It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
"
"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. "
Read the above very, very carefully. Especially the part when it tells CIVILIANS not to move in a way that would shield military operations!
In this case, the civilians HAVE NOT MOVED TO HINDER OPERATIONS. In FACT they tried to move out of the country. They were turned away. I had better reading comprehension in the sixth grade.
And your MO is tap dancing, and back peddling, rather than answering a question( or countering an assertion.)
In other words if there is a specific military objective, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.
In other words if the concrete and direct military advantage exceed the collateral damage, it doesn't qualify as indiscriminate.
In other words the presence of civilians DO NOT render areas immune from military operations, nor should a combatant seek to use civilians to shield themselves.
Originally posted by budski
You have made no assertions that have not been countered already throughout this thread by myself and others - your inability to read these posts is not my problem.
Show me a single military objective that was achieved, from a reputable news source.
Only a person lacking in humanity would consider the killing of a few alleged terrorists at the expense of hundreds of civilians including women and children to be acceptable.
If A hundred civilians are killed for every one alleged terrorist, that would qualify as indiscriminate.
And yet again, you refuse to read or address other posters points - innocents COULD NOT escape the area - the israeli's built a wall around it.
They are also denying them food, aid, medical assistance, and bombing UN buildings which were attempting to provide these.
Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by BlueRaja
Edit to add - The "parties of the conflict" DIDN'T move the civilians in the way. They left the civilians quite well enough alone to run away. They were turned back.
[edit on 22-1-2009 by Jay-in-AR]
Let's see. I disagree that WP is legally being used.
I state that in accordance with all Geneva Conventions, WP use is legal
I disagree with you that WP is a gas agent
And you had to be very bright, just to get in.
And to argue against all internationally recognized indicators for personal reasons, is to me, just not too bright.
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
More dancing, more deflection and obfuscation, and refusal to answer questions - and yet you expect others to answer yours.
BS- nobody has shown how any example that I've given is incorrect. There's been a lot of personal opinions given, but no references contradicting the ones I've used.
In fact the US is the only consistent defender of Israeli actions - which is reflected in the way the armed forces of both countries treat civilians in combat zones.
As opposed to how Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, etc... treat civilians?
Can you give me one example of any major war in history, where any other country has treated civilians(or wounded enemy combatants for that matter) better than the US. There are countless examples of both US and Israeli forces accepting greater risk(and casualties even) to their forces, in order to minimize collateral damage. War isn't pretty, and there is no such thing as zero collateral damage.
I made a typo, and no, I don't agree.
The Geneva Accords allow of WP or any other weapon usage in civilian areas when targeting an enemy.
You didn't read my earlier post where I specifically stated that all explosives are chemical in nature, but that WP does not off-gas enough to matter. Besides the thing you posted stated that no evidence exists that shows harm from WP usage in conflict.
I think it's clear you have an agenda to ignore what even the Geneva Accords allow
You may not like some of the things that Israel, or the US do, but that doesn't make them wrong.
One other little item. Do you know you and elevatedone have the same avatar? Are you related?
And based on your replies here, I'd sure like to know your area of expertise.
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
well, let's look at the UK forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Falklands.
Or any of the UK forces on DET around the world.
That'll do for starters.
BTW - sources aplenty have been provided - you just don't read them.
As usual.
Originally posted by budski
reply to post by BlueRaja
You made no distinctions as to the level of combat.
Cherrypick all you like - I've dealt with far too many of your type to be taken in.