Terrorist Snipers Open Fire on IDF Soldiers

[toastman]

Only a disgusting scumbag piece of donkey shit would compare the situation with the Palestinians to the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto.
What's not surprising are the posters who are making the comparisons.

They were both penned up by a bunch of assholes.

What is the difference?

You're asking what the difference is between Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto and Palestinians in Gaza??????

 

[toastman]

montelatici, et al,

I think you've misspoke.

The Jews in the WG who gallantly fought Germans wore no uniform, no Star of David.

(COMMENT)

Just who do you think you are kidding?

​

They were partisans and partisans in France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece etc, wore no uniform when fighting the Germans. In your moronic friends mind, because they wore no uniform they are terrorists.

(COMMENT)

Resistance and Members of the Partisans Movements, when captured conducting hostile operations, espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power were executed. This was the modern day equivalent of Article 68 of the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's fine the occupying power has all the power and can execute whomever they want, but THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS THEY WERE PATRIOTS

Now stop your blabbering e vai in quel paese.

Who were patriots?

 

[Sally]

montelatici, et al,

I think you've misspoke.


(COMMENT)

Just who do you think you are kidding?

​

(COMMENT)

Resistance and Members of the Partisans Movements, when captured conducting hostile operations, espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power were executed. This was the modern day equivalent of Article 68 of the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's fine the occupying power has all the power and can execute whomever they want, but THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS THEY WERE PATRIOTS

Now stop your blabbering e vai in quel paese.

Who were patriots?

Next Defeat67 will be telling us that the Republican Guards in Iran are patriots. Isn't it funny that Defeat67 should tell someone to stop their blabbering after all the blabbering he has done?

 

[montelatici]

montelatici, et al,

I think you've misspoke.


(COMMENT)

Just who do you think you are kidding?

​

(COMMENT)

Resistance and Members of the Partisans Movements, when captured conducting hostile operations, espionage, or serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power were executed. This was the modern day equivalent of Article 68 of the GCIV.

Most Respectfully,
R

That's fine the occupying power has all the power and can execute whomever they want, but THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS THEY WERE PATRIOTS

Now stop your blabbering e vai in quel paese.

Who were patriots?

Those that fought the occupying army.

 

[montelatici]

That's fine the occupying power has all the power and can execute whomever they want, but THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS THEY WERE PATRIOTS

Now stop your blabbering e vai in quel paese.

Who were patriots?

Next Defeat67 will be telling us that the Republican Guards in Iran are patriots. Isn't it funny that Defeat67 should tell someone to stop their blabbering after all the blabbering he has done?

Which occupying army have the Republican Guards of Iran fought against? I am sure they are patriots, but I don't think they have had the opportunity to fight an occupying army, yet.

 

[montelatici]

Honestly, you Zionutters on this board are just plain dimwitted. You make such silly statements.

 

[RoccoR]

montelatici, et al,

Some day we will have to discuss the implications, risk factors and political consequences of asymmetric warfare, insurgencies, resistance movements, and fifth columnist activities.

That's fine the occupying power has all the power and can execute whomever they want, but THEY WERE NOT TERRORISTS THEY WERE PATRIOTS.

Now stop your blabbering e vai in quel paese.

(COMMENT)

Gerald Seymour once wrote, in his book 1975 book Harry's Game that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Never has an anecdote been more true. Many believe that Seymour was describing the Commander of the Derry Brigade of the Provisional IRA.

Clearly, there are men like Menachem Begin, whose Irgun bombed the King David Hotel and was responsible for the massacre of Palestinian villagers in Deir Yassin in April of 1948; Yitzhak Shamir, Commander of the Stern Gang that murdered Edward Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944 – and assassinated U.N. Mediator Count Bernadotte in Jerusalem in 1948; and Nobel Prize winner Yasser Arafat has been charged in the cold-blooded assassination of U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel in the Sudan in 1973; had this double identity, depending on your perspective. (Research by and author: 3/16/04 by Patrick J. Buchanan)

Who is a "patriot" and who is a "terrorist" has as much to do with history and who write it – as anything else.

I'm not sure you're ready for this conversation yet.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[montelatici]

Who is a "patriot" and who is a "terrorist" has as much to do with history and who write it – as anything else.

I agree with you completely on this.

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.

P F Tinmore, et al,

You have to look at it closely.


(COMMENT)

Article 68 says: "such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began."

At the time of the occupation by Israel in 1967, the West Bank (as an example) was sovereign Jordanian Territory, annexed under Jordanian Law.

​

The law that was in place at the time (the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began) was Jordanian. It is a combination of both Islamic Religious Law (Sharia) and contemporary Western European Law (traditional French form); covering both national security and criminal codes. It follows the basic law adopted in 1956, with amendments over time, but basically mirrors many of the basic laws seen in any other national legal and judicial system.



I absolutely assure you that the law of the occupied territory in force before the Israeli occupation began covers (much more harshly) that which is in force today.

It was illegal for the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) to engage Jordanian Police and Military activities during first the Jordanian Occupation and then after Annexation. And it is just as much illegal for HoAP to engage Israeli Police and Military activities during the Israeli Occupation.​

So it really doesn't matter if you use ICRC Humanitarian Code (GCIV), or the Law previously in place before the occupation, the answer is still the same: Make no mistake: This is a punishable act and criminal offense by the Hostile Arab Palestinian. AND --- again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for what the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) does; no matter what standard you apply.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are still talking about local codes when my question was about international law.

(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

International law states that occupations can enforce local laws. But it is not illegal under international law.

Nobody is going to the Hague for popping off foreign troops.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who is a "patriot" and who is a "terrorist" has as much to do with history and who write it – as anything else.

I agree with you completely on this.

That is true. Most often "terrorist" is nothing more that political name calling.

 

[toastman]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Article 68, GCIV, is International Law.

You are still talking about local codes when my question was about international law.

(COMMENT)

I've given you the International Law (less the Rome Statues) and the Jordanian Law. What more do you want?

Most Respectfully,
R

International law states that occupations can enforce local laws. But it is not illegal under international law.

Nobody is going to the Hague for popping off foreign troops.

No, but they will be put in Israeli jails, like many many have already.

Shooting a soldier who's sitting down or sleeping on a bus serves no purpose.
It is not 'resistance' by any means.

 

[Billo_Really]

Wow! Is about all I can say. I can hardly believe the number of pro-Palestinian Activist that have this mistaken belief that they have some special right to conduct hostile action against the Occupation Force.

Mistaken belief?

Everyone in the world has the basic right to resist a foreign force. You can't get a more basic right than that.

So according to your logic, it was okay for Germany to annex Poland?

So that means targeting the Palestinians in militia uniform is resistance as well, or do you apply a different set of rules for the Jews ?

Why are you trying to force Judaism into a political issue?

It is either legal for both to target each other or it isn't, make your mind up.

My mind was made up. An "occupation", is an offensive act of war. Resisting an "occupation", is self defense.

AND --- again, there is no legal standing or special dispensation for attacks by the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) against the Occupation Force; no matter what standard you apply.

You're full of shit there! So if a robber comes into your home with a gun, you have no right to shoot him?

Use of force during occupation: law enforcement and conduct of hostilities The occupier is required by Article 43 of the Hague Regulations to ‘take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while
respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country’.

I don't know why you posted that, because Israel isn't respecting any Palestinian laws.

This obligation is also reflected in Article 64 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: ‘[t]he Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfill its obligations...to maintain the orderly government of the Territory ...’.

Extra-judicial assassinations of Hamas members, violates Israel's "obligation" per Article 64. Because murdering members of the Gazan government, is not maintaining an "orderly government".

That Convention also requires that ‘protected persons’ are protected against all acts or threats of violence, and establishes rules governing the maintenance of laws, courts, internment, and so forth.

Boy, does Israel shit on that rule!

This linking of the legitimacy of participants in hostilities and the enforcement of the law means that police forces of the occupied territory can lawfully be employed against insurgents in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, since the likelihood of a resistance movement meeting the requirements of Geneva Convention III has long been viewed as very remote.

The Palestinian's are not insurgents, those psycho-Israeli settlers are.

Furthermore, it is against IHL to change the demographics of an area under occupation.

I hope this ICRC Paper helps to shake some of the cobwebs loose.

You need to walk your talk, buster and stop being such a hypocrite.

 

[toastman]

Lol everyone please read Billo's ridiculous 'robber' comparison above.

Billo, you are officially the king ... I mean Queen of terribly demented comparisons!

Bravo

 

[toastman]

Who is a "patriot" and who is a "terrorist" has as much to do with history and who write it – as anything else.

I agree with you completely on this.

That is true. Most often "terrorist" is nothing more that political name calling.

A terrorist is someone who partakes in attacks in which no effort is made to distinguish between combatant and civilian, for political purposes.
I.e Hamas, Islamic Jihad

 

[Billo_Really]

Lol everyone please read Billo's ridiculous 'robber' comparison above.

Billo, you are officially the king ... I mean Queen of terribly demented comparisons!

Bravo

Why is it demented?

Someone foreign to your home forces his way in and you don't have a right to do something about it?

Why is it demented?

Do you have the balls to explain that in a little more detail?

Or are bullshit innuendo's as far as you go?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who is a "patriot" and who is a "terrorist" has as much to do with history and who write it – as anything else.

I agree with you completely on this.

That is true. Most often "terrorist" is nothing more that political name calling.

A terrorist is someone who partakes in attacks in which no effort is made to distinguish between combatant and civilian, for political purposes.
I.e Hamas, Islamic Jihad

You forgot to mention Israel.

BTW, defending your country is not a political purpose.

 

[toastman]

That is true. Most often "terrorist" is nothing more that political name calling.

A terrorist is someone who partakes in attacks in which no effort is made to distinguish between combatant and civilian, for political purposes.
I.e Hamas, Islamic Jihad

You forgot to mention Israel.

BTW, defending your country is not a political purpose.

The IDF partake in many excercises cor their soldiers to differ between civilian and combatant.
And no matter how many Palestinians have been killed, you cannot prove that Israels goal in ANY situation is to purposely harm civilians.
Nice try though.

BTW, suicide bombings, shooting attacks on Israelis is NOT defending ones country.

Fail.

 

[toastman]

Lol everyone please read Billo's ridiculous 'robber' comparison above.

Billo, you are officially the king ... I mean Queen of terribly demented comparisons!

Bravo

Why is it demented?

Someone foreign to your home forces his way in and you don't have a right to do something about it?

Why is it demented?

Do you have the balls to explain that in a little more detail?

Or are bullshit innuendo's as far as you go?

Why is comparing a robber coming to your house with a gun to the situation between Israel and the Palestinians in the West Bank a demented comparison??

I think me asking that question answers yours..

 

[Sally]

That is true. Most often "terrorist" is nothing more that political name calling.

A terrorist is someone who partakes in attacks in which no effort is made to distinguish between combatant and civilian, for political purposes.
I.e Hamas, Islamic Jihad

You forgot to mention Israel.

BTW, defending your country is not a political purpose.

But Israel is not the Palestinians' country as much as you think it is.

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

This is flawed.

International law states that occupations can enforce local laws. But it is not illegal under international law.

Nobody is going to the Hague for popping off foreign troops.

No, but they will be put in Israeli jails, like many many have already.

Shooting a soldier who's sitting down or sleeping on a bus serves no purpose.
It is not 'resistance' by any means.

(COMMENT)

There is no international law or concept that supports your claim.

While not applicable, even the International Criminal Court has statues against murder:

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;​

SOURCE: PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW

Even the court understands that the fundamental idea that "the murder" of an Occupation Force member is wrong.

The reason no one is rushing to The Hague (ICC) is because the local jurisdiction has a handle on the situation as far as enforcement and judicial venue is concerned.

For decades, the Pro-Palestinian Movement has been attempting to twist and turn some aspect of law in their favor to pursue Jihad and Armed Struggle. An attempt to give it some legitimacy. But the fact is, it cannot be done.

Yes, Israel has made it share of mistakes; to be sure. But there is no law that promotes or furthers the Palestinian call to Jihad and Arm Struggle. And the very idea that the Palestinians believe that the they are somehow empowered to commit these acts, demonstrates how far they are from understanding the Rule of Law and the manner in which a civilized culture should conduct its activities.

Anyone that cannot refrain from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including Jihadist, Fedayeen and designated terrorist organizations, to pursue armed struggles to solve political disputes, simply doesn't understand the fundamental Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States.

The entire agenda behind the Hostile Arab Palestinian (HoAP) Movement is to overturn the establishment of the Jewish State. For the underlying HoAP and the organizational infrastructures behind it, the unspoken agenda is the attainment power, money and influence. There is no struggle for peace. There is no agenda for peace. The HoAP wants --- wants --- wants and wants something they never built and could not get otherwise through their own initiatives.

The very idea that such that they have some special exemption to commit mayhem and murder for more than 6 decades is simply a portrait of they moral attitude and judgment. It spells-out the very essence of their culture. It exhibits a society of Palestinians which manifests an amoral and antisocial behavior; and a lack of ability to establish meaningful politically peaceful relationships. It is a people which are extreme egocentricity, having failure to learn from experience, over the past 60 odd years.

Most Respectfully,
R