Islamic militants praise 'heroic' slaughter of pregnant woman, 4 daughters

[Spiffor]

ElTigre: yep, that was the difference I was trying to make. Thanks for explaining it better than me.

[Az]

Nope, because most of them have lived in Algiers all their life (and this is a very important difference to me, as it is to them, who have been cast from their home to metropolitan France after the independence). However, I think that early colonists who followed the military conquests would have been as valid targets for a local resistance as the French soldiers.

What difference does that make, all their lives, or 'just' 10-20 years?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel
What difference does that make, all their lives, or 'just' 10-20 years?

Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back. Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

Of course, if you were brought in your new place at 5 or 10, it is completely different than if you have decided to go there at 25. Because you couldn't weave a sufficient bond with the place of origin.

[Az]

Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back.

And otherwise, it's ok to shoot at you?!

Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

When you're an adult, you can leave and not 'contribute to the conquest effort'. Fricking irrelevant.

Maybe the people of the baltic state should shoot the Russians who settled in the baltics.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Azazel

Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back.

And otherwise, it's ok to shoot at you?!

As far as "ok" can mean in a context of war.

Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

When you're an adult, you can leave and not 'contribute to the conquest effort'. Fricking irrelevant.

Leaving is much harder to do than coming. Your attachment to the land can be as genuine as every other native's.

Maybe the people of the baltic state should shoot the Russians who settled in the baltics.

If there was a war between the people of the Baltics and the Russians, and if the Russians didn't try to rapatriate their citizens back home, it would end up like this. Since no war is occuring, the Baltics are doing it in a more peaceful way, but they are clearly trying to get rid of Russian colonists, who had been sent here to "russify" the area. The language issue, raised so oftne by the Russians, is the most visible symptom of the Baltic people trying to get rid fo Russian colonization, despite many Russians calling these countries their home.
However, there are two points with which Russian settlers are different from Israeli ones: 1. The Russification policy started under Czarism. I doubt there are many Russians living in the Baltics that aren't implemented since a very long time.
2. The authoritarian nature of czarism and sovietism means that not every Russian in the Baltics wanted to be there. Quite different in nature with Israeli settlements, in particular with Israeli illegal settlements, that are discouraged by Israel itself.
Yet, I don't think these differences are any difference in the eyes of the displaced or humiliated people.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor



. I actually consider adult settlers (not born in the settlement) to be valid targets, even more than soldiers, because they chose to come to the war zone and to wage the war.

So you no longer believe in the Geneva conventions?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So you no longer believe in the Geneva conventions?

What do the Geneva convetions say about settlers? (no confrontation here, I just lack the information completely)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

When you wage a war, when you enter a war zone, when you bring your children to a war zone, you should not expect any humanity.

once again - the territories were captured in 1967, a war which resulted from aggression against Israel. The Gaza Strip, and West Bank were NOT under any state's recognized sovereignty. Their status was disputed (although I would agree that the principle of self determination strongly supports the notion of a territorial settlement giving MOST of the territories to the Palestinians) The war had ended, and there was relatively little violent resistance within the territories. (Im speaking of the period 1967 to 1987) They were NOT entering a "war zone". They WERE entering territories whose status was subject to dispute.


I will go so far as to agree with Spiffor on this. I feel no sympathy for settlers who will lose their homes, who will see their lives disrupted when they are FORCIBLY expelled from their homes in the territories. They made a choice to live in lands whose status was subject to dispute. The notion that they are valid targets of war is, however, both in contradiction to all principles of international law (this is true, BTW, even if the territories are NOT disputed, and the settlements are themselves violations of international law as many claim) and it is vile. I am sure Spiffor will reflect on this and understand it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

What do the Geneva convetions say about settlers? (no confrontation here, I just lack the information completely)

Civilians are not valid targets of military action. One ceases to be a civilian by taking up arms. Not by living somewhere, even if that is A. In a war zone or B. In a settlement itself founded in violation of international law. Ergo, an unarmed settler (and i realize many adult male settlers are armed - Im not sure what the Geneva convention says about civilians who keep weapons for personal protection, like many settlers and most Iraqis) is NOT a valid target. Period.

[GePap]

I feel nothing about this crime. It is simply same old, same old. All the fresh new outrage really does nothing and means as much.

There is a point at which outrage either must be so vast as to create a sea change, or must die, to free people to act and make the hard choices regardless of the past.

This killing does nothing towards either goals-it is horrific, but really not more so than countless other horrific acts, so in about 5 months, as the violence continues, it will be but a postscript and a statistic.

As for the utter idiocy that Americans are more enlightened or care more:

There is a reason folks America is hated in so many parts of the world, and it is not that crap that they hate us for our freedom. Are the Europeans better? No, their history is just as sad towards others, and they certainly have us beat in their history towards each others. But again, the idea Americans care more is absurd.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
once again - the territories were captured in 1967, a war which resulted from aggression against Israel. The Gaza Strip, and West Bank were NOT under any state's recognized sovereignty. Their status was disputed (although I would agree that the principle of self determination strongly supports the notion of a territorial settlement giving MOST of the territories to the Palestinians) The war had ended, and there was relatively little violent resistance within the territories. (Im speaking of the period 1967 to 1987) They were NOT entering a "war zone". They WERE entering territories whose status was subject to dispute.

On this:

There was violent resistance in Gaza after 1967, resistance in which the Israelis came and buldozed and razed large sections of many camps to make way for their tanks.

As for calling it disputed-please. Israeli sovereignty over any of these lands has never been recognized. Certainly Israel can gain some of these territories at the bargaining table, but right now, these are definitelly under military occupation by Israel, meaning the settlements in Gaza have no right to exist and are violations of the rules of war, even the large settlement blocks on the coast.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
Are the Europeans better? No, their history is just as sad towards others

Actually, our history is far worse than yours. As a world power, the US has acted in a much less terrible fashion than the European powers. I mean, even Belgium managed to create an absolute hellhole which is ridden by plagues, famines and wars, beyond repair.

[Spiffor]

For suture reference:

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

The document is quite massive, and I haven't begun to reas it yet. I just post the link so that everybody interested can look at the text in its entirety.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Actually, our history is far worse than yours. As a world power, the US has acted in a much less terrible fashion than the European powers. I mean, even Belgium managed to create an absolute hellhole which is ridden by plagues, famines and wars, beyond repair.

The US was better acting by proxy. Though, if one considers our behavior towards the Native Americans, which is annologous to European Colonialism, we were slightly, but not significantly better, though we did attempt cultural genocide and tried to destroy them economically as well.

Europeans has bigger numbers of people to oppress-that does not make the oppression of small groups less heinous.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


On this:

There was violent resistance in Gaza after 1967, resistance in which the Israelis came and buldozed and razed large sections of many camps to make way for their tanks.

As for calling it disputed-please. Israeli sovereignty over any of these lands has never been recognized. Certainly Israel can gain some of these territories at the bargaining table, but right now, these are definitelly under military occupation by Israel, meaning the settlements in Gaza have no right to exist and are violations of the rules of war, even the large settlement blocks on the coast.

It is true that Israeli sovereignty has never been recognized. Its also true that apart from Jerusalem, it hasnt been formally annexed it either, prefering to advance its claims in negotiations. Its also true that Egypt neither claimed sovereignty over Gaza, nor did the nascent PLO claim sovereignty over it, nor did anyone recognize any sovereignty over it. Jordan, OTOH, DID claim soveriegnty over the West Bank, and Pakistan recognized that, but Jordan has since forfeited its claims. So NO one has de jure sovereignty over either Gaza or the West Bank. Ergo its disputed territory, and is not occupied territory per international law.

Ergo the settlements are not violations of the Geneva conventions. Though they ARE obstacles to peace, and any new ones established since the Oslo accords ARE violations of that accords promises not to create unilateral facts on the ground.