Lipush
Gold Member
I don't understand why Mr. Tinmore insists that killing Israeli people should be considered legal.
Palestinian resistance fighters survive three targeted bombings
- Thread starter P F Tinmore
- Start date
I don't understand why Mr. Tinmore insists that killing Israeli people should be considered legal.
SherriMunnerlyn
VIP Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 12,201
- 265
- 83
Actually, there are rules protecting civilians in Israel from attack, as well, they are just not found in the same place, rules that protect civilians in combat. I do not think the terminology is the same, in the rules regarding occupations the phrase is participating in the hostilities. That is not the case with respect to the other rules. But practically speaking, I do not know if the analysis is that much different, especially when you look at the Geneva Convention provisions and all of the Protocols to it, later Amendments essentially. Consider, for example, an Israeli soldier, if he were targeted while on duty he is clearly a military target. But what about when he is off duty? Practically speaking, military targets likely do not keep their status as military targets 24/7, like for example times when they are off duty or at home.
Amnesty's report on Cast Lead contains a very good discussion about all of the international laws that govern the conflict, starting on page 89, I think. I will find the link to the document and note the pages this discussion appears on, and come back and edit this post.
Sherri
rhodescholar
Gold Member
- Banned
- #43
Notice how the animal tries to push off that all hamas fighters are innocent civilians who cannot be attacked - but an israeli sitting eating pizza can legitimately be targeted.
If this was a real forum, tin-scumbag would have been banned LONG, LONG ago.
SherriMunnerlyn
VIP Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 12,201
- 265
- 83
Hamas and Islamic Jihad are hardly "victims"
Lipush,
Are you a little girl?
Your comments really do lead me to think so.
Do you go out and play with Tamar Fogel and engage in acts of terror against Palestinians with her?
How many Palestinians have you injured or killed?
Sherri
"Do you go out and play with Tamar Fogel and engage in acts of terror against Palestinians with her?"
You should be ASHAMED of yourself to say such a thing about Tamar Fogel.
I repeat what I have said. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are no victims.
You trying to turn it into a personal bashing won't change that fact.
Lipush,
I do not know why you defend Kahanists. Even your government considers Kahane a terrorist.
I am not "personal bashing" , I just asked you questions, which I noticed you did not answer.
Why are little girls like you posting here?
And what this once again illustrates is how Israelis use their children, the inhuman ways children are being used and manipulated and taught to hate and ultimately asked to kill, as you live in a society that requires military service for young women and men, or girls and boys, should I say.
Sherri
Lipush
Gold Member
I defend Kahanists? who said that? Where did I say I support Kahanists? how did you reach that kind of absurd conclusion??
I can assure you I am not a little girl, and will appriciate you not going down to personal levels, all of my posts to you I have never reached a level i wanted to prevent myself from reaching.
"And what this once again illustrates is how Israelis use their children, the inhuman ways children are being used and manipulated and taught to hate and ultimately asked to kill...."
WHAT?
Please axplain this saying, i don't understand what the hell you're talking about.
SherriMunnerlyn
VIP Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 12,201
- 265
- 83
The Amnesty Report for Cast Lead discusses specific international laws that Apply to Occupations.
Right after that, the report addresses international rules governing the conduct of hostilities.
There is an overlap between these two categories of international laws, that the report tries to address, as well.
The discussion about international laws governing the conflict begin on page 79 of the report.
http://amnesty.ie/sites/default/files/report/2010/04/Operation Cast Lead report July 2009.pdf
I read, with respect to rules in the conduct of hostilities:
5.1.3 RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES
Civilians and members of armed groups
Civilians are defined in international humanitarian law as those who are not combatants.
However, international humanitarian law provides a definition of combatant only with respect
to international armed conflict. There are no rules regulating combatant, or prisoner of war
(POW), status with respect to non-international armed conflicts.
In the context of the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel during the period of Operation “Cast
Lead”, Amnesty International uses the term civilians to describe people who were not taking
direct part in hostilities.136 According to Additional Protocol I, “in case of doubt whether a
person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.” (Article 50(1))
Political leaders involved in military strategy and planning may lose their immunity from
attack for the duration of their participation in hostilities. However, individuals who are not
taking direct part in hostilities, even if members or supporters of political groups with military
wings which are involved in the fighting, are civilians who must not be made the object of
attacks.
Prohibition on direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction
Article 48 of Additional Protocol I sets out the “basic rule” regarding the protection of
civilians – the principle of distinction. This is a cornerstone of international humanitarian
law: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian
objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian
population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and
accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), intentionally
directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities is a war crime.137
Under Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, civilians remain protected “unless and for such
time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.
Article 52(1) of Additional Protocol I provides that “Civilian objects are all objects which are
not military objectives.” Article 52(2) defines military objectives as “those objects which by
their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and
whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at
the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Military advantage may not be interpreted so
broadly as to render the rule ineffective. To justify under this provision attacks aimed at
harming the economic wellbeing of a state or demoralizing the civilian population in order to
weaken the ability to fight would be to distort the legal meaning of military advantage undermine fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, and pose a severe threat to civilians.
Objects that do not meet these criteria are civilian objects. In cases where it is unclear
whether a target is used for military purposes, “it shall be presumed not to be so used”
(Article 52(3)).138
No states, and very few armed political groups, admit to deliberately targeting civilians.
Direct attacks on civilians are often justified by denying that the victims are actually civilians.
Civilian immunity is also undermined by the manner in which definitions of military
objectives and civilian objects are interpreted by attacking forces.
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual
civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities is a war crime. Intentionally directing attacks
against civilian objects constitutes a war crime.
Prohibition on indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, which are those “of a
nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”
Disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, are also those that “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.” (Article 51(5b))
Intentionally launching a disproportionate attack is a war crime.139 Launching an
indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is also a war crime.140 In addition, the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly is a war crime.141
Right after that, the report addresses international rules governing the conduct of hostilities.
There is an overlap between these two categories of international laws, that the report tries to address, as well.
The discussion about international laws governing the conflict begin on page 79 of the report.
http://amnesty.ie/sites/default/files/report/2010/04/Operation Cast Lead report July 2009.pdf
I read, with respect to rules in the conduct of hostilities:
5.1.3 RULES GOVERNING THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIES
Civilians and members of armed groups
Civilians are defined in international humanitarian law as those who are not combatants.
However, international humanitarian law provides a definition of combatant only with respect
to international armed conflict. There are no rules regulating combatant, or prisoner of war
(POW), status with respect to non-international armed conflicts.
In the context of the conflict in Gaza and southern Israel during the period of Operation “Cast
Lead”, Amnesty International uses the term civilians to describe people who were not taking
direct part in hostilities.136 According to Additional Protocol I, “in case of doubt whether a
person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.” (Article 50(1))
Political leaders involved in military strategy and planning may lose their immunity from
attack for the duration of their participation in hostilities. However, individuals who are not
taking direct part in hostilities, even if members or supporters of political groups with military
wings which are involved in the fighting, are civilians who must not be made the object of
attacks.
Prohibition on direct attacks on civilians and civilian objects – the principle of distinction
Article 48 of Additional Protocol I sets out the “basic rule” regarding the protection of
civilians – the principle of distinction. This is a cornerstone of international humanitarian
law: “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian
objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian
population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and
accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), intentionally
directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not
taking direct part in hostilities is a war crime.137
Under Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, civilians remain protected “unless and for such
time as they take a direct part in hostilities”.
Article 52(1) of Additional Protocol I provides that “Civilian objects are all objects which are
not military objectives.” Article 52(2) defines military objectives as “those objects which by
their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and
whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at
the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Military advantage may not be interpreted so
broadly as to render the rule ineffective. To justify under this provision attacks aimed at
harming the economic wellbeing of a state or demoralizing the civilian population in order to
weaken the ability to fight would be to distort the legal meaning of military advantage undermine fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, and pose a severe threat to civilians.
Objects that do not meet these criteria are civilian objects. In cases where it is unclear
whether a target is used for military purposes, “it shall be presumed not to be so used”
(Article 52(3)).138
No states, and very few armed political groups, admit to deliberately targeting civilians.
Direct attacks on civilians are often justified by denying that the victims are actually civilians.
Civilian immunity is also undermined by the manner in which definitions of military
objectives and civilian objects are interpreted by attacking forces.
Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual
civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities is a war crime. Intentionally directing attacks
against civilian objects constitutes a war crime.
Prohibition on indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks
Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks, which are those “of a
nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.”
Disproportionate attacks, a type of indiscriminate attack, are also those that “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.” (Article 51(5b))
Intentionally launching a disproportionate attack is a war crime.139 Launching an
indiscriminate attack resulting in loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects is also a war crime.140 In addition, the extensive destruction and appropriation of property not
justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly is a war crime.141
Last edited:
SherriMunnerlyn
VIP Member
- Jun 11, 2012
- 12,201
- 265
- 83
Lipush,
Tamar Fogel is a Kahanist, her mother Ruth Fogel was a Kahanist who taught at an extremist Kahanist school. They lived in a community of Kahanists in the West Bank, all of that is addressed in the Tablet article Girls at War.
When you choose to defend Tamar Fogel, you are defending Kahanists, Jewish terrorists.
You and your mother or father are obviously writing posts here, as you revert back and forth posting like an adult and child.
I do not know what makes you think people are not going to call you on the BS you are posting here.
How Israeli settlers use their kids is addressed in The Tablet article, I have addressed that in other posts.
Sherri
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Such a silly statement from Jos, especially when so many Muslims leaders have said they want to take over the world for Islam. No doubt this is Jos' ideal too, but he wouldn't admit it to us. As you can see, he wants the Zionists (when he actually means Jews) hanging from lamp posts. Well, what else can you expect from a Muslim?
jt2
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,390
- 4,876
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #49
The main question was about the settlers: Are they civilians or not? According to the Geneva Accord they are not. Even according to the Israelis they are not.
A Dialogue with Hamas - Part 1 - Worldpress.org
Why would you reference Hamas, an islamist terrorist orgznization, in a thread connected to Geneva Convention Protocols?
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,390
- 4,876
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #51
You are welcome to reference Israel in a thread connected to Geneva Convention Protocols?
Hossfly
ZIONIST
What in hell is a 'Resistance Fighter?"
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,390
- 4,876
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #53
A resistance movement is a group or collection of individual groups, dedicated to opposing an invader in an occupied country or the government of a sovereign state[citation needed]. It may seek to achieve its objects through either the use of nonviolent resistance (sometimes called civil resistance) or the use of armed force. In many cases, as for example in Norway in the Second World War, a resistance movement may employ both violent and non-violent methods, usually operating under different organizations and acting in different phases or geographical areas within a country.[1]
The term resistance is generally used to designate a movement considered legitimate (from the speaker's point of view). Organizations and individuals critical of foreign intervention and supporting forms of organized movement (particularly where citizens are affected) tend to favor the term. When such a resistance movement uses violence, those favorably disposed to it may also speak of freedom fighters.
Resistance movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
rhodescholar
Gold Member
- Banned
- #54
You are a stupid ******* worthless whore. Do not come back to this forum any more, you have been warned.
Hossfly
ZIONIST
Ach so! Then these are the guys who have a herd of kids around them at all times.Clever.
Lipush
Gold Member
I have no idea what you're talking about, and frankly your disrespect is really starting to annoy me. Here I speak with you like a regular person speaks to someone they disagree with, and you chose to speculate REDUCULOUS unbased facts and then speak with me like you know how things are.
I really think there is something wrong with the way you see things,
As for the fogels, they were respected people, the salt of the earth. None of them was a Kahanist. I support Tamar fogel for I support a child that lost her parents for beast that killed babies in their cribs. Instead of going against the killing, you're going against the victims of this brutal act.
Yes, there IS something wrong with the way you see things.
Lipush
Gold Member
Shalhevat pass, was not a civilian. What was she, then?
Lipush
Gold Member
Because obviously for Mr Tinmore, Hamas is MAMA TERESA knowing all about dignity and human rights.
Lipush
Gold Member
"Dialogue with Hamas" is an oxymoron.
P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 86,390
- 4,876
- 1,815
- Thread starter
- #60
Someone like:
Sara Abdul-Azim Abdul-Haq Hasan, 18 months, of Sarah, near Salfit, killed by Israeli settler gunfire to her head while riding with her father in a car.
October 1, 2000
Or,
Hind Nidal Jamil Qauider, 23 days, of Hebron, killed by IDF gas.
November 4, 2000
Or,
Maram Imad Ahmad Hasouna, 3, of al-Bireh, killed by IDF gas near her home.
November 23, 2000
Or,
Abdul-Rahman Khaled Hammouda Khbeish, 4, of Balata refugee camp, killed by IDF gunfire to his head.
December 31, 2000
Or,
Obeisi infant girl, of Nablus, died at an IDF checkpoint when her mother was prevented from crossing to reach the hospital.
Or,
Iman Muhammad al-Haju, 4 months, of Khan Younis, Gaza, killed by IDF shelling while in her mothers arms.
May 7, 2001
Or,
Diya Marwan Hilmi al-Tmeizi, 3 months, of Ithna, near Hebron, killed, with her older brother, by Israeli settler gunfire to her head and back.
July 19, 2001
Or...
It is Israel's war and kids get killed in war.
New Topics
-
-
A curious attempt in Israel to snuff out a probe of 10/7- Started by EMH
- Replies: 0
-
Trump admin invokes Defense Production Act, directs oil company to restart California operations- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 5
-
-
