Palestinian Rocket Attacks - Terror attacks or Acts of War.

[oneworld2]

From your reference:

Over the last century, armed conflicts have been increasingly fought in populated areas. It's illegal to intentionally target civilians and civilian objects such as houses. All sides must, as much as possible, avoid locating military targets in or near population centres. If an attack is expected to cause "incidental civilian damage" that is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, then the attack must not take place.

The laws of war prohibit direct attacks on civilian objects, like schools. They also prohibit direct attacks against hospitals and medical staff. That said, a hospital or school may become a legitimate military target if it contributes to specific military operations of the enemy and its destruction offers a definite military advantage for the attacking side.

Organizations designated as "terrorist" are bound by IHL if they are organized armed groups engaged in armed confrontations of a certain intensity with another organized armed group or a State. In situations of armed conflict, IHL must be observed by all parties. When the situation of violence does not amount to an armed conflict, IHL does not apply to the armed group but the individual members of the organization remain accountable under applicable national law.

Your opinions on what may be "excessive" I am sure do not align with those of the IDF (or anyone else dealing with terrorists hiding among the populace)

You have missed the obvious once more so I have highlighted it . " It's illegal to intentionally target civilians and civilian objects such as houses. " The Dahiya doctrine openly states the deliberate targeting of infrastructure , and as the pictures Evilroddy put up , houses in a bid to , if you are to believe the Israeli side " deny them use to the enemy " , if you look at it rationally imo to collectively punish a civilian population so as to bring about a political aim........state terrorism as stated by Richard Falk

 

[oneworld2]

It is crystal clear you're dancing around the justification of murder. It's important to call things what they are.

Your reliance on the incendiary and the false continues unabated as ever. Now to the projection element...

I agree it is important to " call things what they are " and it is a matter of the documentary record here that you have been the only poster who has used the term "justification" and that was for the destruction of the entire territorial entity known as the Gaza Strip and thus obviously the 1.8 million souls that reside there.

 

[Apocalypse]

Your reliance on the incendiary and the false continues unabated as ever. Now to the projection element...

I agree it is important to " call things what they are " and it is a matter of the documentary record here that you have been the only poster who has used the term "justification" and that was for the destruction of the entire territorial entity known as the Gaza Strip and thus obviously the 1.8 million souls that reside there.

I don't think you're fooling anyone, the very fact you're making such an argument or even actually having such a discussion is a justification for murderers and acts of murder pure and simple.
It's important to call things what they are.

 

[Fledermaus]

You have missed the obvious once more so I have highlighted it . " It's illegal to intentionally target civilians and civilian objects such as houses. " The Dahiya doctrine openly states the deliberate targeting of infrastructure , and as the pictures Evilroddy put up , houses in a bid to , if you are to believe the Israeli side " deny them use to the enemy " , if you look at it rationally imo to collectively punish a civilian population so as to bring about a political aim........state terrorism as stated by Richard Falk

You intentionally skipped over so much.

 

[oneworld2]

How many?

Come on... This is armed resistance to an occupier.... You should be able to show at least a few attacks on legitimate targets of war.

I gave you examples of them attacking soldiers when they exited from tunnels into Israel.

There are many examples of them attacking and killing Israeli soldiers/attacking Israeli soldiers and attacks against the soldiers of an enemy combatant in a conflict situation count as legitimate attacks.

 

[oneworld2]

You intentionally skipped over so much.

I covered what needed to be covered to support the point and that's all that was needed for now.

Now you know it is illegal why do you still support it ? Why haven't you acknowledged the illegality of it and condemned it ?

 

[Fledermaus]

The simple answer is that some people might be influenced by your highly biased views and thus hold a more biased view than they had previously. You yourself are definitely a lost cause imo but some others ?

Maybe not ,maybe so but they have had at least a chance to see the counter arguments to what are highly pro Israel perspectives/outight propaganda in most cases on this particular board imo

Do you know Jean's views?

I don't think so.

Yet you call Jean's views "highly biased".

 

[oneworld2]

I don't think you're fooling anyone, the very fact you're making such an argument or even actually having such a discussion is a justification for murderers and acts of murder pure and simple.
It's important to call things what they are.

Doubling down won't help you.

Was it or was it not you that hasbeen the only poster to use the term " justification " and that was regarding the entire destruction of Gaza and obviously all that live there ?

 

[oneworld2]

Do you know Jean's views?

I don't think so.

Yet you call Jean's views "highly biased".

Where have I called Jeans views here anything as yet ? post number/link

Jean has nothing to do with how I call your views. I have seen she replied to one of my posts here just now but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet

 

[Fledermaus]

I covered what needed to be covered to support the point and that's all that was needed for now.

Now you know it is illegal why do you still support it ? Why haven't you acknowledged the illegality of it and condemned it ?

Your intentional ignorance of what is stated is noted.

You want the laws to support you yet you ignore the portions you can't handle.

 

[Apocalypse]

Doubling down won't help you.

Was it or was it not you that hasbeen the only poster to use the term " justification " and that was regarding the entire destruction of Gaza and obviously all that live there ?

This isn't a court of justice, your views on the murder of innocents are crystal clear and when you discuss the murder of innocents and try to grant it legitimacy and justify it, it is crystal clear what your intentions are.
Your problem is you're under the belief that you're working a crowd here.

 

[Fledermaus]

Where have I called Jeans views here anything as yet ? post number/link

Jean has nothing to do with how I call your views. I have seen she replied to one of my posts here just now but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet

Derp

A response to Jean.

The simple answer is that some people might be influenced by your highly biased views and thus hold a more biased view than they had previously. You yourself are definitely a lost cause imo but some others ?

Maybe not ,maybe so but they have had at least a chance to see the counter arguments to what are highly pro Israel perspectives/outight propaganda in most cases on this particular board imo

 

[Fledermaus]

I gave you examples of them attacking soldiers when they exited from tunnels into Israel.

There are many examples of them attacking and killing Israeli soldiers/attacking Israeli soldiers and attacks against the soldiers of an enemy combatant in a conflict situation count as legitimate attacks.

What were their targets?

 

[oneworld2]

Why do you bother?

Sorry Jean I thought this comment was from Fledermaus.

I bother, like I said to him, because I think that the pro Israeli narrative enjoys the most support here because the propaganda campaign that backs it is more robust. I think people should have a better handle on perspectives from both sides of the conflict so as to save them from falling for the highly biased and selective commentary from the like s of Fledermaus and others here

 

[oneworld2]

What were their targets?

Pretty stupid question under the circumstances.

I know you can only believe that one side " targets " the combatants of the other and that only supports what I said about your highly selective commentary/bias

 

[oneworld2]

Derp

A response to Jean.

rectified it and admitted my mistake

 

[oneworld2]

This isn't a court of justice, your views on the murder of innocents are crystal clear and when you discuss the murder of innocents and try to grant it legitimacy and justify it, it is crystal clear what your intentions are.
Your problem is you're under the belief that you're working a crowd here.

The projection continues as expected

That it isn't a court only benefits you`because the fact remains that ONLY YOU have stated that there is more of a "justification " for the mass slaughter of the Palestinians in Gaza and the society that stands on its soil.

Your commentary as ever is bizarre and illogical

 

[danielpalos]

The Palestinians have employed a mix of home made and military grade rocket artillery fired in the direction of Israeli civilian centers.

Intentional targeting of civilians.

Some argue that the rockets are a legitimate military response in reaction to perceived occupation by a foreign entity.

There are issues with this mindset.

The targets are not in any way military targets. They are civilian centers.
The homemade rockets are an indiscriminate weapon. They can only be roughly targeted.
The military grade rockets are more accurate but still target civilian sectors.

My take is that their intent is solely to inflict terror on the civilians and to boost morale of the Palestinians.... Nothing more. Nothing less.

There is zero military gain by rocketing civilians.

A case study in what happens when we use our Second Amendment over our First Amendment?

 

[Fledermaus]

Pretty stupid question under the circumstances.

I know you can only believe that one side " targets " the combatants of the other and that only supports what I said about your highly selective commentary/bias

What were their targets?

 

[Fledermaus]

A case study in what happens when we use our Second Amendment over our First Amendment?

Ignorant question.

 

[Yasureoktoo]

What were their targets?

Any populated area,

 

[Yasureoktoo]

Sorry Jean I thought this comment was from Fledermaus.

I bother, like I said to him, because I think that the pro Israeli narrative enjoys the most support here because the propaganda campaign that backs it is more robust. I think people should have a better handle on perspectives from both sides of the conflict so as to save them from falling for the highly biased and selective commentary from the like s of Fledermaus and others here

You are hardly the one to speak of knowledge on both sides.

You know nothing of the Islamic religion, and deny virtually all said about it,
when the religion is the main cause.

 

[oneworld2]

You are hardly the one to speak of knowledge on both sides.

You know nothing of the Islamic religion, and deny virtually all said about it,
when the religion is the main cause.

A I don't claim to be knowledgeable about what the Koran states nor Islam, so your first point is moot wrt to the second one which is.....

B Show where I have " denied " stuff said about it, show examples, cite posts , or just admit you made it up

C The " main cause " is not the religion but a national struggle between two peoples fighting over the same territory

 

[oneworld2]

What were their targets?

Unless you were part of the group carrying out the operation , which you are not , you are just guessing/speculating ?

I am guessing those they attacked ,which were on some occasions soldiers occupying their territory and denying them their right to self determination.

Are you saying they have never attacked soldiers ?

 

[Fledermaus]

Unless you were part of the group carrying out the operation , which you are not , you are just guessing/speculating ?

I am guessing those they attacked ,which were on some occasions soldiers occupying their territory and denying them their right to self determination.

Are you saying they have never attacked soldiers ?

I guess you were part of the assault team since you believe you know what the targets were.