UN: Israel is attacking 'sleeping children'

[Falcon29]

Yes,

He refused to understand even after being explained repeatedly.

We'll ask the mods then.

@WebMaster @Aeronaut @blain2

 

[patriotpakistan]

Even in case of war,only selected reservist are treated as members of Armed forces, rest are treated as civilians. If and only if Israel has ordered general mobilization, it could not claim death of a reservist as a civilian casualty.

And a reservist could keep his rifle as long as he is in Israel. He become an illegal combatant if he crosses into Gaza without wearing Uniform.

Under which imaginary International law clause are they treated as civilians? I think you are the one who is refusing to understand after being explained repeatedly. Let me repeat that again for your soft brain, Under international law, "A civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or militias." Since IDF trained personnel (and lifetime members) make up most of Israel's population, according to your invokation of international law, that would make them combatants.

 

[anonymus]

Under which imaginary International law clause are they treated as civilians? I think you are the one who is refusing to understand after being explained repeatedly. Let me repeat that again for your soft brain, Under international law, "A civilian is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces or militias." Since IDF trained personnel (and lifetime members) make up most of Israel's population, according to your invokation of international law, that would make them combatants.

How peachy!

Here for you:

International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/isrl-pa/ISRAELPA1002-04.htm

As i said before, your motivation in debate are not academic but religious.

 

[patriotpakistan]

International humanitarian law makes clear, however, that reserve or off-duty soldiers who are not at that moment subject to the integrated disciplinary command of the armed forces are considered civilians until the time that they become subject to military command-meaning, until they are effectively incorporated into the armed forces. Their incorporation into the regular armed forces is most frequently signified by wearing a uniform or other identifiable insignia.

As i said before, your motivation in debate are not academic but religious.

Funny how you can quote some article claiming so but not the actual clause that supports your statement. That is because the International law clause regarding civilians does not put Israeli IDF-trained personnel in that category due to their armed nature as well as their orders by the military command and control.

Here is the actual clause that defines civilians:

Rule 5. Definition of Civilians

Rule 5. Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.

Summary
State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international armed conflicts. It also applies to non-international armed conflicts although practice is ambiguous as to whether members of armed opposition groups are considered members of armed forces or civilians.
International armed conflicts
The definition of civilians as persons who are not members of the armed forces is set forth in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, to which no reservations have been made.[1] It is also contained in numerous military manuals.[2] It is reflected in reported practice.[3] This practice includes that of States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[4] In its judgment in the Blaškić case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia defined civilians as “persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces”.[5] No official contrary practice was found. Some practice adds the condition that civilians are persons who do not participate in hostilities. This additional requirement merely reinforces the rule that a civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack (see Rule 6). However, such a civilian does not thereby become a combatant entitled to prisoner-of-war status and, upon capture, may be tried under national law for the mere participation in the conflict, subject to fair trial guarantees (see Rule 100).
Exception
An exception to this rule is the levée en masse, whereby the inhabitants of a country which has not yet been occupied, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to form themselves into an armed force. Such persons are considered combatants if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war (see commentary to Rule 106). This is a long-standing rule of customary international humanitarian law already recognized in the Lieber Code and the Brussels Declaration.[6] It is codified in the Hague Regulations and the Third Geneva Convention.[7] Although of limited current application, the levée en masse is still repeated in many military manuals, including very recent ones.[8]
Non-international armed conflicts
The definition that "any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian" and that "the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians" was included in the draft of Additional Protocol II.[9] The first part of this definition was amended to read that "a civilian is anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or of an organized armed group" and both parts were adopted by consensus in Committee III of the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols.[10] However, this definition was dropped at the last moment of the conference as part of a package aimed at the adoption of a simplified text.[11] As a result, Additional Protocol II does not contain a definition of civilians or the civilian population even though these terms are used in several provisions.[12] It can be argued that the terms "dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups … under responsible command" in Article 1 of Additional Protocol II inferentially recognized the essential conditions of armed forces, as they apply in international armed conflict (see Rule 4), and that it follows that civilians are all persons who are not members of such forces or groups.[13] Subsequent treaties, applicable to non-international armed conflicts, have similarly used the terms civilians and civilian population without defining them.[14] While State armed forces are not considered civilians, practice is not clear as to whether members of armed opposition groups are civilians subject to Rule 6 on loss of protection from attack in case of direct participation or whether members of such groups are liable to attack as such, independently of the operation of Rule 6. Although the military manual of Colombia defines the term civilians as “those who do not participate directly in military hostilities (internal conflict, international conflict)”,[15] most manuals define civilians negatively with respect to combatants and armed forces and are silent on the status of members of armed opposition groups.

And my humanity is enough motivation to expose Israeli psychopathy. You on the other hand clearly have an agenda against muslims to support Israel against Palestinians, when you have exposed yourself as a muslim-hating bigot.

 

[bdslph]

ISrael is attacking UN school wether it has weapons or not
I condem Israel and also who stores weapons there
but it doesnt give Israel right to bomb it thereis proper channel and tell UN to investigate and prove
but still there is no concrete proof it was there as there i have not seen any evidence of weapons until now

 

[anonymus]

Funny how you can quote some article claiming so but not the actual clause that supports your statement. That is because the International law clause regarding civilians does not put Israeli IDF-trained personnel in that category due to their armed nature as well as their orders by the military command and control.

It is a human rights watch report *******, not some article.

Off Duty military personals are considered civilians when out of uniform, or do you or your clown buddy @DESERT FIGHTER thinks that a off duty Pakistani in US is a legitimate target.

 

[patriotpakistan]

It is a human rights watch report duffer, not some article.

Off Duty military personals are considered civilians when out of uniform, or do you or your clown buddy @DESERT FIGHTER thinks that a off duty Pakistani in US is a legitimate target.

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his
subordinates (5);
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war.

You removed your quote because once again, you have shown your weak understanding of International law. The quote is a definition of non-military belligerents! Not of civilians! Ofcourse they are excluded from definition of civilians. I realise now that i am arguing with an idiot.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

It is a human rights watch report duffer, not some article.

Off Duty military personals are considered civilians when out of uniform, or do you or your clown buddy @DESERT FIGHTER thinks that a off duty Pakistani in US is a legitimate target.

Hey ******** can't you talk like a polite human being without using personal insult .

P.S : during war there is no off duty bs .. Unless you r from a banana country .. Tht gives leaves to soldiers during war time .. Another thing you don't hit UN shelters,schools or hospitals .. But indian cheerleaders like you would jump n dance at very thing related to Islam or Muslims..

You removed your quote because once again, you have shown your weak understanding of International law. The quote is a definition of non-military belligerents! Not of civilians! Ofcourse they are excluded from definition of civilians. I realise now that i am arguing with an idiot.

He can't quote jack ..This is exactly what I see them doing on PDF:

 

[anonymus]

You removed your quote because once again, you have shown your weak understanding of International law. The quote is a definition of non-military belligerents! Not of civilians! Ofcourse they are excluded from definition of civilians. I realise now that i am arguing with an idiot.

Retard,

I removed it because it was not relevant as it defined non military belligerents, not civilians.Civilians are not defined anywhere in Geneva convention. It is a negative category which constitute anyone who is not a combatant.

While the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is exclusively devoted to the protection of the civilian population, it contains no definition of civilian. Under Article 4 of the Fourth Convention, persons protected by it are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.[18] Article 3 indicates that during non-international armed conflicts the persons who enjoy protection against the various forms of violence and infringement mentioned are ‘[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.’

The first attempt in international humanitarian law to identify who are civilians came in 1977 with Article 50 of Additional Protocol I (read together with Article 4(A) of the Third Geneva Convention and Article 43 of the First Additional Protocol). And yet, Article 50(1) avoids giving any definition of civilians and instead defines civilians in the negative: civilians are all persons who are not combatants. Paragraph 1 provides that civilians are persons who are not (1) members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces; (2) members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the four conditions of combatancy.[19] The aforementioned combatants qualify for prisoner of war (POW) status upon capture. Thus, civilian is a residual category: whoever is not a combatant shall be deemed to be a civilian. But, ‘In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian’. (Article 50(1) ‘The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians’ (Article 50(2)). Significantly from the perspective of protection of the civilian population: ‘The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.’ (Article 50(3)

Other sources similarly adopt a negative approach to defining civilians. The United States Annotated Supplement to The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, for example, defines non-combatants as ‘individuals who do not form a part of the armed forces and who otherwise refrain from the commission or direct support of hostile acts’.[20] Watkins notes that

‘that term also includes a more diverse mix of persons such as medical officers, corpsmen, chaplains, contractors, civilian war correspondents and armed forces personnel who are unable to engage in combat because of wounds, sickness, shipwreck or capture (ie. POWs). Here, “non-combatant” is used in the context of those persons, civilian and military, who should not be targeted and not in the sense of the combatant/civilian distinction.’[21]

The quid pro quo for the special protected status enjoyed by civilians is that they are strictly prohibited from participating in hostilities?except in the exceptional case where they are participating in a levee en masse, in which case they shall be regarded as belligerents provided that they carry their arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war[22]?and if they do, they lose the protections of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Additional Protocols safeguarding civilians from attack (although, as shown in Part 4, they are not devoid of protection). However, legally, civilians who unlawfully participate in hostilities are not transformed into combatants, even for the duration of their unlawful participation and even if they de facto fulfil some of the conditions of combatancy, such as carrying their arms openly and respecting the laws and customs of war. They are what has become known colloquially as ‘unlawful combatants’ or ‘unlawful belligerents’, that is, they remain civilians, albeit ones who are unlawfully participating in hostilities.

International humanitarian law applicable in non-international armed conflicts does not explicitly distinguish between combatants and civilians (as it does not recognize combatant status) yet it does recognize that persons who do not take part in hostilities retain their protected status as civilians (and implies that those who do, lose it). Under Article 4(II) of Additional Protocol II:

‘All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there are no survivors.’

Equally, Additional Protocol II provides that those civilians who do unlawfully participate in hostilities shall lose their protected status as civilians. Article 13(3) provides: ‘Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Part, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.’

civilian is a residual category: whoever is not a combatant shall be deemed to be a civilian. But, ‘In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian’

THE CHALLENGES TO INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE PRINCIPLES OF DISTINCTION AND PROTECTION FROM THE INCREASED PARTICIPATION OF CIVILIANS IN HOSTILITIES - T.M.C. Asser Instituut

Hey insect can't you talk like a polite human being without using personal insult .

P.S : during war there is no off duty bs .. Unless you r from a banana country .. Tht gives leaves to soldiers during war time .. Another thing you don't hit UN shelters,schools or hospitals .. But indian cheerleaders like you would jump n dance at very thing related to Islam or Muslims..

Hey **************, If there is a war between India and Pakistan; would it be legal for India to kill an off duty Pakistani officer?

 

[Kloitra]

The legal definition is pointless since international isn't meant to address modern day issue of private contractors/mercenaries. What I'm implying is that they don't have the status of a civilian. They are legitimate targets. This a good read for those confused about the status debacle:

http://fride.org/download/blackwater.english.pdf

He is right, international world doesn't agree upon regulation of private companies.

@anonymus
Aren't you both saying the same thing? That PMC are legitimate targets? As long as they are combatants, they are one?

Hey filthy pork, If there is a war between India and Pakistan; would it be legal for India to kill an off duty Pakistani officer?

You can do without this, ruins otherwise good posts.

 

[VCheng]

1. So you have inferred that any Israeli in the settlements is an unlawful combatant (legitimate target in war)? What about Israel as a whole which is a collection of settlements (they never paid the palestinians for the land) dating back to 1948? So you are also inferring that all military trained Israelis are unlawful combatants (legitimate target in war) because of the geography they occupy?

Let's take a step back in history:

There was never such a thing as a Palestinian State. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the British had administrative control over this area. They proposed a division plan according to the population. The Palestinian people rejected this plan, and sought to overturn it with the support of their Arab brethren. They were defeated, and the State of Israel came into being. There is no payment necessary for this land.

And, if you think that is wrong, please do note that after the fall of the Mughal Empire, the British had administrative control over the subcontinent too.They proposed a division plan according to the population. The people accepted this plan, and the States of Pakistan and India came into being.

Not accepting Israel's existence is the same as not accepting the Partition too, if one is being intellectually honest. You cannot pick and choose here.

 

[AGHORI]

insect is tht all you got? also should i take tht as an insult or compliment... you worship varaha too:
View attachment 41488


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varaha&ei=z8_ZU6rbCoH9ywPpiIKgBg&usg=AFQjCNFcaOaw2RRlQ-zIRuI9s_TMAxa4WA


dont run off your flush of a face ..

Varaha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu which he took in order to kill the demon Hiranyaksh and thus save the world. when we worship Varaha, we worship Lord Vishnu and not some Boar. Also Varaha Avatar had a human body with the head of a Boar and not entirely a Boar. Like wise Lord Vishnu has taken other avatars like Narsimha (Man-Lion form), Kurma ( turtle), Matsya (fish) etc. Worshipping of these avatars does not amount to worshipping animals. It only means that we worship God in his different avatars. Hope its clear.
I guess when somebody calls you pork or pig or boar that person is insulting you because he is saying that you are that animal and not Varaha Avatar. so don't take it as a compliment.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Varaha was an incarnation of Lord Vishnu which he took in order to kill the demon Hiranyaksh and thus save the world. when we worship Varaha, we worship Lord Vishnu and not some Boar. Also Varaha Avatar had a human body with the head of a Boar and not entirely a Boar. Like wise Lord Vishnu has taken other avatars like Narsimha (Man-Lion form), Kurma ( turtle), Matsya (fish) etc. Worshipping of these avatars does not amount to worshipping animals. It only means that we worship God in his different avatars. Hope its clear.
I guess when somebody calls you pork or pig or boar that person is insulting you because he is saying that you are that animal and not Varaha Avatar. so don't take it as a compliment.

If your Lord became a pig... i dont think you even have the right to use tht word as an insult .. unless you are an idiot.. apart from tht hindus,sikhs also eat swine...

 

[Kloitra]

If your Lord became a pig... i dont think you even have the right to use tht word as an insult .. unless you are an idiot.. apart from tht hindus,sikhs also eat swine...

Dude, don't involve religion because of one poster.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

For speaking the truth about at least three of its schools being used a munitions stores?

So what? What would you do if you had no army and your country was brutally occupied?

Are you claiming that people have no right to fight their brutal occupiers? They have no other options as they are blockaded and sanctioned. I would do the same and more.