The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

Fuck off Muslim terrorist apologist.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis. The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight. It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis. You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. (Rules #23, #24, and #97)

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

(COMMENT)

When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:

◈ The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​

​

◈ The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​

Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role. Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes. This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations. The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis. The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight. It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis. You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. (Rules #23, #24, and #97)

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

(COMMENT)

When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:

◈ The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​

​

◈ The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​

Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role. Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes. This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations. The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.

Most Respectfully,
R

The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.

Your Israel apologism is going off the deep end.

You are right on script.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.

So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
who's responsible for the casualties?

Fascism is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
and public executions of gays on main city square.

Terrorism is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.

None of that is self defense,
in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.

Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
I simply call that - cowardice.

Real men fight openly,
instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.

So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
who's responsible for the casualties?

Fascism is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
and public executions of gays on main city square.

Terrorism is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.

None of that is self defense,
in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.

Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
I simply call that - cowardice.

Real men fight openly,
instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.

You missed the point of my posts.

 

[rylah]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.

So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
who's responsible for the casualties?

Fascism is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
and public executions of gays on main city square.

Terrorism is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.

None of that is self defense,
in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.

Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
I simply call that - cowardice.

Real men fight openly,
instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.

You missed the point of my posts.

I addressed them all,
you failed to address any.

Because there're really no just excuses for Jihadi terrorism.
Sociopath racketeers, holding their own people hostage,
just to blame someone else for the casualties.

And that's why you can't address that,
because to kill them is justice, and they carry all the responsibility for the casualties.

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ rylah, P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Terrorism → is like trying to describe and define a color (something that everyone can see) - a definition that a significant consensus can agree upon → unless you do it by wave-length. And even then → if you describe it by wave-length you run into another problem. (495-570 nm or 575-525 THz → Green) But if I just gave you the frequency 550 THz → would you know the significance of that frequency? But if you roll up to a traffic light, you will know Green when you see it → everyone will recognize a Green light on a Traffic Signal. You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

→ “Nothing can justify terrorism — ever,”

So, Israel bombing family homes is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

NO! I've heard this before. And it doesn't work. In a war (Armed Conflict) of any consequence, civilian casualties are expected as an unintentional outcome. HOWEVER, "everything feasible must be done to separate military objectives (legitimate targets) from the civilian population, but in no event may civilians be used to shield military objectives." When the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) "intentionally" allow the civilians to remain in proximity of a target (against Rule #23 Customary Law) - and they are killed while the Opposing Force is engaging that target - and THEN claim terrorism, trying to prevent the Opposing Force from future engagement, that is a Human Shield violation (against Rule #97 Customary Law).

It was not a case of the Israelis using terrorism, but the HoAP using Human Shield for protection and mass media exploitation. I find it despicable that the HoAP would, as an example, send thousands of people to create border havoc and launch incendiary devices and then complain that some of them were injured or killed.

Jihadi or any other cowards, firing at population centers - intentionally from within population centers - is terrorism.

(COMMENT)

This is absolutely correct. (Rule #11 prohibit indiscriminate attacks; and Rule #6 Prohibit attacks against civilians, "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.") Customary and International Humanitarian Laws are very explicit on these points.

Whenever asked who's responsible for the casualties when militants intentionally place population in harms way, i.e fire from family homes and neighborhoods -
you refused to give an answer.

(COMMENT)

On the mark.

Most Respectfully,
R

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

You may not know how to define "terrorism" but you will know it when you see it.

Indeed, it is a name calling thing against anyone you don't like.

The war on terror is a fascist canard.

So when militants use civilian homes for military installation to launch attacks,
who's responsible for the casualties?

Fascism is how Jihadi cowards run their places - total oppression of political opposition,
snitching on each other for suspected "collaborators with Jews",
and public executions of gays on main city square.

Terrorism is how Jihadi cowards fight their wars - attacking from civilian centers,
hospitals, mosques, and strapping kids in suicide vests to blow up restaurants.

None of that is self defense,
in fact the intention of the Jihadi cowards is the opposite -
to draw as much population into the center of their activity and increase the casualties.

Some pretentiously call that "self defense",
I simply call that - cowardice.

Real men fight openly,
instead of hiding under the skirts of their wives,
and crawling in tunnels underground to slash a sleeping baby's throat.

You missed the point of my posts.

You missed presenting a cogent argument.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
SUBREF: #845
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Unfortunately for the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP), using civilians for cover and concealment is the crime. Such decisions to engage are made by the Israelis. The decisions are not subject to HoAP oversight. It does not have to add up to the HoAP, just to the Israelis. You cannot use civilians as a Human Shield against engagement. (Rules #23, #24, and #97)

Israel will bomb thousands of civilian homes yet will only kill a couple hundred fighters.

Your bullshit doesn't add up.

(COMMENT)

When the HoAP intentionally uses civilians as cover and concealment, the general rule revolves around the immediate advantage under two aspects of consideration:

◈ The nature, location, purpose or use which makes an effective contribution to military action;​

​

◈ The total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization which in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage;​

Your complaint that civilians were killed or wounded while the hidden location of key or High-Value HoAP Targets in densely populated areas were engaged is clearly an admission that the civilian population was specifically being used as Cover and Concealment - or - otherwise in a Human Shield role. Air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective; where it is adjudged at the time → the total or partial destruction, would constitute an obvious military advantage;

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces [Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I)], military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes. This would include the location of High-Value Targets in the immediate vicinity of the operations. The bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations, and buildings is legitimate, provided there is a reasonable presumption that the objective is important enough to justify the bombardment.

Most Respectfully,
R

So this is what you support?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I sand by my statement in Posting #864 supra.

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed against the following objectives.

So this is what you support?

(COMMENT)

This is a mosaic of edits recording strung together to make a compilation. In this misleading recording, you see parts of a strikes and the local heartbreaking after-action recovery. What you do not see the reasons for the attacks, the actual targets, or the pre-bombordment warnings.

Having said that, anyone who has been under a rocket attack (a bombardment) knows that there is a lot of chaos and post-combat confusion and → yes, sorrow.

But this propaganda video is an appeal to the emotion of the viewer. It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate ⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: I sand by my statement in Posting #864 supra.

Now obviously, bombardment is legitimate only when directed against the following objectives.

So this is what you support?

(COMMENT)

This is a mosaic of edits recording strung together to make a compilation. In this misleading recording, you see parts of a strikes and the local heartbreaking after-action recovery. What you do not see the reasons for the attacks, the actual targets, or the pre-bombordment warnings.

Having said that, anyone who has been under a rocket attack (a bombardment) knows that there is a lot of chaos and post-combat confusion and → yes, sorrow.

But this propaganda video is an appeal to the emotion of the viewer. It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

(COMMENT)

Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920). That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

​

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.​

SOURCE: Article 6 • Mandate for Palestine (1922)​

​

​

This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.

​

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
SOURCE: A/RES/29/3314 Definition of Aggression 14 December 1974

The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century. It just does not work. To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to apply the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.

TODAY, the “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State → against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. That certainly does not describe the immigration of Jews to Palestine (territory under Mandate)

(∑Ω)

IF you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, THEN you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.

IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this claim is trying to make the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) look like the victims to arouse sympathy in their favor.

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

(COMMENT)

Although the handwriting was on the wall, the formal decision to encourage immigration was made by the Allied Powers was made at the San Remo Convention (April 1920). That decision included the Mandate that the British Government, the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

​

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.​

SOURCE: Article 6 • Mandate for Palestine (1922)​

​

​

This is NOT the same thing as an Act of Aggression.

​

Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.
SOURCE: A/RES/29/3314 Definition of Aggression 14 December 1974

​

​

The fallacy here is that the HoAP is trying to use and apply the late-20th Century Political determinism to critique the Principal Allied Powers on the decisions made in the early-20th Century. It just does not work. To critique the Allied Powers of the Great War - or for that matter - the Allied Powers of World War II, you have to ally the Rule of Law that was made workable in those times.

Just before the turn of the Century (1998), now nearly a quarter-Century ago, the theory and concept of the International Criminal Court (ICC) were to insure by "emphasizing that the International Criminal Court established under Rule of Law shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions." TODAY, the “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State.

(∑Ω)

IF you apply the Rule of Law as it was understood by the Allied Power in connection with the actions and decisions made by the Allied Powers, THEN you must agree, these world powers were the Titans that determined the Rule of Law.

IF you apply the understanding of an "Act of Aggression" as the Allied Powers understood it to be in the time of both the Great War and World War II, THEN you will begin to understand that the Jewish Immigration neither used an armed force against any sovereignty, - nor - did the Jewish Immigration pose a threat territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Immigration was encouraged by the Allied Powers, the receivers of the "Rights and Title" to the territory surrendered by the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Well! Don't keep us in suspense!

I know who was in cahoots with the Zionists with the plan to kick out the natives and set up shop.

(QUESTION)

WHO?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Hollie]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable spewing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: The NEWER Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

BLUF: Yes, this is a sleight of hand used in propaganda manipulation and misinformation.

It is to draw sympathy in support of the Hostile Arab Palestinians who created the conditions for conflict.

Do you mean like going to Europe to attack the Zionists?

(COMMENT)

This is one of those sarcastic backhanded remarks that suggest the Jewish People of Israel came from Europe and attacked the Arab Palestinians. As if some strange amphibious assault took place and crushed the Arab Palestinian people.

This type of comment is used to misdirect or sidetrack the flow of the discussion from terrorism to misuse of force to now the immigration of Jewish people to the territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine. The Arab Palestinians want the readership to think that this territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was the sovereign to the Arabs of Palestine. (NOT)

For eight centuries before the Great War (WWI), which ended in 1918:

The territory formerly under the Mandate for Palestine was Sovereign to the Ottoman Empire until the Armistice Convention of 1918. In 1918 the territory came under the effective control of the Allied Powers and through The Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) until the conclusion of the San Remo Conference (April 1920) which decided to place the territory under Civil Administration. In June 1920, the British Government established a Civil Administration over the territory and remained in place until 1946 when Jordan established its Independence; and then later, in 1948, when the British withdrew from the entirety of the territory, west of the Jordan River. In May 1948, the National Council for the Jewish State and the Provisional Government established the State of Israel along the borders outlined in Part II of the Recommendation along the boundaries noted Partition Plan - Annex A → and Resolution 181 (II) of the General Assembly, dated 29 November 1947.

A conflict immediately broke-out wherein the Arab League Forces rolled-into the territory, formerly under the Mandate for Palestine, by force taking control of the West Bank, most of Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Still, at this point, the Arabs of Palestine had no sovereign territory. The cessation of hostilities was secured by means of a series of Armistice Agreements which would remain in force until a more permanent peace arrangement could be executed. In 1979, the Peace Treaty was established with Egypt and by 1994, a permanent peace was arranged with Jordan. These two treaties covered the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. In 1988, the Hashemite Kingdom cut all political ties with the West Bank, leaving it in the hands of the State of Israel. In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, leaving it in the hands of the Hostile Arab Palestinians.

(∑Ω)

I just have to say that volumes and volumes have clarified this thumbnail clipping of this history. But, the point here is that at NO TIME did the Arabs of Palestine have any sovereign control over any territory until the Oslo Accords established Area "A" (1995) (full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority) and the total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Most Respectfully,
R

Short version.

The Zionists are the aggressors.

Another bit of falsehood / misinformation you are completely comfortable spewing.

Any proof of that?

Of course not.