Political Crossfire Forums

[The Newb]

some quotes to ponder:

Quote: civilian shields

Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)


[quote]civilian immunity

Quote: Civilians have special protections under Convention IV, Protocol I, and Protocol II.

They must be treated humanely, without discrimination based on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or other similar criteria.

Violence to life and person including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture are prohibited.

The taking of hostages is prohibited.

Outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment are prohibited.

Sentences and executions without a judgment from a regularly constituted court and without benefit of the standard judicial guarantees are prohibited. (Convention IV, Art. 3)
[quote]

Quote: civilian status

Feigning of civilian or non-combatant status is perfidy and prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. (Protocol I. Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Quote: child soldiers

Children under 15 must not participate in hostilities and must not be recruited into the armed forces. (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec. 2; Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 3c)

Quote: terrorism

Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)

Civilians in an occupied territory must not be subject to collective penalties or any other measures of intimidation or terrorism. (Convention IV, Art. 33)

Quote: perfidy

It is prohibited to pretend to surrender, without an actual intention to do so. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1)

Pretending to seek a cease-fire with the intent to betray the confidence in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary is perfidy and is prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 37, Sec. 1a)

Quote: hostage taking

The taking of hostages is forbidden, both in internal conflicts (Convention I, Art. 3, Sec. 1B and Protocol II, Art. 4, Sec. 2c) and international conflicts. (Convention IV, Art. 34 and Protocol I, Art. 75, Sec. 2c)

In international conflicts, the taking of hostages is considered a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. (Convention IV, Art. 147)


Quote: guerrillas

Guerrillas who follow the rules spelled out in the Geneva Conventions are considered to have combatant status and have some of the same rights as regular members of the armed forces.

In international conflicts, guerrillas must distinguish themselves from the civilian population if they are preparing or engaged in an attack. At a minimum, guerrillas must carry their arms openly. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3)
Under the earlier Geneva Conventions, which are more widely recognized, a guerrilla army must have a well-defined chain of command, be clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry arms openly and observe the laws of war. (Convention III, Art. 4, Sec. 2)

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)


these are a few and many more violations so how can you expect isreal not to defend themselves again? :think:

[lilwolf]

I like this and many of these things I had not even considered....excellent points here :-D

[The Newb]

lilwolf wrote: I like this and many of these things I had not even considered....excellent points here :-D

thank you use it for refference if needed

[slitedeviance]

I agree that Hizbollah use very dirty tactics and their leaders should be brought before a Criminal court for their actions, but I fail to see why you brought in the argument that Israel had to fight then because of their tactics.

Israel itself is guilty of breaching the Geneva conventions in their conduct (and no, I'm not specifically relating this to use of cluster munitions). So how can the argument be that Israel had to fight these people because they are nasty? Seems rather spurious.

[The Newb]

slitedeviance wrote: I agree that Hizbollah use very dirty tactics and their leaders should be brought before a Criminal court for their actions, but I fail to see why you brought in the argument that Israel had to fight then because of their tactics.

Israel itself is guilty of breaching the Geneva conventions in their conduct (and no, I'm not specifically relating this to use of cluster munitions). So how can the argument be that Israel had to fight these people because they are nasty? Seems rather spurious.

what do you relate it to?

[slitedeviance]

The Newb wrote: slitedeviance wrote: I agree that Hizbollah use very dirty tactics and their leaders should be brought before a Criminal court for their actions, but I fail to see why you brought in the argument that Israel had to fight then because of their tactics.

Israel itself is guilty of breaching the Geneva conventions in their conduct (and no, I'm not specifically relating this to use of cluster munitions). So how can the argument be that Israel had to fight these people because they are nasty? Seems rather spurious.

what do you relate it to?

Bombing of civilian infrastructure for one. The airport and offices attacked in Beirut as well as the communications tower. The Geneva convention clearly states that in a situation where a building is deemed to have a civilian purpose as well as an alleged military one the civilian designation remains. (I'll happily link to this once I'm free of this crappy firewall in work).

Also, (and whilst this may have recently stopped) Israel had no issue with using Palestinian civilian shields when raiding palestinian houses.

Like I say, I have no issue with people condemning Hizbollah and I in no way intend to champion them, but this does seem odd to try and promote the IDF's actions on the basis of an agreement that Israel has breached itself.

[ALi*]

The Newb wrote: lilwolf wrote: I like this and many of these things I had not even considered....excellent points here :-D

thank you use it for refference if needed

lol i leave the forum for 2 days... everything gets out of control

welcome new user whom should actually change his username to The N00b hehe

anyways...heres what a nrmal person can understand from the n00b's post:
1- he is NOT lebanese in anyway.
2- if he is lebanese... he ain't living in lebanon
3- he is a dreamer lol :lol:
4- he doesnt know what he wants
5- even tho hezbollah is not using it as an advantage... (YET..) he cant stand the fact they are strong! nationally and internationnaly.
6- his relatives prolly worked for pro-israeli south army who was in lebanon pre-2000.
7- he aint got no definition for many words in his dictionnary including "pride" , "patriotism" , "dignity" , "nation" , "resistance" , "respect"....etc and many other words

NB: i wont be spending any time answering his post becuz it shows exactly what kind of person he is... and that you cant have a civilizeddebate with him nomatter what. :-D

10x :lol:

[The Newb]

ALi* wrote: The Newb wrote: lilwolf wrote: I like this and many of these things I had not even considered....excellent points here :-D

thank you use it for refference if needed

lol i leave the forum for 2 days... everything gets out of control

welcome new user whom should actually change his username to The N00b hehe

anyways...heres what a nrmal person can understand from the n00b's post:
1- he is NOT lebanese in anyway.
2- if he is lebanese... he ain't living in lebanon
3- he is a dreamer lol :lol:
4- he doesnt know what he wants
5- even tho hezbollah is not using it as an advantage... (YET..) he cant stand the fact they are strong! nationally and internationnaly.
6- his relatives prolly worked for pro-israeli south army who was in lebanon pre-2000.
7- he aint got no definition for many words in his dictionnary including "pride" , "patriotism" , "dignity" , "nation" , "resistance" , "respect"....etc and many other words

NB: i wont be spending any time answering his post becuz it shows exactly what kind of person he is... and that you cant have a civilizeddebate with him nomatter what. :-D

10x :lol:

that post was a true waste of time hope you realize that

i am american born and bred i do not have relatives working for isreal, however i see you are lebonese, and more than likely by your post pro hamas, and hezbollah

[The Newb]

slitedeviance wrote: The Newb wrote: slitedeviance wrote: I agree that Hizbollah use very dirty tactics and their leaders should be brought before a Criminal court for their actions, but I fail to see why you brought in the argument that Israel had to fight then because of their tactics.

Israel itself is guilty of breaching the Geneva conventions in their conduct (and no, I'm not specifically relating this to use of cluster munitions). So how can the argument be that Israel had to fight these people because they are nasty? Seems rather spurious.

what do you relate it to?

Bombing of civilian infrastructure for one. The airport and offices attacked in Beirut as well as the communications tower. The Geneva convention clearly states that in a situation where a building is deemed to have a civilian purpose as well as an alleged military one the civilian designation remains. (I'll happily link to this once I'm free of this crappy firewall in work).

Also, (and whilst this may have recently stopped) Israel had no issue with using Palestinian civilian shields when raiding palestinian houses.

Like I say, I have no issue with people condemning Hizbollah and I in no way intend to champion them, but this does seem odd to try and promote the IDF's actions on the basis of an agreement that Israel has breached itself.

what you are refering to

Quote: civilian property

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military property and attack only military property. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

See places of worship, indiscriminate attacks.

see also indescriminate attacks

indiscriminate attacks

Indiscriminate attacks are those which are not directed at a specific military objective or those which use a method of attack that cannot be directed at or limited to a specific military objective. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

This includes area bombardment, where a number of clearly separated military objectives are treated as a single military objective, and where there is a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5a)

This also includes attacks where the expected incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects is excessive to the military advantage anticipated. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 5b)

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 4)

Combatants must distinguish between civilian and military objects and attack only military targets. (Protocol I, Art. 48)

If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

this is what you were refering to?

[slitedeviance]

(cheers dude, would have been hours before I could have grabbed that)

It's this specific sentence...

Quote: If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

[The Newb]

slitedeviance wrote: (cheers dude, would have been hours before I could have grabbed that)

It's this specific sentence...

Quote: If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

this outways it

civilian shields
Quote: Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

as soon as military uses it as a base or sheild it becomes a target

[Venom]

Quote: If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)
Ok that sounds pretty clear. However you cite this against the IDF...

Quote: Bombing of civilian infrastructure for one. The airport and offices attacked in Beirut as well as the communications tower.
When these places are used by Hezbollah they have become a military target.
Just like if the United States was constantly flying troops and weapons out of some civilian airport to support a war against say Iran or Korea.

Quote: Like I say, I have no issue with people condemning Hizbollah and I in no way intend to champion them, but this does seem odd to try and promote the IDF's actions on the basis of an agreement that Israel has breached itself
If Hezbollah had not attacked Israel and was not hiding amongst the civilains of Lebanon they would not have been bombed by the IDF... end of story. Hezbollah put the IDF in the situation of being forced to fight them among a civilian population.


Ali
Quote: NB: i wont be spending any time answering his post becuz it shows exactly what kind of person he is... and that you cant have a civilizeddebate with him nomatter what.
:roll:
Isn't there a Hezbollah rally your late for? :lol:

[slitedeviance]

The Newb wrote: slitedeviance wrote: (cheers dude, would have been hours before I could have grabbed that)

It's this specific sentence...

Quote: If it becomes apparent that an objective in an attack is not a military one, or if that attack could cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects, then the attack must be called off. (Protocol I, Art. 57)

this outways it

civilian shields
Quote: Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attacks. (Protocol I, Art. 51, Sec. 7)

as soon as military uses it as a base or sheild it becomes a target

It doesn't disqualify it at all. There is no juncture between the two sections to support that and the fact it [Art 51] comes before it [Art 57] is no indication as to the precedence which they need to be adhered to.

It's not pick or choose. It's clear and direct language and covers almost all aspects of warfare. To claim that Israel has not breached the Geneva Conventions is either an intentional or mistaken reading of the article.

I can understand that if the IDF had intelligence to suggest that Beirut Airport was being used to transport munitions to Hizbollah then it's a fat and juicy target. But it is not a military target. The plane with the munitions on, yes, the transport waiting to unload, yes, the airport runway, no.

[Tetracide]

ALi* wrote: The Newb wrote: lilwolf wrote: I like this and many of these things I had not even considered....excellent points here :-D

thank you use it for refference if needed

lol i leave the forum for 2 days... everything gets out of control

welcome new user whom should actually change his username to The N00b hehe

anyways...heres what a nrmal person can understand from the n00b's post:
1- he is NOT lebanese in anyway.
2- if he is lebanese... he ain't living in lebanon
3- he is a dreamer lol :lol:
4- he doesnt know what he wants
5- even tho hezbollah is not using it as an advantage... (YET..) he cant stand the fact they are strong! nationally and internationnaly.
6- his relatives prolly worked for pro-israeli south army who was in lebanon pre-2000.
7- he aint got no definition for many words in his dictionnary including "pride" , "patriotism" , "dignity" , "nation" , "resistance" , "respect"....etc and many other words

NB: i wont be spending any time answering his post becuz it shows exactly what kind of person he is... and that you cant have a civilizeddebate with him nomatter what. :-D

10x :lol:
Check your PMs.

[superskippy]

Quote: I can understand that if the IDF had intelligence to suggest that Beirut Airport was being used to transport munitions to Hizbollah then it's a fat and juicy target. But it is not a military target. The plane with the munitions on, yes, the transport waiting to unload, yes, the airport runway, no.

Hitting the runway prevents any attempted landings by resupply planes or transport planes, we arent always going to know which plane is which. It is better that we simply destroy their capacity to land any aircraft for the duration of the conflict.

[agentkgb]

superskippy wrote: Quote: I can understand that if the IDF had intelligence to suggest that Beirut Airport was being used to transport munitions to Hizbollah then it's a fat and juicy target. But it is not a military target. The plane with the munitions on, yes, the transport waiting to unload, yes, the airport runway, no.

Hitting the runway prevents any attempted landings by resupply planes or transport planes, we arent always going to know which plane is which. It is better that we simply destroy their capacity to land any aircraft for the duration of the conflict.
Will the runway magically repair itself after the conflict is over?

[superskippy]

Of course not. Destruction of structures is something that has been a part of war for thousands of years, you cannot legislate against it. You simply cannnot.

[agentkgb]

superskippy wrote: Of course not. Destruction of structures is something that has been a part of war for thousands of years, you cannot legislate against it. You simply cannnot.
I never said you could pass laws against it, if that was directed at me.

[lilwolf]

The runway in a time of battle or war or whatever term is used is always a target because of exactly what it is used for....aircraft.

So taking it out is a strategic move and a good one mind you. It can be rebuilt yes but if the hez start it again it will be eliminated again.

[superskippy]

Quote: I never said you could pass laws against it, if that was directed at me.

Ok, then if you dont mind me asking what was your point?