Israel Threatens to Hit Damascus-Next step of A Clean Break?:

Robert Kolker wrote:
Jarg wrote:
"Matt Giwer" wrote in message
...
Treaties are in fact the legal instruments that matter and they are
recognized by the tribes which signed them.
Do you really want to use treaties as the only basis for sovereignty?
Because I would be willing to bet a significant portion of the planet
it inhabited by people who took the land from other people without the
benefit of any treaty.

Besides which, most of the "treaties" between the U.S. and the
aboriginal nations were imposed at gun point. It is unclear whether the
signitories from the nations even spoke for their people. At times, U.S.
officials would go "chief shopping" to find a compliant elder to sign
away the ancestral land. What it was, was land theft simpliciter.

And THAT IS WHY I keep saying the tribes currently recognize them as legitimate
whenever they go to court to have the provisions enforced.

I am way ahead of you.

You may find a problem with the means of signing but the tribes today recognize
them.

--
Chutzpah, def., murdering Palestinians and then regretting their deaths.
Ex. We will never forgive them for making us kill them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3663
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:00:56 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:31:16 GMT, Matt Giwer
wrote:
They do wear symbols. It is their headgear usually. That it is not readable to
you and me does not change what it is. The KLA wore a red bandanna tied to the
left upper arm. Of course they carry their arms else they would not be a threat.
It is not carry, it is carry openly. Any group who sends troops out in
civilian clothing with bombs strapped to their bodies is a terrorist group by
law.
Again, openly is not defined.

It's a commonly used English word, the Third Geneva convention is not a
dictionary. It doesn't define organized resistance movement either, that
doesn't mean they are talking about a tug of war contest.

It does not work that way. The word used has to translate into all the official
translations in the military sense of the word. Plain english never applies to
military terms. Much less does it apply to what it meant at the time it was
formulated based upon the notes and discussions leading up to the use of that
word for English and other words for other major translations. In fact that time
the primary language from with translations were made was most likely French.

The convention was not designed to deal with guerrila warfare.

"Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including
those of organized resistance movements"

If you are not in one of these groups, you are a terrorist by definition. You
CANNOT claim to be one of these groups if you do not meet the requirements.

Which leaves us with the French and Polish resistance and the Brit commandos as
terrorists. You do not want to go there else you retroactively legitimize the
Nazi response to terrorists.

As with many things times have become more complicated.
Grenades were not required to have signs saying GRENADE on them.

You can't hide them in the pockets of your civilian clothes and claim to be
anything other than a terrorist. That is the letter of the law, which is beyond
your opinion on the matter.

But you are either saying the Jewish women in the Warsaw ghetto were terrorists
for concealing them in baby carriages (with babies) or you are saying they can
be concealed.

There is no prohibition of carrying a weapon in something for easy handling else all truck
and crates would be illegal.

They are if you have that crate in anything but a marked military transport.
See also: Openly.

The military rarely uses open trucks. It rains. As for marked military
transport I don't see mention of military transport.

BTW: There is NO definition of terrorist in any law other than the very weak,
use of force or threat of force to change public policy.

If you're killing people without meeting the Third Geneva Convention standard
you are at BEST a terrorist, at worst you're a psychopath with an uncontrollable
urge to kill. Either category can be shot upon discovery by enemy forces
according to the laws and customs of war.

Or you are a colonial revolutionary but of course that is before its time. I
use it simply as an example opposed to terrorist.

But no one is arguing they cannot be shot if not in compliance. I have not
claimed such a thing.

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever outlawed it
will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms.

I posted the exact requirement from the Geneva Convention, here it is again
since you seem too stupid to remember it.

"(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;"

You can do what you can to reduce your ability to be seen in the first place
but once you are spotted you have to be CLEARLY identifiable as the enemy.

And then we got into what clearly means identifiable means.

that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even if it is civilian clothing.

Because dressing like a civilian is NOT recognizable at a distance as a
distinctive sign.

Which lead us to consider outlawing camoflague uniforms because the purpose is
not to be clearly identifiable.

In any event I do not see your point in going into this as all of the above and
more is only required TO HAVE A CLAIM to POW status and treatment.

It is required TO HAVE A CLAIM to ORGANIZED RESISTANCE MOVEMENT status.

See, I can use caps too. And unlike you, I've actually got a point.

Your caps mean that the ORGANIZED group can claim POW status. If they are not
claiming that then what is the point?

All resistance to foreign occupation is a priori criminal?

Define openly. An explosive vest requires it to be worn the way it is to be
effective. I do not see how openly can require a weapon to be carried in a
manner to make it ineffective.

So wearing the explosives outside the vest as required would make the blast
ineffective?

That is a good question. It would appear the closer to the body the more
effective. So should they only be used in winter where overcoats would
definitely reduce effectiveness and therefore wearing them under the coat
completely lawful?

You're like clubbing a baby seal,

That is a new term for Zionists.

sure it's satisfying, but it got boring
fast. Into the killfile you go.

Please learn to use you killfile before you threaten it.

But it remains a fact killing Zionists is lawful as they are European invaders
who murdered and expelled the native population and stole the land. It is called
private property. There is always a right to use deadly force to kill thieves
and murderers.

--
There are two kinds of Europeans. Those who accept the holy holocaust and
those who are in prison.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3659
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

mike Williamson wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Johnny Bravo wrote:

As to wearing civilian clothing if camoflague uniforms are ever
outlawed it will have everyone back in brightly colored uniforms. I do
not see how clothing that helps one blend in can be held unlawful even
if it is civilian clothing. In fact that was my first thought when I
saw the KLA bandanas, that they should have picked black.

Camouflage is still a distinctive uniform. The purpose of a uniform
is to distinguish you from non-combatants, not to make you easily
visible. Hiding among trees, shrubs, and weeds is legal. Hiding
among civilians is not. Your declaration that you can't see a
difference (if true) is a statement about your mental process, not
about camouflage.

As the gentleman was making his in the context of openly recognizable I made
the obvious observation. In a previous post, from which he made the selective
quotes you read, I suggested a red poppy in the lapel as the open insignia. The
two generic points as you have made them are so the members can identify each
other and so they do not pretend to be civilians.

The general issue here is the Israel issue and a type of warfare not envisioned
by the convention. The point is to damn Palestinians and hold Israelis blameless.

If anything was envisioned it was that the occupying military would always be
in uniform unless in safe areas away from the front for R&R. The convention
makes no distinction between on or off duty so clearly attacks on R&R areas are
lawful. It did not imagine R&R areas as civilian areas of the occupying power a
days walk from the lines.

Another thing it failed to address was active or reserve military. If they can
be recalled to active duty they would appear to be lawful targets. And given
universal military service in Israel even with all the caveats and exceptions 3
in 10 in any crowd should be lawful targets.

The third point is while military assets are lawful targets it was not
envisioned that buses would be used by the military. But in Israel the buses are
military assets moving troops back and forth to the occupied territory and
therefore they are lawful targets. They are just as lawful as any train in
Germany regardless of civilians using them.

Those are my three points. The effort of izziehuggers are to damn Palestinians
for lawful, reasonable and moral attacks on the occupying forces.

I can go further and say taking the fight to the homeland of the occupying
force is also legitimate looking at the saturation bombings of civilians not
only during WWII but since the conventions without any serious issue of
attacking civilians being claimed. I can go as recently as the conquest of Iraq
where civilian assets were the first thing attacked on the grounds the military
could benefit from them.

As a sidebar I notice Israel's present response to the capture a corporal
certainly exonerates Germany for Krystalnacht which was over the murder of an
ambassador. Military people know they risk capture. Ambassadors do not assume
the job hazard of being murdered.

The usual is a ninja style "sweatband" of a distinctive color or
pattern. Hamas is pure green and Fatah is green with yellow
lettering I think. Next time you see films take a look.
Should make them easy to spot at checkpoints when they try to
smuggle their
bombs through. Or do they only wear them when it's convienient to do
so for propaganda purposes?

I have no idea. You will have to inquire of Israel to get copies
of the incident reports. All I know is what I see. If the uniform of
the day is a red poppy in the lapel I don't see how to complain.

Again, uniform "of the day" intended to prevent the enemy from
distinguishing you from the civilian population is (and was always
intended to be) illegal under the treaties cited.

That is not the question he asked. He asked of the insignia was selectively
worn. I said I do not know and directed him to the only source of such
imformation I can imagine. Given the way they almost immediately announce the
militia affiliation of the bomber I would guess they find the insignia in the
wreckage but I do not know.

Since self defence
is always allowed troops, mandating a uniform that can not be
distinguished from civilian attire requires troops to consider
all civilians to be either potential or actual combatants, and
act accordingly.

So in the Zionist/Palestinian case the issue boils down to a lawful delivery
method of a weapon to target the homeland of the invading country. If a dumb
missile is lawful is not a human lawful? In neither case is identification a
requirement as "missle coming" is not a required warning. If a smart bomb can be
dropped on Gaza City cannot a bomb be one walked into Tel Aviv?

Technology changes but one cannot automatically assume technological advances
trump equally effective means of responding in kind.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10

mike Williamson wrote:

I also recommend to your attention the posts of aspqrz in this matter.

--
No matter what you think of Izziehuggers being behind the conquest of Iraq
it is the least incredible of all the possible reasons.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3657
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Jordan wrote:
wrote:
Change the date and ethnic group for a fun experience. Pre-World War 2
Germany did try to expel Jews.

Were the Jews, as a group, in pre-World War 2 Germany carrying out a
murderous terrorist campaign aganst the non-Jewish Germans?

The current attacks on Palestine because of the occupational hazard of a
soldier being captured totally exonerate Germany over Krystalnacht over the
murder of an Ambassador which do not assume the occupational hazard of being
murdered.

You cannot pick and choose the groups to be punished.

--
Bush is so stupid he insists we will have victory in Iraq but the idiot has
no idea what victory means else he would have said what it is.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3656
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Mission Accomplished http://www.giwersworld.org/opinion/mission.phtml a12

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
Dean A. Markley wrote:
Israel need not hit Damascus. All they need do is hit Assad's house
near Latakia with a 2000 lb bomb.
How does that act of war improve matters?
By demonstrating to the Syrians that when they commit acts of war
against Israel through third party clients, Syria will suffer _direct_
retaliation.

Resistance to occupation is lawful and not an act of war EVEN IF there were
evidence of the implicit assertion that Syria were sponsoring it.

Actually, whether or not it is "lawful" (the deliberate murder of
civilians is generally NOT "lawful" under any version of the Laws of
War),

As Israel says if even one suspected terrorist it killed the civilians murders
do not count.

On or off duty, active or reserve or any military asset like buses are lawful
targets to be specific. Any Israeli city is a lawful target as no Israeli city
is neutral, unarmed and undefended. Read the posts of aspqrz if you want LEARN
the gory details.

it is most definitely an "act of war." By attempting armed
"resistance" in a lost territory, a national government backing this
resistance is committing an act of war against the occupier.

Occupation itself is the continuation of the act of war which lead to the
occupation so responding to the zionist animals is completely lawful and
reasonable. And The zionists wanted to be under constant attack when they
continued the occupation not to mention the criminal population transfers.

The war
may then resume, and let the dice fall where they may. Given the
relative strength of Israel and Syria, I suspect that rather soon Syria
will have some _more_ lost territory to complain about.

Israel is perfectly capable and likely to make the war active again but there
is no rational objection to Syria continuing the war ISRAEL started and never
ended.

Capturing a
prisoner of war from the occupying power is lawful in international law.

Yes, _under conditions of WAR_. Of course, if Syria is actively at war
with Israel, Syria is violating the truce that ended Peace For Galilee,
and Israel would now be within her rights to also carry out warlike
operations against Syria.

It has already has done that. Violating airspace is an act of war. Apparently
trying to provoke Israel to respond so izziehuggers like you can start lying by
claiming Israel was attacked by Syria as you have done since 1967.

Their
only obligation is to allow Red Cross visits along with proper treatment in
accordance with his rank.

Have such Red Cross visits been allowed?

Every one that has been requested.

Even if Syria or Iran were sponsoring it it would be no different from French
support of American colonies

Um, Matt, that support _was_ an act of war, and it led to the
escalation of the American Revolutionary War into a world war involving
America, England, France, Holland and Spain. I direct you to Tuchman,
Barbara, _The First Salute_ for some of the details; there are many
other diplomatic and military histories of the 1770's-1780's.

Dear late bloomer,

Israel and Syria have been at war since Israel started the 1967 war with Syria.

or Czech support of Zionists by sending arms to let
Stalin pretend innocense.

Yes, that too was an act of war (against Britain as the occupying
Power).

What you're not getting about an "act of war" is that the victim
doesn't have to choose to treat the situation as a war. And often
doesn't.

And that is likely why Syria does not treat itself as the viction of Israeli
aggression which it has been since 1967.

Israel seems to be finally losing all patience with the Palestinians
and with Syria, which if true I am very heartily glad to see. The
radical Arabs need another good bitch-slapping to remind them of their
place in the balance-of-power food chain, IMHO.

It is difficult to see where invaders from Europe have any moral position that
can be justified.

Losing patience sounds like such righteous indignation, sort of like the Mafia
losing patience with shopkeepers who refuse to pay protection.

You Zionists are MURDERERS. You Zionists went to Palestine with the openly
expressed intention to MURDER.

Yet you post as though you were other than the scum of the earth.

Resistance to occupation is always lawful by any means available. And that is
specifically because it was approved against the Nazis in WWII.

Yes, in time of WAR. What are you not getting about the fact that,
when Britain and Russia supported armed resistance against the Nazis,
it was in the context of a WAR?

Syria and Israel have been at war since Israel attacked Syria in 1967. What is
your point? Why do you keep telling me what I agree with? You Zionists can never
be trusted.

Let the *******s _bleed_ like they made Lebanon bleed.

The Druze SLA army that Israel financed to start the civil war in Lebanon (with
the hope of establishing a friendly Christian government) was the one which
asked Syria to intervene to save their butts. As the SLA was an Israeli puppet
we rationally assume that request was made with the approval of Israel. Israel
tried to abandon their puppets but public opinion forced the government not only
to give them residence but citizenship if they requested it.

I think you're forgetting a _lot_ of history here, specifically
involving the PLO and the later Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Not only is that the correct history but I got it from a background piece in
Ha'aretz when the issue of granting the Druze citizenship was a political issue.

--
The US media is indistinguishable from a state controlled media.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3641
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Robert Kolker wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:

The night isn't over. But everyone that dies from lack of
electricity, water, food, medicine or any other cause related to this
siege or the occupation in general has been murdered by Israel. As
such deaths are mostly among children and the elderly it is going to
be a very unpleasant accounting to Israel's already blood-drenched
scorecard.

The Israels have permitted the influx of minimal shipments of fuel,
water, food and medicine.

Despite the lies you are telling what does that have to do with electricity?
And electricity means water and that is both drinking and sanitation. If cholera
breaks out it is mass murder by Israel.

If they meant to slaughter Gaza City, they
would have done it already. Why not apply Ockahm's Razor. Maybe all the
Israelis want it the return of Lt. Shalit. Could it be possible?

No. He is more valuable as a prisoner than free. For example arresting members
of the government of Palestine was planned weeks ago (Haaretz) and this was used
as the excus for it.

As to group punishment, everytime a Jihadi straps on an explosive belt
and blows himself to Paradise in a Pizza Parlor or at a bus stop, that
is group punishment. When the Palis do it, you judge it to be just. When
Isrealis do targeted assassination of their enemies you express how
Shocked! Shocked! you are at Israeli brutality. If the Israelis were
truly as brutal and evil as you claim there would be barely a hundred
Palestineans left alive, even as we speak. You are a bull**** artist.

This is group punishment of a magnitude that exonerates Krystalnacht of all blame.

--
How do you get rid of 12 million Mexicans? Start with 120,000 pickup trucks.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3661
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3

Jordan wrote:
Matt Giwer wrote:
He threw rocks at a tank. ELEVEN days later he was murdered by a sniper.

He was killed BECAUSE it was caught on film and he was on his way to becoming a
role model. So he was murdered in cold blood.

Seems to me that when someone chooses to be a combatant in a war, one
cannot complain if one's chosen enemy decides to shoot back at you --
whether immediately or a bit later. Sniping at enemy combatants is
quite legal under any version of the Laws of War.

So you mean a Jewish child who threw a rock at a Nazi had to expect to be
murdered.

So you mean Jews who did not fully support the Nazis should have expected to be
murdered at any time. Or should only those who spit when Nazis walked by have
expected to be murdered?

Ask I asked and you never answered, When did you become a Nazi?

--
Hodie quarto Nonas Iulias MMVI est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org

Johnny Bravo wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:31:41 -0500, Robert Kolker wrote:


Johnny Bravo wrote:


You've got to be all kinds of stupid to be throwing rocks at people armed with
guns. You've got to be just as stupid, if not more so, to allow your kid to be
running around throwing rocks at people with guns.

Or falling in with fanatics who convince your kid he will go to heaven
and get ****ed by 72 virgins if he blows himself and his victims to
kingdom come.

I just don't see what's so attractive about 72 virgins in the first place,
that would be way too much work on my part. I'd rather have just 2 experienced
and enthusiastic bed partners.

One has to ask how an eleven year old child would be interested in even one
virgin.

--
No democracy has the right to keep secret facts which could materially
affect any election.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3646
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7

Tankfixer wrote:
In article , jull43
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com mumbled

Palestinians, without any treaties, have been trying to get their property
back non-stop since 1948.

Maybe they shouldn't have run away when thier Syrian and Egyptian
brothers attacked Isreal ?

Why do idiots keep repeating Zionist propaganda?

First off, fleeing a war zone is normal human behavior and does not abrogate
property rights.

Second, around 1930 the Zionists openly adopted a policy of murdering and
expeling Palestinians. Israeli historians using Israeli records have established
the Zionists openly implemented that policy.

Grow up and get a life.

--
Can anyone tell me the difference between Iraq with nuclear weapons and Iran
with nuclear weapons? The lies all sound the same to me.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3654
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/wi...utioners.phtml a7