http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542376/
| AP wrote: |
BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip - Israeli forces fired Friday at a group of women who streamed to a Gaza mosque to serve as human shields for gunmen holed up there, killing one and wounding 10, Palestinian officials and witnesses said.
The dead woman was one of several hundred who had heeded a call by Hamas militants to ring the mosque in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Their presence allowed the gunmen inside to escape, some reportedly wearing robes supplied by the women, ending their 19-hour standoff with soldiers parked outside in tanks and armored personnel carriers. |
A wounded Palestinian woman lies on the ground while others run for cover after Israeli forces opened fire on the women, who were acting as human shields for gunmen inside a mosque in Beit Hanoun.
The religion of peace, eh? Sad. Just sad. These cowards make me sick. Which ones are you criticizing? The Palestinians? They are cowards... Using Women as human shields... 
Any form of human shield is sick. Utter cowardness. If you are willing to fight, u well better be willing to die. Don't chicken out behind some human shield.
Those who are indiscriminately shooting and killing these people are BRAVES and those who are hiding to save their lives are REAL COWARDS. Aren't these women also cowards?
It seems that this person S3nd K3ys has dedicated his life to use every oppurtunity to vent his anger and hatred against Islam. Maybe he's got nothing better to do.
Maybe he doesn't know there are many better ways to show himself as educated and civilized and gain respect in the eyes of Jews.
[quote="ibay"]"Those who are indiscriminately shooting and killing these people are BRAVES and those who are hiding to save their lives are REAL COWARDS. Aren't these women also cowards?
It seems that this person S3nd K3ys has dedicated his life to use every oppurtunity to vent his anger and hatred against Islam. Maybe he's got nothing better to do.
Maybe he doesn't know there are many better ways to show himself as educated and civilized and gain respect in the eyes of Jews."
You're absolutely right. Since S3nd K3ys talked about a situation involving Muslim women as shields against Israeli forces, it is obvious to me (and I am sure anyone else who reads this) that (s)he is simply a hater of Islam.
Now come on, do you really believe that line? That's ridiculous. As for gaining respect in the eyes of Jews, what a stupid thing to say. Do you mean all Jews, or just a few particular ones? Gaining respect by one group of people is probably not the goal of S3nd K3ys' life.
S3nd K3ys talked about a situation where people were being used as human shields, and (s)he found it offensive that those human lives would mean so little to those whom they were defending. Obviously, this person hates Islam; I mean what other explanation could there be? I for one am stumped.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15542376/
| AP wrote: | BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip - Israeli forces fired Friday at a group of women who streamed to a Gaza mosque to serve as human shields for gunmen holed up there, killing one and wounding 10, Palestinian officials and witnesses said.
The dead woman was one of several hundred who had heeded a call by Hamas militants to ring the mosque in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. Their presence allowed the gunmen inside to escape, some reportedly wearing robes supplied by the women, ending their 19-hour standoff with soldiers parked outside in tanks and armored personnel carriers. |
A wounded Palestinian woman lies on the ground while others run for cover after Israeli forces opened fire on the women, who were acting as human shields for gunmen inside a mosque in Beit Hanoun.
The religion of peace, eh? Sad. Just sad. These cowards make me sick. |
so here are you again i wonder what are moderators for ...
i allready coated from the terms that he is racist well ok.
so , every time we have to give justification for this mad man for his madness ..
so how many killed or damaged by the gun man it is only justification to kill those women there was no any gunman .
what damage or where is his body if he is killed .
So , what you say about the killing of women and children clear cut by your israeli brothers ....
great great so you are justifying them as they killed human shield to kill gun man where is he ....You don't hit women. You certainly don't fire guns at unarmed women.
| nopaniers wrote: |
| You don't hit women. You certainly don't fire guns at unarmed women. |
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol 1) Article 51 (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.
So who bares the greater legal culpability in the women's deaths? From the descriptions of the events I read (including in The Arab News), Hamas' conduct blatantly violated this article of the Geneva Conventions.
Respectfully,
MWhat many of you are saying is that: women are guilty for their own deaths. They acted as kamikases, or simple suicidals. There were shootings and went straight to catch the bullets. The shooters have no responsability because it cannot be cosedered erroneus to shoot at human shield since they were not supposed to be there beacause of an international law. That is nonsense;
| Quote: |
| You don't hit women. You certainly don't fire guns at unarmed women. |
The person who bears responsibility is the person who shot her.
This is made clear in the Geneva Conventions. In particular, Article 8, which directly follows Article 7 that you quoted, says:
| Quote: |
| 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57. |
And to be clear, Article 57 expressly forbids attacks on civilians:
| Quote: |
1. In the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects.
2. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
(b) An attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
(c) Effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.
3. When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage, the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects.
4. In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air, each Party to the conflict shall, in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects.
5. No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population, civilians or civilian objects. |
Also relevant are parts of Article 51,
| Quote: |
| 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. |
So opening fire on a group of unarmed women is not justified in any way by this convention (it never is) - and it expressly says so. | nopaniers wrote: |
And to be clear, Article 57 expressly forbids attacks on civilians...So opening fire on civilians is not justified in any way by this convention. |
No it does not expressly do so. Article 57 states that "constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects." That is not an absolute prohibition, and no where in the article does it state an absolute prohibition! If such an absolute prohibition legally existed, all a combatant would have to do is set up missile facitlities in residential areas, march civilians in front of armored columns, etc. to be legally shielded and protected from any hostile attack.
A specific example is Article 57 (2a.iii):
| Quote: |
a) Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall:
(i) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them;
(ii) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects;
(iii) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; |
If the potential loss of civilian life is not considered excessive in relation to the value of the military target, the attack need not be called off.
I cannot speak directly to the circumstances regarding the Hamas incident, because I was not there. Maybe the military value did not warrant a continuation of the attack by the Israelis. It's a judgment call in which I am not in a position to make.
However to say categorically that civilian deaths are "wrong" and always illegal period is a lie. They are unfortunate and should be minimized in conflict. And that is what the Geneva Convention Protocols try to do, minimize the impact of conflicts on civilian populations, not do away with them altogether because that is impossible.
Yes, the intentional targeting of civilians is forbidden under Protocol 1 (as you quoted in Article 51(2).) However, I assume that any member of the IDF would argue that they were targeting the Hamas combatants, not the women, and that the latter were caught in the crossfire.
That being said, IMHO if as a civilian I decide to walk into the middle of a battle or firefight, especially if my intent is to interfere and alter the outcome, I'm taking my life into my own hands.
Last edited by Moonspider on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:07 pm; edited 2 times in totalIf anyone goes to war he should make sure that he keeps the war between he and his enemies. The human-shield thing is sad and we dont know if the women were under force by another party to do so. The gunmen who were hiding were clearly chickens and the soldiers who fired were the cows.
I just find every war a WASTE of RESOURCES, TIME, LIVES and MOST OF ALL lives.
The way I see it, PEOPLE can't possible reflect any value that man could pay for. Therefore the lost of lives is always a tragic thing.
Last edited by defnet on Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:12 pm; edited 2 times in total
Tell me. What is the direct military advantage of shooting unarmed women?
| nopaniers wrote: |
| Tell me. What is the direct military advantage of shooting unarmed women? |
As I said, I assume that the IDF will claim that the women were caught in the crossfire as they were attacking the Hamas combatants.
I do not know, because I was not there, if the military value of the target justified the risk to the women.
As a military officer (which I am) and based on what I have read, I would have ordered my men to hold their fire and let the militants go. I do not think from what I read that attacking the militants would justify the risk of civilian casualties.
However, playing devil's advocate, a successful escape by the militants using this tactic could encourage it to be used more in the future. Thus the likelihood of the IDF attacking in the future under the same circumstances will increase to preclude this.
The IDF's actions are in a grey area. Hamas' actions were black and white. They were blatantly illegal under Protocol 1, not to mention cowardly and dishonorable.
Respectfully,
MAnd how is directly targetting unarmed women doing "everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects"?
Last edited by nopaniers on Sun Nov 05, 2006 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
| nopaniers wrote: |
| And how is directly targetting unarmed women doing "everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects"? |
I do not know if the women were directly targeted or if they were hit by crossfire while the IDF targeted Hamas combatants.
Like I said, I would have ordered my men to hold their fire. But I was not there and cannot speak for the judgment call made in the field by the IDF.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| nopaniers wrote: | | And how is directly targetting unarmed women doing "everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects"? |
I do not know if the women were directly targeted or if they were hit by crossfire while the IDF targeted Hamas combatants.
Like I said, I would have ordered my men to hold their fire. But I was not there and cannot speak for the judgment call made in the field by the IDF.
Respectfully,
M |
I doubt (and certainly hope) that the IDF was targeting the combatants and not aiming at the women intentionally.
From what I just re-read, the IDF stated the soldiers were targeting two of the militants (both of whom were killed) when the women were hit.Actually the IDF claimed that they shot two "militants" in the crowd. Some militants, huh? Deliberately shooting into crowds of women isn't exactly abiding by Geneva conventions. I doubt, that an American force would be able to fire rounds into a group of civilian women - would they?
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1239573,00.html?f=rss
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1938667,00.html
No, an American force would not fire live rounds into a group of civilians (excepting those documented cases when military members violated the law).
And by the descriptions in the articles you presented, the IDF actions appear to be a violation of Protocl 1. In a CNN article however (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/03/mideast.violence/index.html) the situation seemed different. According to CNN, the women were hit while shielding militants as they attempted to escape from the mosque.
However, I still believe the women to have placed their lives in their own hands when they voluntarily walked into a battle with the intent of altering the outcome by their presence.
Furthermore, Hamas blatantly violated Protocol 1 by calling for the women in the first place. I feel that to be a dishonorable act of cowardice. (I confess that the women acted with far more bravery and faith than any of the "soldiers" they were protecting.)
I am not excusing the IDF for any wrongdoing. But I do not believe the IDF's actions should somehow excuse the illegal and pusillanimous actions of Hamas. And the latter seems to be lost in the clamour to point fingers at Israel.
The IDF's actions can be debated within the framework of Protocol 1. Hamas' cannot.
Respectfully,
M I think we're pretty close to agreeing here, Moonspider. I'm not the world's biggest fan of Hamas either, I just wanted to get a little balance.
Just a few more things before I putter off. The IDF version of events, as reported by CNN, tries to make it sound as if the women had reached the militants when they were shot. In fact, the women (as footage shows) were shot before they even made it to the mosque. They were shot in a wide open street, in a different direction direction to the mosque.
| LA Times wrote: |
The lead group of women approached the besieged mosque on foot on a wide street, shouting at the Israelis to leave Gaza. Soldiers turned from the mosque and opened fire.
An Israeli army spokesman said soldiers had spotted two male militants hiding among the women and fired at them. Footage filmed by Reuters and other news organizations showed no men in the crowd at the time. |
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-mideast4nov04,1,3755456.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true
In firing on the crowd, the Israeli military killed 2 women, wounded 10 including a cameraman. Despite s3ndk3ys vitriolic vendetta against all things muslim, the responsibility for shooting the two women - morally and legally - lies with the Israeli military. | nopaniers wrote: |
In firing on the crowd, the Israeli military killed 2 women, wounded 10 including a cameraman. Despite s3ndk3ys vitriolic vendetta against all things muslim, the responsibility for shooting the two women - morally and legally - lies with the Israeli military. |
If that is the case, I do not see a way to defend the IDF's actions either. Thus I'd say morally and legally both Hamas and IDF were in the wrong.
Thanks for the link.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
No, an American force would not fire live rounds into a group of civilians (excepting those documented cases when military members violated the law).
M |
But I read on Yahoo! new some time back that american planes bombed a wedding in Pakistan because of suspected terrorist(s) attending the wedding. So those reports are fakes? | randy wrote: |
You're absolutely right. Since S3nd K3ys talked about a situation involving Muslim women as shields against Israeli forces, it is obvious to me (and I am sure anyone else who reads this) that (s)he is simply a hater of Islam.
Now come on, do you really believe that line? That's ridiculous. As for gaining respect in the eyes of Jews, what a stupid thing to say. Do you mean all Jews, or just a few particular ones? Gaining respect by one group of people is probably not the goal of S3nd K3ys' life.
S3nd K3ys talked about a situation where people were being used as human shields, and (s)he found it offensive that those human lives would mean so little to those whom they were defending. Obviously, this person hates Islam; I mean what other explanation could there be? I for one am stumped. |
I'm amazed you can write so much to defend a person you don't even know, without giving your own opinion! and the one who is talked about has got nothing to defend him/herself. Thats funnyI can't understand why the radical Islamics and their sympathisers think it's
ok to break certain Geneva Conventions, yet still expect the protection of
other conventions.
Seems hypocritycal to me. Cowards. That's all they are. Cowards.
For the record, I don't think it's right for the IDF to fire on those women.
But if the IDF were as strict about civilian casualties as the US is, they
would have lost the last two attacks on them by Hamas and Hesbolla
because that's pretty much all they do is hide behind women and children
in schools and mosques.
They're cowards.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
I can't understand why the radical Islamics and their sympathisers think it's
ok to break certain Geneva Conventions, yet still expect the protection of
other conventions.
Seems hypocritycal to me. |
I agree with that. But it's a tactic that seems to work, unfortunately! The Hamas and Hezbollah war plans are simple genius in the modern era of warfare and instant information exchange/news coverage.
The Plan in short:
1. Fire barely guided or completely unguided missiles (illegal by the conventions) into civilian areas (illegal targeting as there is no military target whatsoever).
2. Use launch sites inside civilian areas (illegal). Or take cover in civilian populations and/or buildings (illegal).
3. When attacked by Israel, use film footage of civilian deaths to your utmost advantage on every news network and website available to spread the word of Israel's "genocide" against the Palestinian people.
I say that it is pure genius because it is working extremely well. Like I've said before, I don't think the IDF acted properly or even legally per the Geneva Conventions. But I think Hamas' actions as discussed here in this thread were blatantly illegal, cowardly and dishonorable. However most people in the world probably wouldn't even consider pointing a finger at Hamas for this yet vehemently decry Israel's response.
Respectfully,
Mhttp://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3324533,00.html
| Quote: |
A female suicide bomber blew herself up Monday afternoon near IDF forces in Beit Hanoun in northern Gaza.
The suicide bomber, Marvat Masud, was affiliated with the al-Quds Brigades, Islamic Jihad's military wing.
According to reports one soldier sustained light wounds and the terrorist was killed.
|
Another woman..another victim of the Radical Islamic brainwashing.
But there IS a good side to this story...
| Quote: |
| According to reports one soldier sustained light wounds and the terrorist was killed. |
BUAAAAHAHAHAA!!!1
Well not every suicide bomber is a terrorist, some do it because they are forced to, others because their family will get lots of money, and still others do it to protect loved ones they think might get killed if they don't.
Although I am glad there was only minor injuries 
Just so we don't all get soft and think that all women are simply 'shields'.
| Quote: |
Network of Islamic Jihad women exposed
Cleared for publication: IDF, Shin Bet arrest six women who receive funds from Islamic Jihad's Syrian command, transfer funds to terror cells and families of suicide bombers. Monday, female suicide bomber from Islamic Jihad blows herself up next to IDF roadblock in Beit Hanoun
Efrat Weiss
Published: 11.07.06, 06:29
The Shin Bet exposed during the months of August and September a network of women operating for the Islamic Jihad as part of the organization's terror infrastructure in the West Bank. This was cleared for publication Tuesday. |
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3324756,00.html
