Probe into Gaza homes strikes finds 60% of deaths non-militants

[Penelope]

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

 

[RoccoR]

Penelope, et al,

Well that is an invalid comparison. In WWII, Germany was the aggressor. This is a different aspect to war.

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

(COMMENT)

Ideally, there would be no war at all. But that realization has not come to humanity just yet (no utopias just yet). Until then, there will always be wars of one kind or another.

Having said that, Humanitarian Law is an attempt to bring so measure of civility and reduce the carnage in war. While the progressive criminalization of war are no longer unanimously shared (meaning that some parties to conflicts believe that "any and all means" is without limitation), there are some standards that are still in play. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) shares the theme with many that “an act of violence (Jihad) intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will,” is an appropriate solution to
determining the command authority (or sovereignty) in any given territory; the Jihad is “the continuation of policy by other means.” (Machiavelli type logic.)

History has brought the concept of a "Just War" (we have on occasion even used it as a name to military operations) to a point today where "Just War" theory contends that, in order for a party to resort to war it must be justified, and the warring political community, should meet certain criteria. This is diametrically opposed to the advanced humanitarian concept of attaining a just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement. As the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as said as a matter of covenant: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." This view has been restated in the form of "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]."

In order to make a sound and valid argument for war (continuation of conflict in lieu of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement), it is generally thought that there are (in the thumbnail view) six requirements that must be addressed. These are the very issues that we discuss in this discussion group every day in one form or another:

• Just cause. The protection of the Jewish National Home; and to punishment the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and radical Fedayeen) for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected; and the resistance of aggression.
• Right intention. The preservation and safety of the Jewish Culture and the way of life.
• Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign nation. Chapter VII, Article 51.
• Last Resort. Exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."
• Probability of Success. Israel is asked to restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. But yet, each time the Jihadist escape under this Policy of Restraint.
• Proportionality. Weigh the military advantage and objective expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils (Jihadist and Fedayeen) expected to result; destroying the ability and will to continue the policy of armed struggle and resistance by any means.

These are the comparisons you should be considering when looking at the bigger picture.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Mindful]

Penelope, at it again?

 

[P F Tinmore]

The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."

This is not exclusive to Hamas.

Where do you find this position to be incorrect?

 

[montelatici]

Penelope, et al,

Well that is an invalid comparison. In WWII, Germany was the aggressor. This is a different aspect to war.

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

(COMMENT)

Ideally, there would be no war at all. But that realization has not come to humanity just yet (no utopias just yet). Until then, there will always be wars of one kind or another.

Having said that, Humanitarian Law is an attempt to bring so measure of civility and reduce the carnage in war. While the progressive criminalization of war are no longer unanimously shared (meaning that some parties to conflicts believe that "any and all means" is without limitation), there are some standards that are still in play. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) shares the theme with many that “an act of violence (Jihad) intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will,” is an appropriate solution to
determining the command authority (or sovereignty) in any given territory; the Jihad is “the continuation of policy by other means.” (Machiavelli type logic.)

History has brought the concept of a "Just War" (we have on occasion even used it as a name to military operations) to a point today where "Just War" theory contends that, in order for a party to resort to war it must be justified, and the warring political community, should meet certain criteria. This is diametrically opposed to the advanced humanitarian concept of attaining a just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement. As the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as said as a matter of covenant: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." This view has been restated in the form of "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]."

In order to make a sound and valid argument for war (continuation of conflict in lieu of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement), it is generally thought that there are (in the thumbnail view) six requirements that must be addressed. These are the very issues that we discuss in this discussion group every day in one form or another:

• Just cause. The protection of the Jewish National Home; and to punishment the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and radical Fedayeen) for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected; and the resistance of aggression.
• Right intention. The preservation and safety of the Jewish Culture and the way of life.
• Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign nation. Chapter VII, Article 51.
• Last Resort. Exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."
• Probability of Success. Israel is asked to restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. But yet, each time the Jihadist escape under this Policy of Restraint.
• Proportionality. Weigh the military advantage and objective expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils (Jihadist and Fedayeen) expected to result; destroying the ability and will to continue the policy of armed struggle and resistance by any means.

These are the comparisons you should be considering when looking at the bigger picture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was invaded/settled by people from Europe and the local people were evicted. It does not matter that Europeans supported the invasion/settlement. The European invasion/settlement of Palestine (culminating with the assignment of land to Europeans), condoned by the European dominated UN, was no more "legal" than the partition of the Americas between Portugal and Spain via the Bull of Pope Alexander VI issued in 1493.

 

[Penelope]

If we are talking Protective Edge, Israel was the aggressors when they stormed into Palestine, stole money and jewelry, locked up over 200 men while ransacking homes, you don't call that aggression, even though they had already found the bodies of the 3 boys. Also it started when Fatah and Hamas announced they were getting together so as punitive punishment, new settlements were announced before they stormed into Palestine. They not only bombed schools they also bombed the water and sewage plants.

Now PM Bibi is telling all the Jews of Europe to come home to Israel, where would they expect to put all the Jews of Europe? I thought we were all trying to live together, but the Zionist never planned that, no matter what the Pals would do, I would say they could bend over backwards, and the Israel Gov. would do a FALSE FLAG just as a reason to attack.

 

[Phoenall]

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

Was the dropping of two nuclear devices by America on the Japanese criminal, when you consider that the effects are still being felt today ?

 

[Phoenall]

Penelope, et al,

Well that is an invalid comparison. In WWII, Germany was the aggressor. This is a different aspect to war.

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

(COMMENT)

Ideally, there would be no war at all. But that realization has not come to humanity just yet (no utopias just yet). Until then, there will always be wars of one kind or another.

Having said that, Humanitarian Law is an attempt to bring so measure of civility and reduce the carnage in war. While the progressive criminalization of war are no longer unanimously shared (meaning that some parties to conflicts believe that "any and all means" is without limitation), there are some standards that are still in play. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) shares the theme with many that “an act of violence (Jihad) intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will,” is an appropriate solution to
determining the command authority (or sovereignty) in any given territory; the Jihad is “the continuation of policy by other means.” (Machiavelli type logic.)

History has brought the concept of a "Just War" (we have on occasion even used it as a name to military operations) to a point today where "Just War" theory contends that, in order for a party to resort to war it must be justified, and the warring political community, should meet certain criteria. This is diametrically opposed to the advanced humanitarian concept of attaining a just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement. As the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as said as a matter of covenant: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." This view has been restated in the form of "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]."

In order to make a sound and valid argument for war (continuation of conflict in lieu of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement), it is generally thought that there are (in the thumbnail view) six requirements that must be addressed. These are the very issues that we discuss in this discussion group every day in one form or another:

• Just cause. The protection of the Jewish National Home; and to punishment the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and radical Fedayeen) for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected; and the resistance of aggression.
• Right intention. The preservation and safety of the Jewish Culture and the way of life.
• Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign nation. Chapter VII, Article 51.
• Last Resort. Exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."
• Probability of Success. Israel is asked to restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. But yet, each time the Jihadist escape under this Policy of Restraint.
• Proportionality. Weigh the military advantage and objective expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils (Jihadist and Fedayeen) expected to result; destroying the ability and will to continue the policy of armed struggle and resistance by any means.

These are the comparisons you should be considering when looking at the bigger picture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was invaded/settled by people from Europe and the local people were evicted. It does not matter that Europeans supported the invasion/settlement. The European invasion/settlement of Palestine (culminating with the assignment of land to Europeans), condoned by the European dominated UN, was no more "legal" than the partition of the Americas between Portugal and Spain via the Bull of Pope Alexander VI issued in 1493.

The local people left willingly under the impression they would be kings when the arab league had wiped out the Jews and told them to return. Guess allah was not in a good mood that day as the Jews beat the living crap out of the arab league, and the arab muslims became homeless vagabonds again

 

[Phoenall]

If we are talking Protective Edge, Israel was the aggressors when they stormed into Palestine, stole money and jewelry, locked up over 200 men while ransacking homes, you don't call that aggression, even though they had already found the bodies of the 3 boys. Also it started when Fatah and Hamas announced they were getting together so as punitive punishment, new settlements were announced before they stormed into Palestine. They not only bombed schools they also bombed the water and sewage plants.

Now PM Bibi is telling all the Jews of Europe to come home to Israel, where would they expect to put all the Jews of Europe? I thought we were all trying to live together, but the Zionist never planned that, no matter what the Pals would do, I would say they could bend over backwards, and the Israel Gov. would do a FALSE FLAG just as a reason to attack.

Until they knew who the murderers were they would do all they could to find them, and we only have the baalestinian liars word for the thefts and that is worthless.

 

[Penelope]

If we are talking Protective Edge, Israel was the aggressors when they stormed into Palestine, stole money and jewelry, locked up over 200 men while ransacking homes, you don't call that aggression, even though they had already found the bodies of the 3 boys. Also it started when Fatah and Hamas announced they were getting together so as punitive punishment, new settlements were announced before they stormed into Palestine. They not only bombed schools they also bombed the water and sewage plants.

Now PM Bibi is telling all the Jews of Europe to come home to Israel, where would they expect to put all the Jews of Europe? I thought we were all trying to live together, but the Zionist never planned that, no matter what the Pals would do, I would say they could bend over backwards, and the Israel Gov. would do a FALSE FLAG just as a reason to attack.

Until they knew who the murderers were they would do all they could to find them, and we only have the baalestinian liars word for the thefts and that is worthless.

they had no right to do that. It didn't help them a bit in finding the killers, they used it as an excuse, I can't help but wonder if it was all a charade.

 

[montelatici]

Penelope, et al,

Well that is an invalid comparison. In WWII, Germany was the aggressor. This is a different aspect to war.

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

(COMMENT)

Ideally, there would be no war at all. But that realization has not come to humanity just yet (no utopias just yet). Until then, there will always be wars of one kind or another.

Having said that, Humanitarian Law is an attempt to bring so measure of civility and reduce the carnage in war. While the progressive criminalization of war are no longer unanimously shared (meaning that some parties to conflicts believe that "any and all means" is without limitation), there are some standards that are still in play. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) shares the theme with many that “an act of violence (Jihad) intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will,” is an appropriate solution to
determining the command authority (or sovereignty) in any given territory; the Jihad is “the continuation of policy by other means.” (Machiavelli type logic.)

History has brought the concept of a "Just War" (we have on occasion even used it as a name to military operations) to a point today where "Just War" theory contends that, in order for a party to resort to war it must be justified, and the warring political community, should meet certain criteria. This is diametrically opposed to the advanced humanitarian concept of attaining a just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement. As the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as said as a matter of covenant: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." This view has been restated in the form of "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]."

In order to make a sound and valid argument for war (continuation of conflict in lieu of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement), it is generally thought that there are (in the thumbnail view) six requirements that must be addressed. These are the very issues that we discuss in this discussion group every day in one form or another:

• Just cause. The protection of the Jewish National Home; and to punishment the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and radical Fedayeen) for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected; and the resistance of aggression.
• Right intention. The preservation and safety of the Jewish Culture and the way of life.
• Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign nation. Chapter VII, Article 51.
• Last Resort. Exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."
• Probability of Success. Israel is asked to restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. But yet, each time the Jihadist escape under this Policy of Restraint.
• Proportionality. Weigh the military advantage and objective expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils (Jihadist and Fedayeen) expected to result; destroying the ability and will to continue the policy of armed struggle and resistance by any means.

These are the comparisons you should be considering when looking at the bigger picture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was invaded/settled by people from Europe and the local people were evicted. It does not matter that Europeans supported the invasion/settlement. The European invasion/settlement of Palestine (culminating with the assignment of land to Europeans), condoned by the European dominated UN, was no more "legal" than the partition of the Americas between Portugal and Spain via the Bull of Pope Alexander VI issued in 1493.

The local people left willingly under the impression they would be kings when the arab league had wiped out the Jews and told them to return. Guess allah was not in a good mood that day as the Jews beat the living crap out of the arab league, and the arab muslims became homeless vagabonds again

The Christians and Muslims left because the Jews were massacring them. It was the Jews that broadcast threats of wholesale slaughter of the non-Jews if they did not leave. The surrounding states intervened in attempt to prevent the Jews from slaughtering Christians and Muslims. The Germans beat the heck out of the Jews, it did not make it right, Phoney.

 

[Kondor3]

Penelope, et al,

Well that is an invalid comparison. In WWII, Germany was the aggressor. This is a different aspect to war.

Well I guess what Germany did during WWII was not criminal either then. All is fair in war.

(COMMENT)

Ideally, there would be no war at all. But that realization has not come to humanity just yet (no utopias just yet). Until then, there will always be wars of one kind or another.

Having said that, Humanitarian Law is an attempt to bring so measure of civility and reduce the carnage in war. While the progressive criminalization of war are no longer unanimously shared (meaning that some parties to conflicts believe that "any and all means" is without limitation), there are some standards that are still in play. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) shares the theme with many that “an act of violence (Jihad) intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will,” is an appropriate solution to
determining the command authority (or sovereignty) in any given territory; the Jihad is “the continuation of policy by other means.” (Machiavelli type logic.)

History has brought the concept of a "Just War" (we have on occasion even used it as a name to military operations) to a point today where "Just War" theory contends that, in order for a party to resort to war it must be justified, and the warring political community, should meet certain criteria. This is diametrically opposed to the advanced humanitarian concept of attaining a just settlement of their international disputes by negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement. As the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) as said as a matter of covenant: "Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS)." This view has been restated in the form of "Jihad and the armed resistance is the right and real method for the liberation of Palestine, and the restoration of all the rights, together with, of course, all forms of political and diplomatic struggle including in the media, public and legal [spheres]."

In order to make a sound and valid argument for war (continuation of conflict in lieu of negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement), it is generally thought that there are (in the thumbnail view) six requirements that must be addressed. These are the very issues that we discuss in this discussion group every day in one form or another:

• Just cause. The protection of the Jewish National Home; and to punishment the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) and radical Fedayeen) for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected; and the resistance of aggression.
• Right intention. The preservation and safety of the Jewish Culture and the way of life.
• Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a sovereign nation. Chapter VII, Article 51.
• Last Resort. Exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) has already stated that "do not recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and recognition of "Israel" and the legitimacy of its presence on any part of Palestine."
• Probability of Success. Israel is asked to restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. But yet, each time the Jihadist escape under this Policy of Restraint.
• Proportionality. Weigh the military advantage and objective expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils (Jihadist and Fedayeen) expected to result; destroying the ability and will to continue the policy of armed struggle and resistance by any means.

These are the comparisons you should be considering when looking at the bigger picture.

Most Respectfully,
R

Palestine was invaded/settled by people from Europe and the local people were evicted. It does not matter that Europeans supported the invasion/settlement. The European invasion/settlement of Palestine (culminating with the assignment of land to Europeans), condoned by the European dominated UN, was no more "legal" than the partition of the Americas between Portugal and Spain via the Bull of Pope Alexander VI issued in 1493.

The local people left willingly under the impression they would be kings when the arab league had wiped out the Jews and told them to return. Guess allah was not in a good mood that day as the Jews beat the living crap out of the arab league, and the arab muslims became homeless vagabonds again

The Christians and Muslims left because the Jews were massacring them. It was the Jews that broadcast threats of wholesale slaughter of the non-Jews if they did not leave. The surrounding states intervened in attempt to prevent the Jews from slaughtering Christians and Muslims. The Germans beat the heck out of the Jews, it did not make it right, Phoney.

A classic example of Revisionist History...

 

[montelatici]

Just fact. From Israeli intelligence:.

"a report prepared by the intelligence services of the Israeli army, dated 30 June 1948 and entitled “The emigration of Palestinian Arabs in the period 1/12/1947-1/6/1948”. This document sets at 391,000 the number of Palestinians who had already left the territory that was by then in the hands of Israel, and evaluates the various factors that had prompted their decisions to leave. “At least 55% of the total of the exodus was caused by our (Haganah/IDF) operations.” To this figure, the report’s compilers add the operations of the Irgun and Lehi, which “directly (caused) some 15%... of the emigration”. A further 2% was attributed to explicit expulsion orders issued by Israeli troops, and 1% to their psychological warfare. This leads to a figure of 73% for departures caused directly by the Israelis. In addition, the report attributes 22% of the departures to “fears” and “a crisis of confidence” affecting the Palestinian population. As for Arab calls for flight, these were reckoned to be significant in only 5% of cases..."

The expulsion of the Palestinians re-examined - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

 

[Billo_Really]

The local people left willingly under the impression they would be kings when the arab league had wiped out the Jews and told them to return. Guess allah was not in a good mood that day as the Jews beat the living crap out of the arab league, and the arab muslims became homeless vagabonds again

People don't leave a home they've been living at for generations just because someone asked them to, you ******* piece of shit moron.

 

[Billo_Really]

How many UN reports do you need?

As many as you want to provide.

 

[Billo_Really]

What a crock of shit.

That's the law, Nazi.

 

[Billo_Really]

What if they just rent them, like Bill Clinton?

I thought Slick Willie was the one being rented?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What a crock of shit.

That's the law, Nazi.

Oh really? Care to quote that law?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How many UN reports do you need?

As many as you want to provide.

I can show you UN reports that prove the pallyies were caught hiding weapons in UN schools.
That you say you dont remember them tells me you're a moron or a liar.

 

[Kondor3]

The local people left willingly under the impression they would be kings when the arab league had wiped out the Jews and told them to return. Guess allah was not in a good mood that day as the Jews beat the living crap out of the arab league, and the arab muslims became homeless vagabonds again

People don't leave a home they've been living at for generations just because someone asked them to, you ******* piece of shit moron.

Mind your manners, child...