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

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


There is a thing called property rights that Americans seem to be fond of.

I am not an American, nor a lawyer. But it seems to me that you can defend your property with deadly force if you believe a trespasser has malicious intentions:

The settlements were all placed on State land, not on private property. The argument is over sovereignty, not property ownership.

In any case, assuming it was trespass on private property. The trespass would involve the original seizure of land and construction, not habitation. If someone takes my land, builds houses on it, and then rents out the houses, am I entitled to shoot the tenants? Not under US law, I dont think.

[Al B. Sure!]

Palestinians are animals. Why should we treat animals like humans?

I'd like to see Israel drop a big napalm into one of those "chanting Israel's death" demonstration.

same can be said for you, jackass.

anyway, i'm in agreement with Spiffor. Take that as you wish.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Nothing in this states that it was wrong or aggression to occupy Iraq.
It relates only to the implementation of IV Geneva AFTER the war, and to the maintenance of local laws and local officials and judges

Sort of makes it difficult to change regime, no? That is like saying: "X is not a crime, even though I know doing X will mean Y which is a crime"

Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from.

Yes, so in this case an interpretation based solely on the very word of the law, as you apply to Israel and the settlements, is highly injurious. So you don;t make it. Why then do you demand a word by word interpretation of it then when it comes to the Occupied territories?

the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza?

So you continue the line of demanding a word by word interpretation on some topics, not the others though.. as for Israel justification for the 1967 war, that justification does NOT call for taking territory. If the war was simply self defense, then you guys beat the Arab armnies. The imminent threat was gone. Keeping those lands did nothing to mitigate that threat. It was political agreements that did so.

I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza.

Yes, that is what he says-and he says the case in Iraq should the problem with the law, which is it gives too much weight to the previous soverign and its right, vs, the rights of the inhabitants. Which is the reaosning YOU give for why the settlements are not illegal.

1. The non humanitarian provisions are to be applied ONLY in favor of a former sovereign, but even then NOT when it will lead to disaster for the occupied people. This does NOT imply that they SHOULD be applied when there is NO former soveriegn, simply because it is held that they MIGHT benefit the occupied people. In any case I cant see that the establishment of settlements on empty land, settlements that can be given up, is as harmful to the Pal people as the turnover of sovereignty without a transitional law would be to the Iraqi people ( I freely acknowledge that actions such as building walls and highways on land that require the demolition of houses or farms are a HUMANITARIAN problem in a way that establishment of settlements on vacant land is not - I do NOT defend EVERY Israeli action in the territories, and I DO see that the establishment of LEGAL settlements may have led to the ILLEGAL actions of demolition, etc - I dont like the existence of MOST of the settlements, in case you havent gathered that, and I was deeply disappointed in the result of Sundays referendum)

I would argue, as the author of that article, that the overreliance on there being a previous sovereign is inconsistent with the humanitarian goals of the convention, becuase in fact, what you are saying is that it is up to the aquiascence of a regime to implement the convention, any part of it, as long as they invalidate the previous soverign-in essence making the convention useless. The fact he lays out that no one has ever really followe it is only the most important prime evidence of this.

[The Mad Viking]

LotM, you are very knowlegeable, but many others do not know the population statistics, which I think are very relevant. Azazel makes a clear distinction between Gaza and WB, and with good reason. There are close to 200,000 Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, most of which are modern suburbs where housing is cheap and a short commute to work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. There are another 175,000 or so in West Jerusalem. And nearly 2,000,000 Palestinians.

Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there.

Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Sort of makes it difficult to change regime, no? That is like saying: "X is not a crime, even though I know doing X will mean Y which is a crime"

Do YOU GePap, think the CPA should NOT support the writing of a transitiaional administrative law, prior to the formal end of occupation??? That IIUC, is the key legal change made by the CPA - nothing else violates IV Gneva that I know of. To hand over sovereignty on the basis of the previous constitution, without a transitional law, would be a disaster for the Iraqi people and I think this is recognized by all concerned. Including the UNSC, the principle states that opposed the coalition actions, etc. It would be a disaster that would be difficult to recover from.

Yes, so in this case an interpretation based solely on the very word of the law, as you apply to Israel and the settlements, is highly injurious. So you don;t make it. Why then do you demand a word by word interpretation of it then when it comes to the Occupied territories?

the Geneva Conventions make NO reference to the circumstances under which the occupation took place - they apply to the most just of wars - which is why, BTW, Israeli justification of the 1967 war are NOT considered ipso facto arguments against applying the Convention to the West Bank/Gaza?

So you continue the line of demanding a word by word interpretation on some topics, not the others though.. as for Israel justification for the 1967 war, that justification does NOT call for taking territory. If the war was simply self defense, then you guys beat the Arab armnies. The imminent threat was gone. Keeping those lands did nothing to mitigate that threat. It was political agreements that did so.

I think you misread the intent of the author - he is NOT arguing for the application of the Convention to Iraq - he is arguing that the non-huminatarian clauses of the Convention have seldom IF EVER been applied by ANYONE anywhere EVEN WHERE THERE IS A FORMER sovereign- and from that is arguing AGAINST their application to the West Bank/Gaza.

Yes, that is what he says-and he says the case in Iraq should the problem with the law, which is it gives too much weight to the previous soverign and its right, vs, the rights of the inhabitants. Which is the reaosning YOU give for why the settlements are not illegal.



I would argue, as the author of that article, that the overreliance on there being a previous sovereign is inconsistent with the humanitarian goals of the convention, becuase in fact, what you are saying is that it is up to the aquiascence of a regime to implement the convention, any part of it, as long as they invalidate the previous soverign-in essence making the convention useless. The fact he lays out that no one has ever really followe it is only the most important prime evidence of this.

GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
LotM, you are very knowlegeable, but many others do not know the population statistics, which I think are very relevant. Azazel makes a clear distinction between Gaza and WB, and with good reason. There are close to 200,000 Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, most of which are modern suburbs where housing is cheap and a short commute to work in Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. There are another 175,000 or so in West Jerusalem. And nearly 2,000,000 Palestinians.

Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there.

Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

So its legal to shoot radicals?

[The Mad Viking]

The point I was trying to make is that these are not peace-loving people who simply couldn't find affordable accomodation somewhere else.

These are militants. Every family owns a fully automatic assault rifle. They are not innocent bystanders. They know and intend their presence to be an unapologetic provocation to the Palestinians.

Really, when you think about it, they are not so unlike suicide bombers.

*awaits flames*

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, I can feel no sympathy for the adult settlers. They have chosen to live a life that is more difficult in all regards for the sake of nationalism. They have dropped their old life to come live in harsh conditions because they believe in Eretz Israel. 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.

Yup, they were asking for it. Just like that woman who got raped because she was walking around in that bad neighborhood with the short skirt

[GePap]

GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written.

There are rarely ever two choices, and cetrainly not here.

We can argue that the values the Convention tries to set out, in terms of defending people in time of war and making sure individual under a military occupation have rights. I would argue that that we need to modify it to remove this overreliance on there being a previous soverign, and I would say that states should comply with all the provision of it unless those provisions create significant humanitarian dangers-even iof those rules would prohibit them from carrying out policies they whish to carry out on the occupied populations.

BUt if one claism the humanitarian parts of the convention apply, then you better have a damned good reaosn to say why the other parts don't, and saying : cause we want to create facts on the gorund to influence possible future negotiations is NOT a very good one at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Felch

War is inhumane. 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.

Congratulations, you have been baited into giving a damning quote that I will throw in your face next time you criticize an American or Israeli attack that kills civilians. Expecially children.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I agree. I have some new sig material :vomit:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

GC IV either applies or it doesnt. If it DOESNT, than we can argue utility, and humanitarian considerations, etc. But we cant argue the Convention. If we DO say it applies, then we have to apply it as written.

There are rarely ever two choices, and cetrainly not here.

We can argue that the values the Convention tries to set out, in terms of defending people in time of war and making sure individual under a military occupation have rights. I would argue that that we need to modify it to remove this overreliance on there being a previous soverign, and I would say that states should comply with all the provision of it unless those provisions create significant humanitarian dangers-even iof those rules would prohibit them from carrying out policies they whish to carry out on the occupied populations.


LOTM - yeah, you want to rewrite international law so it supports your position. I sympathize entirely. I myself dont think the Treaty of Westphalia should apply to totalitarian regimes. I think ive got as good a shot of seeing my change implemented as you do.


BUt if one claism the humanitarian parts of the convention apply, then you better have a damned good reaosn to say why the other parts don't, and saying : cause we want to create facts on the gorund to influence possible future negotiations is NOT a very good one at all.

The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns.

[Az]

Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there.

Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

Not completely correct.

If you look at the Gaza strip map, you'd see the settlements on the edges. Those aren't settlements by the religious jews. The dugit/ Elei sinai block, for example, is some fishermen just chilling there, it's very pastoral there.

[GePap]

The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns.

This goes back to your point: Does the Convention apply or not? Both Israel and the Coalition in Iraq use the same arguement that it is not one or the other, since they recognize the validity of at least part of it in their situations.

The issue then is which parts should NOT apply and when. I would say that unless you can prove that carrying out one provision will cause problems for the local population, then ignore it. Otherwise it should be followed. The part about settling your own people in occupied land is most certantly one of those provisions that should be made derigeaur (sp?)

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel

Gaza is another story. There are 1,300,000 Palestinians. There are 5,000 Jewish "Settlers". Every last one is a radical. There is no non-political reason for a Jew to settle there.

Just a little background for those who may not know the difference.

Not completely correct.

If you look at the Gaza strip map, you'd see the settlements on the edges. Those aren't settlements by the religious jews. The dugit/ Elei sinai block, for example, is some fishermen just chilling there, it's very pastoral there.

Well, first it's 7500 settlers.

as for the map:

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

The reason is that the humanitarian parts are there to protect civilians, not sovereigns.

This goes back to your point: Does the Convention apply or not? Both Israel and the Coalition in Iraq use the same arguement that it is not one or the other, since they recognize the validity of at least part of it in their situations.

Im not sure EITHER the coalition or Israel say they are LEGALLY bound to follow the other conventions. But its good policy to apply them. Kinda like at Gitmo - the administration says that those imprisoned there are non lawful combatants, ergo Geneva does NOT appy. Doesnt mean we're gonna use electric shock, or execute them. We could write up our own equivalent to Geneva I suppose, as the Coalition could in Iraq, and Israel could in the territories. But what would be the point, when theres already an international consensus on how to treat civilians?