Hamas "learns" from the US and Israel

[Scarletwine]

Human Rights come only in second or third place to National Security to Sting2. You will never convince him otherwise.

I feel international law and human rights trump any national security issue.

 

[Dreadsox]

Human Rights come only in second or third place to National Security to Sting2. You will never convince him otherwise.

I feel international law and human rights trump any national security issue.

That is a crappy thing to say about Sting. I have never seen him post anything that would indicate to me that he does not place value on the lives and rights of others. Quite the contrary. You may not agree with his interpretation of things, but that is another issue. Shame on you!

 

[BVS]

Human Rights come only in second or third place to National Security to Sting2. You will never convince him otherwise.

I feel international law and human rights trump any national security issue.

I understand both sides. I understand the need for National Security and I understand the need for human right. I don't think one neccesarily has to trump the other. What many fail to see and this also has to do with the discussion of detanees that we're having as well, is that the way one nation conducts itself with human rights has a direct correlation with national security. You don't 'x' out one to get the other.

 

[verte76]

I understand both sides. I understand the need for National Security and I understand the need for human right. I don't think one neccesarily has to trump the other. What many fail to see and this also has to do with the discussion of detanees that we're having as well, is that the way one nation conducts itself with human rights has a direct correlation with national security. You don't 'x' out one to get the other.

I don't think you can have human rights without national security. National security is important. I also don't think you can have national security without human rights. Those nations that abuse human rights are risking their security. So human rights violations are self-destructive and endanger national security for any nation.

 

[Scarletwine]

That is a crappy thing to say about Sting. I have never seen him post anything that would indicate to me that he does not place value on the lives and rights of others. Quite the contrary. You may not agree with his interpretation of things, but that is another issue. Shame on you!

Sorry. but I don't think I'm totally out of line.

I stated that National Security comes first. I did not say he doesn't place value on lives, and I believe him to do so. However, human rights and collateral damage are less important than Israel's or our supposed national security or human rights in Gitmo.

"National security at times trumps other factors that it would not do so at other times. Israel is dealing with individuals dedicated to the murder of childern. Whether they conduct the terrorist action or help the person conducting the terrorist action they must be stopped. This fact trumps everything else."

I think the case could also be made of the resistance in Iraq and Palestine IMO. Israel also habitually kills children.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"I think the case could also be made of the resistance in Iraq and Palestine IMO. Israel also habitually kills children."

There is a clear difference between Palestinian terrorist who TARGET childern and kill them, and Israel that targets Terrorist. Israel does not target childern or innocent civilians. If Israel did, everyone one on the West Bank and Gaza would have been killed decades ago.

 

[Scarletwine]

Scarletwine,

"I think the case could also be made of the resistance in Iraq and Palestine IMO. Israel also habitually kills children."

There is a clear difference between Palestinian terrorist who TARGET childern and kill them, and Israel that targets Terrorist. Israel does not target childern or innocent civilians. If Israel did, everyone one on the West Bank and Gaza would have been killed decades ago.

I don't think they target children per se, just Israeli's. Please know I'm not condoning their actions, they are wrong, but they have no army, no WMD's as Israel does.

When an Israeli helicopter fires a rocket into a crowded street to kill a supposed terrorist (not convicted) and kills innocent civilians and children also, they become terrorists themselves And cross the line as a war criminals. When they tear down houses and take away others land they commit crimes against international law. When they ignore UN resolutions they commit crimes against international law. It doesn't matter what charters, that only implicates the manner of resolution. A country can almost always justify their actions, that doesn't make it right.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"I don't think they target children per se, just Israeli's. Please know I'm not condoning their actions, they are wrong, but they have no army, no WMD's as Israel does."

So who do you think the target is when a suicide bomber goes in to blow up a disco?

Israel has never used WMD against anyone ever. Israel has an army like any nation, and they do not use that army to murder innocent civilians.

I fail to understand the reasoning or the rational behind not having an army and conducting suicide bombings against innocent civilians. Why would Palestinian terrorist stop targeting innocent civilians if they did have an army? The evidence shows they would simply target a greater number of civilians with an army.

The question is not about what ones capability is, its about who are what you target regardless of that level of capability.


"When an Israeli helicopter fires a rocket into a crowded street to kill a supposed terrorist (not convicted) and kills innocent civilians and children also, they become terrorists themselves And cross the line as a war criminals. When they tear down houses and take away others land they commit crimes against international law. When they ignore UN resolutions they commit crimes against international law. It doesn't matter what charters, that only implicates the manner of resolution. A country can almost always justify their actions, that doesn't make it right."

It is not a terrorist act to kill or capture terrorist and experience accidents where civilians get hurt or killed. It is impossible to conduct any type of military or police action and have it be 100% accident free.

My best friend who spent 8 months in Iraq this year is an attack helicopter pilot who was engaged in heavy combat during the 3 week war. He fired an unknown number of missiles, rockets, and high caliber gun shells at a variety of targets. I hope that no innocent civilians were hurt or killed during the time he was engaged in combat, but if there was it was simply an accident. My best friend is not a terrorist. The same can be said of Israely Attack Helicopter Pilots as well.


It is not a crime to destroy and disrupt bases of terrorist operation. If Terrorist happen to set up shop in house a or house b, that house is a base for terrorism and should be leveled. The blame lies completely with the terrorist.

"When they ignore UN resolutions they commit crimes against international law. It doesn't matter what charters, that only implicates the manner of resolution."

It does matter because Israel is trying its best to comply with all UN resolutions through its attempts to negotiate a lasting peace. Unlike the Palestinians who have never accepted a peace deal, Israel has accepted several peace deals. Israel has been willing to negotiate since 1948 when it was founded. Israel is willing to have and keep a just and lasting peace that resolves all issues. Want proof of this, look at Israel's peace deal with Egypt which has been an outstanding success. There were issues of Jewish settlers on Egyptian territory as well, but all this issues were resolved. Unfortunately, Palestinians unlike Egyptians seem unwilling to negotiate or accept any peace plan.

 

[Scarletwine]

Scarletwine,

I fail to understand the reasoning or the rational behind not having an army and conducting suicide bombings against innocent civilians. Why would Palestinian terrorist stop targeting innocent civilians if they did have an army? The evidence shows they would simply target a greater number of civilians with an army.

I disagree. They are mostlly moral people with strong nationalistic qualities. I'm sure they would fight more conventionally.

It is not a terrorist act to kill or capture terrorist and experience accidents where civilians get hurt or killed. It is impossible to conduct any type of military or police action and have it be 100% accident free.

I couldn't disagree more. Think of it in the US. A very horrendous murderer (alleged but not convicted) escapes from jail. In order to prevent further murders our state police force asks for help by the military and they fire a rocket killing him and several civilians nearby. It is exactly the same only they are not us. Can you imagine the outrage and villifying of the gov't. What if he was not a murderer but Osama. We still would not stand for the wanton killing of innocents. It is only ok because it is not here.

They have signed on for peace but Israel continues on it's destructive means of land grabbing regardless.

 

[anitram]

It does matter because Israel is trying its best to comply with all UN resolutions through its attempts to negotiate a lasting peace.

Bullshit.

Building 600 new settlements is nothing but a provocation and has nothing to do with complying with any UN resolution (in fact, it openly defies them and international law) and has even less to do with negotiating a lasting peace.

You tell me what building illegal settlements has to do with any of these things:

- meaningful negotiation
- brokering a peace deal
- minimizing terrorism
- increasing safety for Israeli citizens

The answer is NOTHING. Building these illegal settlements on land that is not your own has no justification. Terrorism has no justification either. Let's call a spade a spade.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

"I disagree. They are mostlly moral people with strong nationalistic qualities. I'm sure they would fight more conventionally."

It does not follow that if one is unable to fight conventionally, the next best thing then is to conduct targeted murder of innocent civilians that have no effect on your problem. I could understand perhaps attacks against the Israely military, but what does attacking disco's and restaurants filled with Israely childern have to do with the military or poltical situation on the West Bank or Gaza? These people who are conducting and supporting these attacks have no morality at all. Their actions have no effect on the Israely military that is occupying the West Bank and Gaza.

"I couldn't disagree more. Think of it in the US. A very horrendous murderer (alleged but not convicted) escapes from jail. In order to prevent further murders our state police force asks for help by the military and they fire a rocket killing him and several civilians nearby. It is exactly the same only they are not us. Can you imagine the outrage and villifying of the gov't. What if he was not a murderer but Osama. We still would not stand for the wanton killing of innocents. It is only ok because it is not here."

Thats not true. Innocent people are killed every year in the USA as police go after criminals and fight crime. I would not be outraged at the Police contacting the military to catch a violent criminal and in killing or catching him, some innocent people were injured or killed. The Police already engage in operations that mirror many situations we see Israel involved in, and yes, sometimes innocent people are hurt or injured. But the price of not taking effective action in these cases is greater than the cost of the action itself. That alone justifies the action and it happens every year all across the USA.

During the D-Day operation in World War II, 20,000 innocent French Civilians were killed in the Allied bombing effort to help liberate France of German occupation. These are simply the unavoidable accidents of fighting crime and fighting in war.

Again I remind you that my best friend has been involved in urban fighting in Iraq this past year, similar to what Israely forces have experienced in combating terrorism in Israel/Palestine. Does that make him or any other US Marine or Soldier a terrorist?

 

[STING2]

anitram,

"Building 600 new settlements is nothing but a provocation and has nothing to do with complying with any UN resolution (in fact, it openly defies them and international law) and has even less to do with negotiating a lasting peace."

As soon as the Palestinians agree to a peace deal, the settlement building can be stopped and reversed if necessary. This is precisely what happened when Israel and Egypt signed their peace deal.

There are disputes about what is or is not Palestinian land and what the land area of the new Palestinian State will be. Until this is resolved, it is understandable that there will be settlement building in Area's that Israel will later turn over to the Palestinians if they ever agree to a peace deal.

Again, the UN resolutions call for the issues to be resolved through negotiation which Israel is actively engaged in and ready to accept a peace plan. The Palestinians after 55 years have yet to accept a single peace plan.

"You tell me what building illegal settlements has to do with any of these things:"

"- meaningful negotiation
- brokering a peace deal
- minimizing terrorism
- increasing safety for Israeli citizens"

Until Palestinians agree to a peace deal, it is difficult to convince others in Israel of where and what is Palestinian and what is not. But a peace deal will do that, if the Palestinians ever accept one.

Once again, I cite the peace deal between Egypt and Israel. All the same issues before the peace deal was signed. Once the Peace Deal was signed and the conditions agreed to, Israel forcibly removed any settlers in parts of Egypt that were given back to Egypt. But Israel was not about to do this until the outcome of negotiations and a peace deal were known.

It is the peace deal agreed to by Israely's and Palestinians that will decide what is illegal and not illegal and who owns what land. The Palestinians got 96% of what they wanted in the last Peace Deal and they rejected it.

 

[Scarletwine]

"The prohibition of attacks against civilians constitutes one of the most fundamental principles of humanitarian law. This principle is at the core of the rules of IHL, as embodied in IHL treaties and customary international law. As such, it applies to all individuals and groups engaged in armed hostilities. Article 51, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Additional Protocol I, considered as customary law and therefore applicable to the conflict in Iraq (and Israel - mine), states that:

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations.

2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

 

[STING2]

Scarletwine,

Israel is in compliance with that. But the fact remains that anywhere on the planet where Police and Military forces engage in combat for whatever the reason, there is the possibility, despite ones best intentions, that innocent civilians can be hurt accidently.

 

[Salome]

I lack a lot of knowledge on the whole Israel - Palestina situation so I usually stay out of discussions on that subject

I do know not a lot there happens accidently

if that was the case we would be a lot closer to a solution

 

[Dreadsox]

Why do innocent Palestinian civilians get hurt?

This says a lot!

[Q]Palestinian youths watch as militants open fire towards Israeli forces during an Israeli army operation in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip (news - web sites), Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003. Dozens of armored Israel Defense Forces vehicles reentered the camp early Tuesday in the latest operation to uncover arms-smuggling tunnels Palestinians use, according to the army. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra) [/Q]

 

[nbcrusader]

They were probably trying to stop the guy with the mask and gun.....

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Why do some Palestinians resort to violence against Israelis? Could have something to do with the 8 people killed and the 1200 made homeless by the actions of the Israeli army this week.

 

[Dreadsox]

Why did the Israelis have to go in there in the first place?

---edit---

never mind

 

[Dreadsox]

Well if we are going to quote Article 51 of the Geneva Convention lets not leave out the part which makes it 100% illegal to camoflague or hide military targets amongst civilian populations. Using civilians to shield oneself from attack is 100% inviolation of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, the military action that Israel has been forced to take to protect itself is legal since the para-military/terrorist organization is shielding itself from punishment by hiding its tunnels in civililian areas and its masked soldiers as in the picture I posted above.

Please, if you are going to quote a document, how about not just selctively taking out of context the one or two portions that support your case. Looking at the whole document, Israel under Article 51 Section 7 is clearly justified.

[Q]Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.


7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

[/Q]

 

[Amna]

Heyyy , I like how you post pix that don't have an explanation, and you just assume them...

I dear you to look at these pix...
http://www.jerusalem.indymedia.org/news/2002/04/14101.php

this is a forum, and if you scroll down you see some pretty disturbing pix....

i wonder what this child deserved?

 

[Dreadsox]

I very infrequently assume anything. I have been a member of this board for a year and I think most would agree with that. I spend quite a bit of time making sure I am not assuming anything.

 

[Dreadsox]

One thing though, you asked a question about Palestinian violence. The pictures I posted demonstrate that there is a culture that is raising their children to become perpetrators of violence. The pictures demonstrate that.

Now the other picture I posted, demostrates clearly that Palestinian Terrorists hide among civilians, which is illegal, and fire their weapons. Now if God forbid, return fire from Israeli police kills an innocent victim, that is not the Israeli's fault. Clearly based on the Geneva conventions, the Palestinian Terrorist is responsible for the death.

I did post the AP caption for the picture from 2 days ago. I usually do post the caption with pictures that I find however, I did not feel captions were necessary for the pictured of the children being raised to hate.

 

[DaveC]

Amna, I suggest that if you want to show an unbiased opinion, that you not post a link to a page on a nationalist, extremely anti-Israeli pro-Hamas Palestinian newspaper. Some headlines off the front page, if I may:

"The Zionist Terrorism file"

"Israel is hereby accused"

"Israel imposes racist marriage law"

"Militants are pawns in efforts to free Arafat from Muqata"

"New Israeli Violations of RoadMap"

"Israel's Apartheid Wall: Environmental Disaster in Palestine"

"URGENT APPEAL: ABNAA EL BALLAD LEADERS ARRESTED!"

If you want to present an unbiased opinion, as you yourself so highly tout and urge us all to have, don't use a source like this. Practice what you preach.