UN: Israel is attacking 'sleeping children'

[VCheng]

Nowhere has the UN said it makes the locations legitimate targets, what they've said is that it endangers civilians, they didn't say it makes them a legitimate target.

If you can prove it, fine, otherwise get your facts straight.

Here you go:



QUOTE:

Ban "expresses his outrage and regret at the placing of weapons in a UN-administered school," a United Nations statement quoted by Reuters said.

"By doing so, those responsible are turning schools into potential military targets, and endangering the lives of innocent children, UN employees working in such facilities and anyone using the UN schools as shelter," the statement added.

/QUOTE

 

[That Guy]

Here you go:

QUOTE:

Ban "expresses his outrage and regret at the placing of weapons in a UN-administered school," a United Nations statement quoted by Reuters said.

"By doing so, those responsible are turning schools into potential military targets, and endangering the lives of innocent children, UN employees working in such facilities and anyone using the UN schools as shelter," the statement added.

/QUOTE

Read the comment properly, he said potential military targets, not legitimate military targets. There is a difference between potential and legitimate. Saying I can be a potential ruler of the planet doesn't mean that I'm the legitimate ruler of the planet.

Again, take some time off, you're making foolish arguments. Get your head clear and then come back.

 

[Falcon29]

Even UN itself has admitted that such illegal storage of weapons in its schools places civilians at risk by making the schools legitimate targets.

We are speaking of attacks on civilian targets which had no relation to weapons storage's. This is the topic of the thread. Of course, those three incidents should be investigated by Hamas. Although those were empty buildings near combat zones in the north.

The schools being bombed are in Gaza city and house thousands of refugees. The attacks on the market, hospitals, etc... are not justified in any way. There was repetitive deliberate shelling against the market as seen by the live footage.

It wasn't a combat zone. People were told there was a 4 hour cease fire and went to shop to stock food supplies.

 

[VCheng]

Read the comment properly, he said potential military targets, not legitimate military targets. There is a difference between potential and legitimate. Saying I can be a potential ruler of the planet doesn't mean that I'm the legitimate ruler of the planet.

Again, take some time off, you're making foolish arguments. Get your head clear and then come back.

A potential target is a legitimate target that may or may not be attacked according to military need.

We are speaking of attacks on civilian targets which had no relation to weapons storage's. This is the topic of the thread. Of course, those three incidents should be investigated by Hamas. Although those were empty buildings near combat zones in the north.

The schools being bombed are in Gaza city and house thousands of refugees. The attacks on the market, hospitals, etc... are not justified in any way. There was repetitive deliberate shelling against the market as seen by the live footage.

It wasn't a combat zone. People were told there was a 4 hour cease fire and went to shop to stock food supplies.

Sir, it is a combat zone for both sides in the conflict.

 

[That Guy]

A potential target is a legitimate target that may or may not be attacked according to military need.

Uh no, that's completely false. A potential target is a target that could potentially have a military aspect, that does not make it legitimate. A civilian airport is a potential military target, that does NOT make it legitimate.

You know for a fact that what you're saying is wrong, stop, just stop.

 

[Falcon29]

Sir, it is a combat zone for both sides in the conflict.

There was a humanitarian cease fire during that period, and no it wasn't a combat zone. You are not from Gaza, I am and know every single inch in Gaza.

So I don't get you, are you trying to justify the attack/attacks on civilians?

 

[VCheng]

Uh no, that's completely false. A potential target is a target that could potentially have a military aspect, that does not make it legitimate. A civilian airport is a potential military target, that does NOT make it legitimate.

A civilian airport used for transport of war materiel is certainly a legitimate target.

There was a humanitarian cease fire during that period, and no it wasn't a combat zone. You are not from Gaza, I am and know every single inch in Gaza.

So I don't get you, are you trying to justify the attack/attacks on civilians?

That market was clearly in an area that was announced to be NOT included the four hour truce.

 

[That Guy]

A civilian airport used for transport of war materiel is certainly a legitimate target.

Not if it is being used for civilian needs as well. You have no idea what international law is, do you? Geneva convention strictly forbids attacking civilian areas, regardless of circumstances.

Just stop arguing, seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it. Don't pretend that you're presenting some sort of tangible argument, when you know for a fact that you're wrong on this.

 

[Falcon29]

That market was clearly in an area that was announced to be NOT included the four hour truce.

Do you have a source for such a thing?

 

[VCheng]

Not if it is being used for civilian needs as well. You have no idea what international law is, do you? Geneva convention strictly forbids attacking civilian areas, regardless of circumstances.

Just stop arguing, seriously. You have no idea what you're talking about, and you know it. Don't pretend that you're presenting some sort of tangible argument, when you know for a fact that you're wrong on this.

Actually, any dual use facility is a target, plain and simple. Using civilian cover is illegal.

 

[That Guy]

Do you have a source for such a thing?

Actually, he's right on that one. The area was not covered by the ceasefire, though that doesn't excuse Israel for the bombing.

Actually, any dual use facility is a target, plain and simple. Using civilian cover is illegal.

Attacking civilian centers is illegal, regardless of it being dual use. A target does not make it legitimate. Also, having dual use facilities isn't illegal, in fact, most air ports in the world have some dual use functionality, including many US, UK and Pakistani air ports.

Again, foolish argument to make, and it seems you're just repeating the same tired old argument, over and over again.

 

[Falcon29]

Actually, any dual use facility is a target, plain and simple. Using civilian cover is illegal.

What are you talking about? There has been no proof of any instance of Hamas using human shields. BBC chief editor mentioned this.

If you're trying to justify this attack, here is what the UN has to say about it:

UN Chief: Israeli attack on Gaza school 'unjustifiable' | Maan News Agency

SAN JOSE (AFP) -- UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned an Israeli strike on a Gaza school that killed 16 people as "unjustifiable" Wednesday, calling for those responsible to be held to account.

"This morning a UN school sheltering thousands of Palestinian families suffered a reprehensible attack," Ban said during a visit to Costa Rica.

"It is unjustifiable, and demands accountability and justice."

The school in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza, which was sheltering more than 3,000 homeless people, came under attack from Israeli tank shells at dawn Wednesday.

It is the second time in a week that a UN school housing refugees has been hit, and the sixth in two weeks.

Ban accused the Israeli military of ignoring repeated communications on the location of the school.

"I want to make it clear that the exact location of this elementary school has been communicated to the Israeli military authorities 17 times, as recently as last night, just a few hours before this attack," he said.

......................

Actually, he's right on that one. The area was not covered by the ceasefire, though that doesn't excuse Israel for the bombing.

.

I haven't seen a source for that. But, even so, doesn't justify artillery bombing on a market. The ground combat was further east.

 

[That Guy]

I haven't seen a source for that. But, even so, doesn't justify artillery bombing on a market. The ground combat was further east.

It was mentioned on BBC, I believe. Listen, I'm tired and need to go to the bathroom, you think you can handle this? I sort of lost interest arguing with Vcheng.

 

[Falcon29]

It was mentioned on BBC, I believe. Listen, I'm tired and need to go to the bathroom, you think you can handle this? I sort of lost interest arguing with Vcheng.

Yes I will. Go get a rest.

 

[VCheng]

Actually, he's right on that one. The area was not covered by the ceasefire, though that doesn't excuse Israel for the bombing.

I will clearly say this: Both sides are in the wrong and committing grave errors. Neither will win. There has to be some other solution,