Current WAR CRIMES Israel - Hamas - Hizbullah - Houthis

[Jazny]

Nice try but GP already did that - https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...hamas-hizbullah-houthis.1375868/post-85597413

That's the awkward part for you.

That list has literally nothing to do with your claim that "Illegal occupiers are legitimate legal targets of resistance". Are you lost?

How is that list awkward for me? It's an accurate list of binding UN security council resolutions that Israel have violated in that time period. With the exception of 250 from memory, which was a non-binding resolution with regards to some military parade the council advised Israel not to hold in Jerusalem but Israel did it anyway. It's totally irrelevant to anything being said and not awkward for me in the slightest.

 

[Bostonian]

I wonder what the indigenous populations in Australia and the Americas say about how they lived before Western colonialism? Ask them how it affected indigenous stability and prosperity? You know who did treat the Australian indigenous populations with respect long before the Brits came to Australia? Muslim cameleers who had regular contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and established positive working relations with them. So who destroyed that? I'll let you answer that.

So you're saying Australia was discovered by camel drivers before Cook arrived? Is that what we're reading here?

 

[Bostonian]

So that's about 65 years after the zionists started ethnic cleansing in Palestine?

Correct.

 

[jason_recliner]

That list has literally nothing to do with your claim that "Illegal occupiers are legitimate legal targets of resistance". Are you lost?

How is that list awkward for me? It's an accurate list of binding UN security council resolutions that Israel have violated in that time period. With the exception of 250 from memory, which was a non-binding resolution with regards to some military parade the council advised Israel not to hold in Jerusalem but Israel did it anyway. It's totally irrelevant to anything being said and not awkward for me in the slightest.

How does violating 242 not make their occupation illegal?

 

[Jazny]

How does violating 242 not make their occupation illegal?

Who said the occupation was legal? You are lost.

 

[Kurve]

So you're saying Australia was discovered by camel drivers before Cook arrived? Is that what we're reading here?

Camels weren't introduced until the mid 1800's, so no there weren't any cameleers. The Afghani cameleers didn't get here until about ten years later.

 

[JayJ20]

So you're saying Australia was discovered by camel drivers before the Cook arrived?

Do you seriously not know Australian history? Do you think Cook was the first to come?

This took two seconds to find:

"Some of Australia's earliest visitors were Muslim, from the east Indonesian archipelago. Muslims from Indonesia have been coming to Australia for many years, they made contact with indigenous Australians as early as the 16th and 17th centuries."

The first fleet arrived in Australia in 1788. Cook first came to Australia in 1770. The Afghan Muslims came not long after in the 19th century.

 

[jason_recliner]

Who said the occupation was legal?

Also what makes you think attacks on IDF entering Palestinian cities would be legal? Legal according to who? A UN General Assembly resolution that means nothing that people like to interpret as carte blanche permission to violate international law? Throw that idea out the window, it has nothing to do with law.

It certainly isn't legal according to Israel who are the legal authority in area C under the Oslo accords, and the PA who are bound by the Oslo accords to combat terrorism and hostilities against Israel in their territory. Militants can't just legally shoot at IDF at random just like Israel cannot treat members of armed terror groups in the West Bank the same as they would armed combatants in Gaza who are legal targets military targets.

Israel forces operate in areas B & C of the West Bank in accordance with Oslo,but they are supposed to coordinate with the PA to enter area A of the West Bank is my understanding. The idea that somehow Israeli forces just being present in the West Bank at all makes them legitimate targets is kind of crazy. This would obviously change if a war broke out between the PA and Israel, but until then, random acts of violence against Israeli forces would not be legal under any framework I can think of.

I mean I could be wrong, but if I am I would be interested to know how.

 

[Kurve]

What racism?

You said the "ME mindset" which does sound racisty but we'll give benefit of doubt for now

 

[JayJ20]

Camels weren't introduced until the mid 1800's, so no there weren't any cameleers. The Afghani cameleers didn't get here until about ten years later.

I had thought the Muslims from Indonesia that came in the 16th and 17th century were cameleers but it was the Afghans that came shortly after the Brits that were cameleers. So I was mistaken.

 

[Bostonian]

Do you seriously not know Australian history? Do you think Cook was the first to cm

This took two seconds to find:

"Some of Australia's earliest visitors were Muslim, from the east Indonesian archipelago. Muslims from Indonesia have been coming to Australia for many years, they made contact with indigenous Australians as early as the 16th and 17th centuries."

The first fleet arrived in Australia in 1788. Cook first came to Australia in 1770. The Afghan Muslims came not long after in the 19th century.

The Afghans brought the camels to Australia in the late 1830's.

I do know Australian history. Seems you don't.

 

[Jazny]

jason_recliner nowhere in that quote or ever have I said that Israel legally occupies the west bank.

So now that we have that out of the way, go ahead and support your claim that "Illegal occupiers are legitimate legal targets of resistance" using international law.

 

[Bostonian]

You said the "ME mindset" which does sound racisty but we'll give benefit of doubt for now

That's the mindset that is based on a prophets teachings and how it's different sects react to each other.

Not like the Shia/Sunni conflict is a secret.

How many lives has sectarian violence taken in the ME?

 

[jason_recliner]

jason_recliner go ahead and support your claim that "Illegal occupiers are legitimate legal targets of resistance" using international law.

Are you saying they must accept illegal occupation under international law? Or they have to take Israel to, I dunno, the UN? Of course they can legally resist an illegal occupation, including by force.

 

[Bostonian]

Camels weren't introduced until the mid 1800's, so no there weren't any cameleers. The Afghani cameleers didn't get here until about ten years later.

I knew that. I was just asking if they did given I was questioned if I knew Australian history.

I recommend travelling on the Ghan to anyone who hasn't done it yet!

 

[Kurve]

That's the mindset that is based on a prophets teachings and how it's different sects react to each other.

Not like the Shia/Sunni conflict is a secret.

How many lives has sectarian violence taken in the ME?

This isn't the thread to go in to all that with an accompanying critique of Islam.

 

[JayJ20]

The Afghans brought the camels to Australia in the late 1830's.

I do know Australian history. Seems you don't.

I initially thought the Muslims that came to Australia in the 16th and 17th century were Afghans and I knew the Afghans were cameleers, but I was mistaken in that. They were actually Indonesian. It makes literally zero difference to the original point however. Indonesian Muslims (before the Brits) as well as the Afghan cameleers (after the Brits) both had good relations with the Aboriginal and Torrestrait Islanders. If the Brits never came to Australia and they only dealt with the Indonesian and Afghan Muslims, they would never have gone through what they did.

 

[Bostonian]

I initially thought the Muslims that came to Australia in the 16th and 17th century were Afghans and I knew the Afghans were cameleers, but I was mistaken in that. It makes literally zero difference to the original point however. Indonesian Muslims (before the Brits) as well as the Afghan cameleers (after the Brits) both had good relations with the Aboriginal and Torrestrait Islanders. If the Brits never came to Australia and only dealt with the Indonesian and Afghan Muslims, they would never have gone through what they did.

The Barbary Pirates were Muslims. They raided many places in Europe and took people as slaves back to North Africa.

You seem to want to equate certain things to a few groups of people when world history shows they were all at the same things.

Some just more successful than others.

The Afghans weren't Muslims until the the Rashidun Caliphate went around killing a bunch of people and conquering a lot of land.

 

[Jazny]

Are you saying they must accept illegal occupation under international law?

Not necessarily... even if the occupation is legal. I am saying that right now it is not legal for Palestinians militants to randomly shoot/target Israeli soldiers and certainly civilians in the West Bank just because they are illegal occupiers. They are not legitimate targets, and the legality of the occupation doesn't change that. The so called right to resist occupation by any means is from a UN general assembly resolution, which is non-binding and not law, certainly doesn't supersede the Oslo accords which have binding obligations nor IHL which all parties to any conflict are bound by regardless.

Some people have interpreted this UNGA resolution as a carte blanche right for terrorist attacks. Its not.

If a war breaks out between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, then all combatants would be legitimate targets on both sides. Not all occupiers though, civilian settlers would still be protected as would Palestinian civilians.

There are circumstances in which a legitimate armed force from an occupied territory could fight against the occupying force, but this still needs to be in accordance with IHL.

Again, if you think I am wrong, give me the legal argument for it.

 

[jason_recliner]

I am saying that right now it is not legal for Palestinians militants to randomly shoot/target Israeli soldiers in the West Bank just because they are illegal occupiers.

Incorrect.

 

[JayJ20]

The Barbary Pirates were Muslims. They raided many places in Europe and took people as slaves back to North Africa.

You seem to want to equate certain things to a few groups of people when world history shows they were all at the same things.

Some just more successful than others.

The Afghans weren't Muslims until the the Rashidun Caliphate went around killing a bunch of people and conquering a lot of land.

I already gave you two examples of unjust governments who attribute themselves to Islam in Iran and Saudi. They do not apply the Islamic rules properly so I gave examples of those that applied it properly. In fact, since you went to the topic of how Islam was introduced to populations, Indonesia, the country with the most Muslims in the world, became Muslim not through war, but because they were treated fairly in trade by Muslims from Yemen. The Yemeni Muslims who came to Indonesia for trade applied the Islamic Laws of trade properly and they were impressed. That's how Islam spread through Indonesia. You know who mistreated the Indonesians? The Dutch when they colonised them. They r*ped, tortured, executed and burned down villages during their colonial rule of Indonesia.

I hold Muslims and those who call themselves Muslims accountable for the injustices they commit. If someone goes to war, there are rules that need to be followed. A just Muslim ruler doesn't do what the Israeli government does. I'm not like Zionists who thinks the Israeli state are justified in murdering innocent civilians.

Saudi committed atrocities in Yemen (escalating 10 years ago) by using the very same excuse of eliminating Iranian proxies. Their murder of the Yemeni people resulted in a humanitarian crisis and killed 10s of thousands of people if not 100s of thousands over a 10 years period.

Do you think Muslims supported/support Saudi just because they govern Makkah and Madinah? Absolutely not. How ridiculous does that sound?

Zionists however not only support the atrocities the Israelis commit against the Palestinian people, they think it is justified. That's deranged no matter which way you look at it.

Anyway, I'm not interested in continue this conversation because like I said in my first post, if you don't get it after 12 months, then I'm not wasting my time.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Where have we heard this before?

 

[Lunchlady Doris]

Not necessarily... even if the occupation is legal. I am saying that right now it is not legal for Palestinians militants to randomly shoot/target Israeli soldiers and certainly civilians in the West Bank just because they are illegal occupiers. They are not legitimate targets, and the legality of the occupation doesn't change that. The so called right to resist occupation by any means is from a UN general assembly resolution, which is non-binding and not law, certainly doesn't supersede the Oslo accords which have binding obligations nor IHL which all parties to any conflict are bound by regardless.

Some people have interpreted this UNGA resolution as a carte blanche right for terrorist attacks. Its not.

If a war breaks out between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, then all combatants would be legitimate targets on both sides. Not all occupiers though, civilian settlers would still be protected as would Palestinian civilians.

There are circumstances in which a legitimate armed force from an occupied territory could fight against the occupying force, but this still needs to be in accordance with IHL.

Again, if you think I am wrong, give me the legal argument for it.

What are you on about? Israeli soldiers enforcing an illegal military occupation are of course legal targets. Under prolonged occupation and with exhaustion of peaceful means to end it, the principles of proportionality, necessity and imminency are met.

The occupation represents an unlawful use of aggression. As long as the illegal occupation persists, it's a continuous wrongful act, which preserves the right to self-defense for the occupied state/people. Not sure how many times I need to explain this. You don't get to occupy a people and deny them self-determination, then dust your hands and call it a day. Sorry - 'status quo' guys!

You're trying to tell us that an alien occupation should go unchallenged, and resistance against the illegal occupation is illegal. It's not logical.