BF2S Forums Israel and Palestine

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Palestinians are trying to defend themselves too ya know.

2 responses:

First. THen stop the rhetoric of destroying Israel, stop launching rockets in response to Israel pull outs, stop sucker punching Israel from known populated civilian locations then bitch when it gets hit and civilians are killed. Plenty Palestinians can do to show they are willing to REALLY seek peace. But kinda hard to believe when they are quoted what I showed you.

2nd. It is war, tough shit if they are loosing it. Surrender then

It's not war when the enemy has no army. Has no air force. Has no navy.

It's murder.

If they have no army, who's firing rockets and mortars into Israel? Sounds like military hardware to me.

lowing wrote:

I'm sorry, I can't seem to find any reference to a blitzkrieg waged by israel before the Islamic nations massed in force. I really wish you would dispense of this bullshit parallel you are trying to make between the Israeli Palestinian conflict and Nazi Germany. Especially since there isn't one.

History books, they're terrific, try one some time.

They expelled the Palestinians with tanks and stormtroopers, will get the links later.

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they have no army, who's firing rockets and mortars into Israel? Sounds like military hardware to me.

I don't think you understand the definition of army. Please consult a dictionary. kthx bai.

lowing wrote:

I don't know many civilians armed with rockets and machine guns and bombs. How many do you know? Sorry I forgot, big brother has his thumb on you, you don't know anyone armed.

  Don't think the Taliban has an air force or a navy, but yeah you have used the word war to describe what is happening in Afghanistan have you not?

War against "Terrorism" isn't exactly a war though, now is it. Is terrorism going to surrender? Are you going to sign any peace deals with terrorism?

Now the Taliban and Al Q, yeah you can use the term war against those entities. Since they are an organised force.

But the Palestinian militants that launch rockets into Israel are not ordered to do so by the Palestinian Government, nor are they representative of the Palestinian government, because as I said, Palestinians have no army...

Even the PLA has always been under the control of Syria.

Rocket attacks do not constituate a declaration of war. But Israel always seems to think so and seems to think it is then justified to buldoze and kill civilians.

lowing wrote:

You mean Hamas has never attacked Israel?

I don't care if they are organized or not, they conduct rocket attacks on Israel. That deserves a response. Where is it that you get this idea that Israel is the only country not allowed to defend itself? not allowed to win any wars it is engaged in? Not allowed to take pre-emptive measures against hostile acts? and must surrender even though they have the advantage?

Clearly there are 2 sides to this conflict, how is it you feel Israel should lay down and let itself be destroyed?

Are Hamas allowed to defend themselves?

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

You mean Hamas has never attacked Israel?

I don't care if they are organized or not, they conduct rocket attacks on Israel. That deserves a response. Where is it that you get this idea that Israel is the only country not allowed to defend itself? not allowed to win any wars it is engaged in? Not allowed to take pre-emptive measures against hostile acts? and must surrender even though they have the advantage?

Clearly there are 2 sides to this conflict, how is it you feel Israel should lay down and let itself be destroyed?

Are Hamas allowed to defend themselves?

Sure they are, it is ridiculous to expect anyone who is fighting for what they believe in to not defend themselves. Yet you expect Israel to do just that. It is an absurd expectation on your part. Especially considering what they face if they did relent.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

You mean Hamas has never attacked Israel?

I don't care if they are organized or not, they conduct rocket attacks on Israel. That deserves a response. Where is it that you get this idea that Israel is the only country not allowed to defend itself? not allowed to win any wars it is engaged in? Not allowed to take pre-emptive measures against hostile acts? and must surrender even though they have the advantage?

Clearly there are 2 sides to this conflict, how is it you feel Israel should lay down and let itself be destroyed?

Are Hamas allowed to defend themselves?

Sure they are, it is ridiculous to expect anyone who is fighting for what they believe in to not defend themselves. Yet you expect Israel to do just that. It is an absurd expectation on your part. Especially considering what they face if they did relent.

They don't face annihilation. The Palestinians, do. Take a look at a map of Gaza. It's shrinking every day.

And Israel has always gone to war over rocket attacks, rather than help the Palestinian government to crack down on militants within the country.

It's like going to war with Afghanistan rather than fighting the Taliban. It's pointless and stupid and creates more radicals.

Israel always takes the excessive force route. For no other reason than to claim more territory and kill of Palestinians. Then build Jewish settlements over the rubble. To me that is a terrible way of creating a peaceful solution.

lowing wrote:

and this is another thing. What is this shit about equal force during a conflict? You really expect Israel to be the only country to fight to equalize and not to win? No other country fights like that, why are you so aghast that Israel doesn't either? and why do you expect them to?

If someone comes at me with  knife, I am gunna grab my fuckin gun.

Win should equal peace. Not ethnic cleansing.

AussieReaper wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

If they have no army, who's firing rockets and mortars into Israel? Sounds like military hardware to me.

I don't think you understand the definition of army. Please consult a dictionary. kthx bai..

So while I was serving in Iraq, if I took off my military insignia I would've no longer been a member of the army?

"provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions"

Read carefully.

I read carefully. You*re

Karbin wrote:

Geneva Convention Article 3
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Taking off your insignia ALONE would not count..... in this case. Your still a member of the army.

If you break one of the rules it sounds like a negation to me

Karbin wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Karbin wrote:

Geneva Convention Article 3
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Taking off your insignia ALONE would not count..... in this case. Your still a member of the army.

If you break one of the rules it sounds like a negation to me

Nope:
Being a member of the army AND being commanded by a person responsible for their subordinates.
Havung a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance can be a uniform with or without insignia.
Carrying arms openly...assumed... not in his post.
That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Again assumed, not in his post.
The point is being in a uniform with or with out insig is not a breaker... being in civies is.
Being in a uniform but not a member OR being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates. is a breaker.

See the difference?

Lawful conduct under the laws of war regarding conduct during war (jus in bello), such as the 1949 Geneva Conventions, provide that it is unlawful for belligerents to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform is allowed, though fighting in that uniform is unlawful perfidy, as is the taking of hostages.