"Witness the Daily Massacres"

[Sirotnikov]

I saw a Sky TV report clearly indicating the presense of men in the woman crowd, some of whom were desperately trying to put on woman's clothing and black Burkah's to escape the IDF.

This sounds like a nasty trick.


I am, however, all for "no trespassing zones" to be enforced.

If you forcefully march into a war zone after you're told you'd be shot... it shouldn't come as a surprise what happens next.

I must say however that according to the videos I saw on TV, most Israeli fire was meant to "scare" - as in, it usually targeted the ground near the crowd, to scare them and stop them from advancing.

Had the crowd been targeted directly, there would have been a hundred dead I presume.


I'm glad the casualties rate was low.

Obviously this is a very bad position for the soldiers, who can't really fight, when an area is flooded with civilians, to protect terrorists. This leaves either the choice of doing nothing, or risking civilian casualties.

[SlowwHand]

Which brings back the question of how innocent are the civilians?
Either they fully support the terrorists, or they refuse to take control of their destiny.
At what point does one say, either way, enough is enough?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Would I be heartless enough to gun down unarmed civilians? Assuming they'd not be chavs, then I wouldn't want to kill them.

In other words - yes, you are quite capable of gunning down unarmed civilians.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


PH is a tool

A highbrow intellectual response for you, bathroom boy.

This is exactly the kind of reason why I am posting less and less at this place

[Cort Haus]

PH, we all know that Kuci posts almost nothing but attacks on other posters, so why take any notice?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


If he only follows British media his opinions aren't surprising.

The British media is full of how these evil Muslims are trying to blow us up and destroy our lifestyle. So I hardly think so

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison The British media is full of how these evil Muslims are trying to blow us up and destroy our lifestyle. So I hardly think so

It was the attitude of the media towards the ME that was referenced, not domestic Islamists. Lousy strawman, and a wildly innacurate generalisation anyway.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Would I be heartless enough to gun down unarmed civilians? Assuming they'd not be chavs, then I wouldn't want to kill them.

In other words - yes, you are quite capable of gunning down unarmed civilians.

I had ignored this until I decided to educate myself about this term "chav." I would guess the red-checked tablecoth burnoose is the Palestinian form of burberry.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: "Witness the Daily Massacres"

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Is this a case of civilians being used as human shields?
Does this violate the Geneva Convention?
Would civilians be considered combattants in this case?
What are the rules of engagement in this case?

a) Yes, and the VC did it too, as do all sorts of others (Noriega's "Dignity Battalions")

b) It violates the laws and customs of land warfare and other international law, so those who participate are not lawful combatants subject to the protections of the GC relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.

c) No, not unless they actively engage in hostile acts.

d) When in doubt, wipe 'em out. Seriously, civilians who are shielding (voluntarily or otherwise) combatants are not "legitimate targets" per se. The requirement is only that you do not specifically target the civilians, in the sense that you target random civilians where you know there are no enemy combatants. If you fire a tank round at a cluster of civilians protecting an enemy RPG team, or the suspected position of an RPG team, then it's too bad for the civilians in question, because your intent was to engage the combatants, or suspected combatant location.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


It was the attitude of the media towards the ME that was referenced, not domestic Islamists. Lousy strawman, and a wildly innacurate generalisation anyway.

Did you actually look at the context of the post I was replying to? I doubt it...

[Dinner]

****'em. Shoot them all.

If they don't want to be shot then they can stop being willing human shields for terrorists. Once you cross the line and become a willing human shield then you are a combatant.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Did you actually look at the context of the post I was replying to? I doubt it...

I did - twice. Here's the log:

aneesh : The shields were just asking for it .

PH : Asking to be shot? Pathetic. If they were unarmed, surely more conventional police methods could be used to remove them rather than turn their guns against them. Sounds like another attack of the bloodthirsty IDF to me

Kuci : PH is a tool

PA: If he only follows British media his opinions aren't surprising.

PH: The British media is full of how these evil Muslims are trying to blow us up and destroy our lifestyle. So I hardly think so

CH: It was the attitude of the media towards the ME that was referenced, not domestic Islamists.

The first four posts were about the ME. The fith is about muslims in Britain, which is not the subject.

[Spiffor]

Hamas proves once again that it's made of scumbags.

Kudos to Israel for having managed the early crisis with self-control. It seems competence is back in the IDF.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


I did - twice. Here's the log:

aneesh : The shields were just asking for it .

PH : Asking to be shot? Pathetic. If they were unarmed, surely more conventional police methods could be used to remove them rather than turn their guns against them. Sounds like another attack of the bloodthirsty IDF to me

Kuci : PH is a tool

PA: If he only follows British media his opinions aren't surprising.

PH: The British media is full of how these evil Muslims are trying to blow us up and destroy our lifestyle. So I hardly think so

CH: It was the attitude of the media towards the ME that was referenced, not domestic Islamists.

The first four posts were about the ME. The fith is about muslims in Britain, which is not the subject.

In the context of PA's post? He was commenting on how the British media is always pro-muslim (one of his typical trolls)...I was giving a counter to that perception. Again, try and keep up...

[Kuciwalker]

He was commenting on how the British media is pro-Palestinian.