The "I Stand With Israel" thread

Billo_Really, Slyhunter, et al,

This is not exactly true.

not.
Palestinians throwing rocks at tanks are not innocent.
Throwing rocks at tanks is not a capitol crime, it's legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.
(COMMENT)

It is covered in Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV. It is not legal, any more than throwing rocks at police or military is legal in the US. Throwing rock is NOT legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
ARTICLE 68:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

SOURCE: Section III. Occupied territories

Most Respectfully,
R

You are cherry picking the occupation laws. Why don't you give us the rest of the story?
 
Billo_Really, Slyhunter, et al,

This is not exactly true.

Throwing rocks at tanks is not a capitol crime, it's legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.
(COMMENT)

It is covered in Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV. It is not legal, any more than throwing rocks at police or military is legal in the US. Throwing rock is NOT legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
ARTICLE 68:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

SOURCE: Section III. Occupied territories

Most Respectfully,
R

You are cherry picking the occupation laws. Why don't you give us the rest of the story?

Considering you are always wrong about everything concerning the IP conflict, your response to Rocco has no merit.

Can you refute his post or not?
 
P F Tinmore, et al,

It is pretty straight forward.

Billo_Really, Slyhunter, et al,

This is not exactly true.

Throwing rocks at tanks is not a capitol crime, it's legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.
(COMMENT)

It is covered in Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV. It is not legal, any more than throwing rocks at police or military is legal in the US. Throwing rock is NOT legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
ARTICLE 68:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

SOURCE: Section III. Occupied territories

Most Respectfully,
R

You are cherry picking the occupation laws. Why don't you give us the rest of the story?
(COMMENT)

The inferred question was: Is throwing rocks at the Occupation Force legal?

The answer is: NO!

What is the rest of the story?

Most Respectfully,
R
 
Billo_Really, Slyhunter, et al,

This is not exactly true.

Throwing rocks at tanks is not a capitol crime, it's legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.
(COMMENT)

It is covered in Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV. It is not legal, any more than throwing rocks at police or military is legal in the US. Throwing rock is NOT legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
ARTICLE 68:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

SOURCE: Section III. Occupied territories

Most Respectfully,
R

You are cherry picking the occupation laws. Why don't you give us the rest of the story?
Tinmore, when someone is ticketed for speeding the cop doesn't quote any driving offenses except for speeding. You are being facetious,
 
Maybe we should use Israel soldiers as bait. Stick them out there and when the rats flock to kill them we take them out. Makes it easier to know who to kill.
Maybe you should stop murdering innocent Palestinian's?



Yet to see any definitive proof that they are innocent, if they willingly act as human shields then under International law they are militia. It is the Palestinians that need to stop murdering innocent Israelis
 
Billo_Really, Slyhunter, et al,

This is not exactly true.

Throwing rocks at tanks is not a capitol crime, it's legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.
(COMMENT)

It is covered in Article 68 of the Geneva Convention IV. It is not legal, any more than throwing rocks at police or military is legal in the US. Throwing rock is NOT legal resistance to a belligerent occupation.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva said:
ARTICLE 68:

Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed.

SOURCE: Section III. Occupied territories

Most Respectfully,
R

You are cherry picking the occupation laws. Why don't you give us the rest of the story?




The post was a reply to what another poster considers is a legal tactic, so they are the ones that are cherry picking.

Now why don't you give the rest of the story ?
 
I'm 100% sure i am on the right side.

I stand for PEACE in a secular democratic state for all inhabitants of Palestine/Israel.
 
I'm 100% sure i am on the right side. I stand for PEACE in a secular democratic state for all inhabitants of Palestine/Israel.
A one-state solution, funny. A failed state of palistan as a redistrbutionist leech stuck to Israel.
 
Me too. Who in their right mind would not stand for Israel?
Any loyal American who understands that supporting Israel is detrimental to the best interests of their Nation.

Anyone who does not understand this should go here Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS and learn.

Any American who values having any friends in the world would support Israel.

Any American who values having friends in the world will dump Israel like a hot rock. Our tolerance of Israeli actions is responsible for our loss of support world wide, and particularly in the Muslim world. We don't need billions of enemies.
 
15th post
I'm sure if America had asked Israel to send in troops, Israel would've obliged. But in both Gulf Wars, America didn't want Israel to help out, thereby widening the conflict. In the First Gulf War, Israel took 39 Scud hits, which was humiliating for her--but America had asked Israel not to strike back at Iraq.
So, again -- Israel is an "ally" we can't use for fear of pissing off too many others.

This Israel/America "ally" thing is wool which has been pulled over the eyes of the American People for far too long and it is time to stop.

Are you a worker of the department of state, that you know so much about the use America has of Israel?

You speak with far too much arrogance.

he is so right.

and this is increasingly the view of "those in the know" when it comes to foreign policy ...
 
So, again -- Israel is an "ally" we can't use for fear of pissing off too many others.

This Israel/America "ally" thing is wool which has been pulled over the eyes of the American People for far too long and it is time to stop.

Are you a worker of the department of state, that you know so much about the use America has of Israel?

You speak with far too much arrogance.

he is so right.

and this is increasingly the view of "those in the know" when it comes to foreign policy ...

..... according to Hostility. Because she's 100% sure that she's right. LOL!
 
Any loyal American who understands that supporting Israel is detrimental to the best interests of their Nation.

Anyone who does not understand this should go here Who Is Bin Laden? - Interview With Osama Bin Laden (in May 1998) | Hunting Bin Laden | FRONTLINE | PBS and learn.

Any American who values having any friends in the world would support Israel.

Any American who values having friends in the world will dump Israel like a hot rock. Our tolerance of Israeli actions is responsible for our loss of support world wide, and particularly in the Muslim world. We don't need billions of enemies.

We never had 'support' from the Muslim world. And if we follow our 'error' of having supported the creation of Israel with dissolving the alliance for your 'reasons' - that will lose the US any remaining support we might have had, especially from Canada (and hence the rest of the Commonwealth nations).

Nor would it gain any 'support' from the Muslim world - for they would see us as weak and open to be under their control (as so many of their leaders think would be proper: they've said so!)..... and they'd simply ramp up the pressure to re-shape the UN to suit global Islamic goals.
 
In the war between civilization and the savage, always choose civilization.

At least the Israeli's include the Disabled

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngICmpC5SNA]BBC News - Israeli strike on disability shelter in Gaza's Beit Lahiya - YouTube[/ame]
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom