected status by the Geneva Convention.

That is not at all confusing to me.

 

[Roudy]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

My question was clear, you fail to answer it. Do a native people, like the native americans, have a moral right to kill and attack civilian settlers intent on eliminating them as a people? Why can't you answer a simple question?

Well then, Jews also have a right to defend themselves, by whatever means, against IslamoNazi animals trying to commit a second holocaust on Jews in their religious, cultural, and ancestral homeland. Capice?

The Zionists are European settlers in Palestine. Capisci?

Call it whatever bullshit invented name you want, like I said, the Jews have every right to defend themselves from Arab Muslim animals that go around killing innocent civilians. I'm not sure who's more sick and demented, genocidal maniacs who kill women and kids in the name of Allah in order to create the Islamic caliphate of Palestine, or psychos like you who label civilians such as women and kindsas legitimate military targets.

 

[Shusha]

Look, if you want to make an argument that it is legally and morally permissible to kill civilians -- have at it. I will read with interest your objective conditions for that. But I will continue to say that it is disgusting. Because it is.

Just answer the question. Was it "legal" for the Native Americans to attack European settlers?

What's your point? That its morally repugnant, even if technically legal at the time? Or that it is morally repugnant, and illegal? Or that it was morally permissible whether legal or not?

You are the one dancing around your point and failing to make it. My point is abundantly clear.

My question was clear, you fail to answer it. Do a native people, like the native americans, have a moral right to kill and attack civilian settlers intent on eliminating them as a people? Why can't you answer a simple question?

Have I been in any way unclear? It is neither morally nor legally correct to permit the murder of innocent civilians. I can't think of any circumstances where this would not be so. Further, in war, it is the responsibility of BOTH the attacking party and the defending party to protect civilians to the extent possible.

Are you arguing that there are conditions which make the murder of civilians legally and morally permissible? If so, under which conditions?