Israel "navy' murders POW sailors stranded in water (taped themselves doing the crime)

[Haldorss]

We're talking about the sea unit that tried to infiltrate ffs,wake up! That's what the thread is about...are you that dumb?

Why would they not be uniformed?

 

[Foinikas]

Why would they not be uniformed?

Because they were not,from what the video saws and @gambit mentioned. And because they were trying to infilitrate as fishermen or just sailing yahood or tourists.

 

[Haldorss]

And because they were trying to infilitrate as fishermen or just sailing yahood or tourists.

So they were civilians? That's a war crime anyway.

Most of Israeli civilians have official military service and experience in IDF and are de facto IDF personnel. So the Israeli civilians being not in uniforms in all these videos shows that they are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Foinikas]

So they were civilians? That's a war crime anyway.

No they weren't,they were TERRORISTS. You don't understand what we're talking about,do you?

They are considered partizans,saboteurs,criminals. They have no soldier status.

 

[Haldorss]

No they weren't,they were TERRORISTS.

No, whoever you say is a terrorist is not a terrorist, almost in all cases, because low iqs tend to point at anything and "speculate" about their actions and then label them as terrorists based on their low iq speculation. In the prior comment of yours, you listed several civilian possibilities. Killing any would be a war crime.

This is what you said they were. Any of these would be a war crime.

They are considered

You cannot "consider" arbitrarily any person you meet to be an imaginary enemy. You are danger to everyone around you and should be court martialled to protect civilian life. You have to have evidence they are.

 

[Foinikas]

No, whoever you say is a terrorist is not a terrorist, almost in all cases, because low iqs tend to point at anything and "speculate" about their actions and then label them as terrorists based on their low iq speculation.

What the f are you on? Salafism?

the prior comment of yours, you listed several civilian possibilities. Killing any would be a war crime.

But THEY WEREN'T. They were FOUND OUT. They were discovered. They were armed,they had a fight and they were sunk.

You cannot "consider" arbitrarily any person you meet to be an imaginary enemy. You are danger to everyone around you and should be court martialled to protect civilian life. You have to have evidence they are.

Yeah,I think the Israelis had enough evidence,when they found armed men trying to infilitrate and land on the coast,I think that's pretty much evidence. Especially when they have a firefight.

I mean hey,if you're a policeman,you can shoot a guy drawing his gun at you or you can wait for him to shoot you and then try to fire. Which would you do? Let him shoot you and others or shoot first?

 

[gambit]

So they were civilians? That's a war crime anyway.

A civilian can be a 'combatant'. Then a combatant can be LEGAL or ILLEGAL.

If a civilian is not a combatant, then it is a war crime to kill him.

But if a civilian is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL combatant, it is not a war crime to kill him.

So for all legal arguments, the most important words are: legal and illegal. And less important is 'civilian'.

 

[Haldorss]

But THEY WEREN'T. They were FOUND OUT. They were discovered. They were armed,they had a fight and they were sunk.

Shooting unarmed combatants/whatever label you made up for them, prone in the water is still a war crime.

Yeah,I think the Israelis had enough evidence,when they found armed men trying to infilitrate and land on the coast,I think that's pretty much evidence. Especially when they have a firefight.

You said they were these. You have no evidence. Civilians can be in the sea and want to land like anyone else.

A civilian can be a 'combatant'. Then a combatant can be LEGAL or ILLEGAL.

Only under old rules. Now, based on rationality, all combatants are legal and allowed to defend themselves.

But if a civilian is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL combatant, it is not a war crime to kill him.

It is if he's prone. Civilians are allowed to defend themselves. I do not believe the non-uniform rule meant you can massacre a civilian population trying to defend themselves.

So for all legal arguments, the most important words are: legal and illegal. And less important is 'civilian'.

No. Legal and Illegal aren't a source of good and evil as you make it out to be. A judiciary can pass a law to burn women alive (like the Swiss did), that doesn't mean it's "good" like you pretend.

 

[Foinikas]

Shooting unarmed combatants/whatever label you made up for them, prone in the water is still a war crime.

Morally it might be or not be. Depends on the situation. Would you rush to save a guy if you knew he would probably explode or fire a guy or stab you upon contact?

You said they were these. You have no evidence. Civilians can be in the sea and want to land like anyone else.

Are you trying to hide behind your finger? Are you a hypocrite? I said they were dressed with civilian clothes,trying to infilitrate and land on Israeli coasts. Possibly pretending to be fishermen or tourists or whatever. Or maybe they didn't even care to disguise,they might have just be wearing normal clothes and being armed,trying to rush the coast.They were discovered and apparently a firefight ensued,in which they were sunk by the the Israelis.

Only under old rules. Now, based on rationality, all combatants are legal and allowed to defend themselves.

That's your invention. It doesn't apply to the real world.

It is if he's prone. Civilians are allowed to defend themselves. I do not believe the non-uniform rule meant you can massacre a civilian population trying to defend themselves.

We're talking about this specific situation. Armed men with unclear intentions,try to land on your coast. That's not a civilian population trying to defend itself.

No. Legal and Illegal aren't a source of good and evil as you make it out to be. A judiciary can pass a law to burn women alive (like the Swiss did), that doesn't mean it's "good" like you pretend.

Ok Pakistani-Somali guy,when you see a guy with grenades and guns on him,tell him "hey,you are not an illegal combatant,
here,let me give you a hand".

 

[Haldorss]

That's your invention. It doesn't apply to the real world.

No, the uniform rule was simply and old rule to stop armies executing their captured soldiers. It was never a universal rule intended to deprive civilians of rights. It was a technical interpretation that was used to say they can kill civilian combatants and give them no rights.

But now, it's been established that private citizens have the right to self defense and would be absurd to say you can massacre and execute them for trying to do so.

We're talking about this specific situation. Armed men with unclear intentions,try to land on your coast. That's not a civilian population trying to defend itself.

In a war zone, being armed is to be expected. If they didn't fire shots first, then you can't shoot. That's normal naval rules. Warning shots should also be made first.

Ok Pakistani-Somali guy,when you see a guy with grenades and guns on him,tell him "hey,you are not an illegal combatant,
here,let me give you a hand".

If he's passive then he may not be a combatant, but have those for personal protection to guard the exit of the caravan/wagons through the war zone. Are civilians allowed to kill government police for carrying them around cities? Yes or no. According to you they're automatically hostile combatants, doing so.

 

[Foinikas]

But now, it's been established that private citizens have the right to self defense and would be absurd to say you can massacre and execute them for trying to do so.

These AREN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS. They are part of a militia. They entered another State illegally,because Israel is recognized as ANOTHER State than Gaza and they were armed and tried to do sabotage and terrorist actions.

In a war zone, being armed is to be expected. If they didn't fire shots first, then you can't shoot. That's normal naval rules. Warning shots should also be made first.

Was this a war zone? There was no war declared. They were a group of a terrorist organisation,trying to land on a coast,while armed. Maybe there were warning shots,maybe there was exchange of fire from the Palestinian unit first.

If he's passive then he may not be a combatant, but have those for personal protection to guard the exit of the caravan/wagons through the war zone. Are civilians allowed to kill government police for carrying them around cities? Yes or no. According to you they're automatically hostile combatants, doing so.

Buddy,you're trying to grab on straws here. You keep comparing this with situations inside a country and I keep telling you that Gaza and Israel are different States.

 

[Haldorss]

These AREN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS. They are part of a militia.

You said they could be civilians. You didn't know:

This is what you said.

Was this a war zone? There was no war declared.

You know USA didn't declare war in Iraq. So it was a war zone already. Every day the IDF targets them.

They were a group of a terrorist organisation,trying to land on a coast,while armed.

Not what you said here. You have no evidence for it.

Maybe there were warning shots,maybe there was exchange of fire from the Palestinian unit first.

So since it's unkown you can't slander them about it to cover up what happened. But killing people who are prone is a war crime. It's never legal. You have to rescue anyone in distress in the water, no matter what circumstances.

Buddy,you're trying to grab on straws here. You keep comparing this with situations inside a country and I keep telling you that Gaza and Israel are different States.

You said an armed person walking around is a combatant that must be killed even if they are not doing anything. This is no different to domestic police walking around armed not using their weapons.

 

[mehmed bey]

These AREN'T PRIVATE CITIZENS. They are part of a militia. They entered another State illegally,because Israel is recognized as ANOTHER State than Gaza and they were armed and tried to do sabotage and terrorist actions.


Was this a war zone? There was no war declared. They were a group of a terrorist organisation,trying to land on a coast,while armed. Maybe there were warning shots,maybe there was exchange of fire from the Palestinian unit first.


Buddy,you're trying to grab on straws here. You keep comparing this with situations inside a country and I keep telling you that Gaza and Israel are different States.

You are a homo. That much is obvious. When you have nothing to say to on one thread you are going to another.
What the **** are you talking about?
You, yourself on other thread justified a couple of Genocides like Srebrenica and Khojali. You justified the existence of Armenian karabah army . Were they for you partisans or illegal combatants or else?
Don't prostitute yourself everywhere. You are known here as Serb homo. You really do behave like a homo , this is not a mear insult

 

[Foinikas]

You said they could be civilians. You didn't know:

This is what you said.

Are you retarded? My quote was:

And because they were trying to infilitrate as fishermen or just sailing yahood or tourists.

They were found out. They were armed terrorists. Do you understand what I'm saying? The Israelis discovered they were terrorists. They saw them,they found out.

Not what you said here. You have no evidence for it.

I have no evidence? I need no evidence,others had the evidence and they did what they had to. They eliminated a threat.

So since it's unkown you can't slander them about it to cover up what happened. But killing people who are prone is a war crime. It's never legal. You have to rescue anyone in distress in the water, no matter what circumstances.

And I'm telling you again,you are free to go save a terrorist who is armed and might be carrying grenades and explosives as well on him. You are free to do it. Take the chance,next time a Somali pirate comes close to you. Israelis didn't take any chances.

You said an armed person walking around is a combatant that must be killed even if they are not doing anything. This is no different to domestic police walking around armed not using their weapons.

Or are you really that dumb or are you playing dumb? A person invading someone's territory or during a war,who is not wearing any uniform or armband or anything declaring him part of a government's armed forces and is armed and conducts operations,is not considered a POW nor is protected by the Geneva convention,if captured.

When you have nothing to say to on one thread you are going to another.
What the **** are you talking about?

I have to take your permission as to where I will post?

You, yourself on other thread justified a couple of Genocides like Srebrenica and Khojali.

"Justified"? Please stop throwing the word "genocide" around so easily. It makes you look brainwashed.

You justified the existence of Armenian karabah army . Were they for you partisans or illegal combatants or else?

They were an official armed force.

Don't prostitute yourself everywhere. You are known here as Serb homo.

@LeGenD I know you're extremely patient,but at some point there has to be some discipline. This mehmed bay has been insulting and badmouthing a lot of people lately and gets away with it.

 

[mehmed bey]

Are you retarded? My quote was:



They were found out. They were armed terrorists. Do you understand what I'm saying? The Israelis discovered they were terrorists. They saw them,they found out.


I have no evidence? I need no evidence,others had the evidence and they did what they had to. They eliminated a threat.


And I'm telling you again,you are free to go save a terrorist who is armed and might be carrying grenades and explosives as well on him. You are free to do it. Take the chance,next time a Somali pirate comes close to you. Israelis didn't take any chances.


Or are you really that dumb or are you playing dumb? A person invading someone's territory or during a war,who is not wearing any uniform or armband or anything declaring him part of a government's armed forces and is armed and conducts operations,is not considered a POW nor is protected by the Geneva convention,if captured.


I have to take your permission as to where I will post?


"Justified"? Please stop throwing the word "genocide" around so easily. It makes you look brainwashed.


They were an official armed force.


@LeGenD I know you're extremely patient,but at some point there has to be some discipline. This mehmed bay has been insulting and badmouthing a lot of people lately and gets away with it.

Yes I get away with this because I insert the facts in my writings ,the facts you seemingly never answer.
What scumbag? You will talk one thing on one place then other on other place?
Usually, you find someone to play with, that you feel that you can.
Pal u have news for you. You can't play with me. Am I clear and by the way can you deny any claims which I made against you?