Hezbollah launch attack on Israeli troops

[A.P. Richelieu]

Nobody was firing mortars from hospitals. Stop frothing out of your mouth.

Wrong, Israel warned all civilians near the border to leave their homes(warning and bombing and ground invasion, civilians fled). Israeli forces occupied those private homes and stationed their forces there in order to facilitate entry of other troops/armor. Afterwards Hamas sent fighters to rig their positions. Which are the accounts described by Israeli news sites and Hamas armed wing accounts.

Wrong again. These are not 'civilian clothes' kiddo:
...

Clearly no civilian dress:
...

No civilian dress:
...

UN didn't find anything, they saw expired/faulty munitions which the police force does controlled demolitions of. The security forces in Gaza are tasked with collecting any left over bombs in the strip. There was no school there and nobody in the building, it is building for security forces.

No such thing happened, you are lying. There are no combatants in a hospital, the hospital is full of civilians, journalists and doctors and nobody reported such a thing. They would be able to clearly identify any gun fire in the building. Palestinians don't have rag tag tactics. They have snipers in fatigue camo which do their job well. Just because your Israeli retard buddies couldn't identify them doesn't give them a right to shell a hospital. The little girl kids in IDF tanks don't even know where they are firing shells.

Showing pictures of people in uniform, is no proof that noone fights using civilan dresses.
Obviously, you have no higher education in math, especially "logic".

As for Palestinians violating the Geneva Convention, I think most people remember U.N. outrage, so it is not worth responding to.

 

[500]

All the launchers are planted beforehand. We don't fire single rounds anymore.

This is not a 'hospital parking lot', kiddo:

Just search pics in google "gaza rocket" and u wil see that almost all are fired from urban areas.

Yeah, if you don't wear Western style uniform than you must be wearing civilian clothing. You don't see any US special forces trying to blend in with environment dressing in scout uniform. Get lost kiddo.

T shirt is not uniform especially red one

 

[Falcon29]

T shirt is not uniform especially red one

Firstly that isn't Hamas, secondly, you don't need kevlar vest(which is very expensive and only available to wealthy nations) to have military clothing. You might as well say Egyptian army wear 't-shirts' since their outfits are thin. That's budget constraint issue.

Showing pictures of people in uniform, is no proof that noone fights using civilan dresses.
.

Kiddo, onus is on you to back up your allegations regarding 2014 assault on Gaza. If you can't provide any evidence, plain and simple you are a liar. I can't disprove or prove that unicorns are among us. You made specific allegations and couldn't back them up. Probability is meaningless with specific allegations. I can say there is probability you transform into a donkey and back to human 3 times a day. It's meaningless rhetoric.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Firstly that isn't Hamas, secondly, you don't need kevlar vest(which is very expensive and only available to wealthy nations) to have military clothing. You might as well say Egyptian army wear 't-shirts' since their outfits are thin. That's budget constraint issue.


Kiddo, onus is on you to back up your allegations regarding 2014 assault on Gaza. If you can't provide any evidence, plain and simple you are a liar. I can't disprove or prove that unicorns are among us. You made specific allegations and couldn't back them up. Probability is meaningless with specific allegations. I can say there is probability you transform into a donkey and back to human 3 times a day. It's meaningless rhetoric.

Maybe You should take reading classes as well.
I stated certain conditions that possibly could make shooting at people in civilians clothes legal.
Did I say that Hamas or any other Palestinian combatants actually did use civilian clothes - No.

Then again, I know of no other part of the Geneva Convention, for which the Palestinians
show respect.

This very rule is applicable to suicide bombers.
I guess that You ate going to claim that all suicide bombers have been wearing uniform...
If not, they are war criminals, and so is Hamas and other Palestinian organisations which
have planned and trained the criminals for their deed.

In the tunnel attack, the Palestinians were wearing IDF uniforms, again illegal.

 

[Falcon29]

Maybe You should take reading classes as well.

Quit pretending you're an international law student, kid.

I stated certain conditions that possibly could make shooting at people in civilians clothes legal.

This isn't your personal diary. Whatever thoughts you have, keep them to yourself. Those 'conditions' were posted by you on this thread for a reason. You wanted to come up with ideas as to why an overwhelming number of civilians were killed in Israel's military operation in Gaza. If it wasn't related to Gaza than you wouldn't have written about it in your response to the Bengali brother.

Otherwise you're admitting it has no relevance to the topic of the conflict in Gaza. Which one is it?

Did I say that Hamas or any other Palestinian combatants actually did use civilian clothes - No.

You are alluding to it, unless you confuse this forum for your personal diary.

In the tunnel attack, the Palestinians were wearing IDF uniforms, again illegal.

No it's not illegal, in a state of war Hamas can attack any military objective that poses a threat to the Strip. All the troop concentrations/artillery around Gaza pose a threat to the Palestinian citizens. Hamas can neutralize these threats. Hamas didn't launch an invasion into Israel, it made calculated attacks to make Israeli mass invasion attempts more difficult. Israel was the aggressor.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Quite stupid to ignore the well known facts...

Diplomat: UN Gave Hamas Rockets to the Palestinian Government

U.N. buildings can be classified as military targets after that.

You expect anyone beeing bombed is going to be impartial?

And You ignore:

Give a more reliable source than that. I didn't post any Intifida links for that. Also, UN did find rockets and it was in an empty building not one where it's aid workers were at. If they did find any weapons at a building at use by UN aid workers, they would have immediately left it.

Israel opens first investigation of senior officer over Gaza war | The Times of Israel

Just a PR attempt to calm things down and improve Israel's image to the West.

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
TREATMENT II. DANGER ZONES

• 
  ARTICLE 28 [ Link ]
  
  The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Since housing through Hamas behaviour has been reclassified as military objectives,
anyone killed by artillery fire into this buildings are collateral damage and not war crimes.

If a party does not separate themselves from civilians through a uniform, or another
visible sign, they are in breach of the convention, and the rules to separate
civilians from combatants is then based on behaviour and not on clothing.
Whether remaining in a zone declared to be a military objective counts as
behaviour sufficient to designate someone as a combatant remains to be seen.

As for Your examples, they are beeing investigated:

UN refuge centres are neutral zones and can't be attacked. Thus attacking them is attacking neutral zones and attacking such schools is an act or war crime.

• 
  ARTICLE 14 [ Link ]
  
  In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.
  The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital and safety zones and localities.

Israel didn't follow any such law.

2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is war crime
Gaza: new evidence of deliberate attacks on medics by Israeli army | Amnesty International UK
Extract from link:

Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:

“The harrowing descriptions by ambulance drivers and other medics of the utterly impossible situation in which they have to work, with bombs and bullets killing or injuring their colleagues as they try to save lives, paint a grim reality of life in Gaza.

“Even more alarming is the mounting evidence that the Israeli army has targeted health facilities or professionals. Such attacks are absolutely prohibited by international law and would amount to war crimes. They only add to the already compelling argument that the situation should be referred to the International Criminal Court.”

ARTICLE 28 [ Link ]

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

This isn't talking about hospitals and UN aid centres.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Give a more reliable source than that. I didn't post any Intifida links for that. Also, UN did find rockets and it was in an empty building not one where it's aid workers were at. If they did find any weapons at a building at use by UN aid workers, they would have immediately left it.

Just a PR attempt to calm things down and improve Israel's image to the West.

UN refuge centres are neutral zones and can't be attacked. Thus attacking them is attacking neutral zones and attacking such schools is an act or war crime.

• 
  ARTICLE 14 [ Link ]
  
  In time of peace, the High Contracting Parties and, after the outbreak of hostilities, the Parties thereto, may establish in their own territory and, if the need arises, in occupied areas, hospital and safety zones and localities so organized as to protect from the effects of war, wounded, sick and aged persons, children under fifteen, expectant mothers and mothers of children under seven.
  Upon the outbreak and during the course of hostilities, the Parties concerned may conclude agreements on mutual recognition of the zones and localities they have created. They may for this purpose implement the provisions of the Draft Agreement annexed to the present Convention, with such amendments as they may consider necessary.
  The Protecting Powers and the International Committee of the Red Cross are invited to lend their good offices in order to facilitate the institution and recognition of these hospital and safety zones and localities.

Israel didn't follow any such law.

2014 Israeli shelling of UNRWA Gaza shelters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is war crime
Gaza: new evidence of deliberate attacks on medics by Israeli army | Amnesty International UK
Extract from link:

Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa Director Philip Luther said:

“The harrowing descriptions by ambulance drivers and other medics of the utterly impossible situation in which they have to work, with bombs and bullets killing or injuring their colleagues as they try to save lives, paint a grim reality of life in Gaza.

“Even more alarming is the mounting evidence that the Israeli army has targeted health facilities or professionals. Such attacks are absolutely prohibited by international law and would amount to war crimes. They only add to the already compelling argument that the situation should be referred to the International Criminal Court.”


This isn't talking about hospitals and UN aid centres.

Key is MUTUAL, that means that Hamas must propose and Israel has to accept.
Hamas did not propose, and thus there were no neutral zones inside Gaza.
U.N. expects that its facilities are to be considered neutral, and Israel
may have to pay a political price for attacking them but this rule is not applicable.
Hamas by storing missiles inside U.N. facilities makes them a valid military target.
Whether they were empty or not is uninteresting. If the building was considered
a U.N. facility is what counts.

The Amnesty Director Philip Luther is either incompetent, or misquoted.
As previously pointed out hospitals can legally be attacked, if they are used for military
purposes, but only after a chance has been given to stop the military activity.
Amnesty says in your links that they have seen reports of military use of hospitals,
but full investigations have not been done.

Attacks on medics are not legal, unless it can be shown that ambulances are used
to transport military equipment.

Again, you are sloppy, and quick with judgement, as a hanging mob.

 

[HAIDER]

A stray bullet or some rocket landed on other border of fence, call it attack on Israel.....make your mind guys.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

The Amnesty Director Philip Luther is either incompetent, or misquoted.
As previously pointed out hospitals can legally be attacked, if they are used for military
purposes, but only after a chance has been given to stop the military activity.
Amnesty says in your links that they have seen reports of military use of hospitals,
but full investigations have not been done.

Or maybe there was no weapons in the hospital. Even Israeli soldiers have said Israel targeted Palestinians and now this man. You are just putting rhetoric out your mouth and making a fool out of yourself. So please don't try to bring such rhetoric as an argument next time. Better just shut up.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Or maybe there was no weapons in the hospital. Even Israeli soldiers have said Israel targeted Palestinians and now this man. You are just putting rhetoric out your mouth and making a fool out of yourself. So please don't try to bring such rhetoric as an argument next time. Better just shut up.

Maybe there was, maybe there were not, but You don't care.
You have a closed mind, like the hanging mob.

You ignore information not reinforcing your argument.
You use statements, which CLEARLY contradicts International Law,
Law which you know about, making you intellectually dishonest.

I state what the law says, and nothing more.
I believe in a process that says someone is innocent until proven guilty.
I believe in a proper judicical process.
Not in judgement through newspaper articles.

You are the type of person dictators find useful.

On the other issue:
Of course Israel targetted Palestinians, they were at war with the Palestinians.
It would have been more surprising if they targetted Argentinians.
Only a fool would make such an accusation.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

You ignore information not reinforcing your argument.
You use statements, which CLEARLY contradicts International Law,
Law which you know about, making you intellectually dishonest.

I presented to you quotes from a person who monitors if International Law is being upheld or not and you call me closed minded mob. Guess you just proved me that you are nothing but ignorant fool.

 

[Madali]

Maybe there was, maybe there were not, but You don't care.
You have a closed mind, like the hanging mob.

You ignore information not reinforcing your argument.
You use statements, which CLEARLY contradicts International Law,
Law which you know about, making you intellectually dishonest.

I state what the law says, and nothing more.
I believe in a process that says someone is innocent until proven guilty.
I believe in a proper judicical process.
Not in judgement through newspaper articles.

You are the type of person dictators find useful.

On the other issue:
Of course Israel targetted Palestinians, they were at war with the Palestinians.
It would have been more surprising if they targetted Argentinians.
Only a fool would make such an accusation.

Sorry, to jump in the middle of this talk, but why is no one mentioning that Palestine was only part of the Geneva Conventions in 2014 (main one & protocol 1) and 2015 for additional protocol 2 & 3.

Also, I'm not sure if Hamas can be considered part of the convention, because Hamas isn't the armed forces of State of Palestine, correct?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Sorry, to jump in the middle of this talk, but why is no one mentioning that Palestine was only part of the Geneva Conventions in 2014 (main one & protocol 1) and 2015 for additional protocol 2 & 3.

Also, I'm not sure if Hamas can be considered part of the convention, because Hamas isn't the armed forces of State of Palestine, correct?

Yes, the Geneva Convention was signed by Israel, but is only applicable in conflicts with parties
which has signed the Convention.

I presented to you quotes from a person who monitors if International Law is being upheld or not and you call me closed minded mob. Guess you just proved me that you are nothing but ignorant fool.

• 
  ARTICLE 19 [ Link ]
  
  The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
  The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

You know from discussions here, and from the Geneva Convention that he is wrong,
so if that is not intellectually dishonest, what is?

The above clause means that an attack on a hospital is not neccessary a war crime.
Unlike a school, attacking a hospital cannot be done without a warning.

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Yes, the Geneva Convention was signed by Israel, but is only applicable in conflicts with parties
which has signed the Convention.

• 
  ARTICLE 19 [ Link ]
  
  The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
  The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.

You know from discussions here, and from the Geneva Convention that he is wrong,
so if that is not intellectually dishonest, what is?

The above clause means that an attack on a hospital is not neccessary a war crime.
Unlike a school, attacking a hospital cannot be done without a warning.

Yeah, like I said, UN hospitals are maintained by UN not Hamas. Also, the second paragraph (Article 19) clearly says that Hamas soldiers treated in those hospitals can't be considered harmful to the enemy and thus Israeli bombing is a war crime.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Yeah, like I said, UN hospitals are maintained by UN not Hamas. Also, the second paragraph (Article 19) clearly says that Hamas soldiers treated in those hospitals can't be considered harmful to the enemy and thus Israeli bombing is a war crime.

If a Hamas soldier fires from inside a UN Hospital and does not stop after a warning,
the Hospital loses its protection.
If firing does not stop after warnings, the Hospital can be attacked.
It say so in the paragraph You just read.

As usual, You ignore anything that does not fit your agenda.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, ethnicities, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.

Do You recognize Yourself?

A UN area is not by default a protected zone according to any law that I am aware of.
Establishment of a protected zone requires a written agreement between the two parts.
It is normally more of a gentlemens agreement, and Palestinians are certainly violating this "agreement"
since, according to the UN, they place missiles in their buildings.