04-05-2004 17:35									#61
	Increase the size of your Attachments

ElTigre: yep, that was the difference I was trying to make. Thanks for explaining it better than me.

	04-05-2004 17:38									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Nope, because most of them have lived in Algiers all their life (and this is a very important difference to me, as it is to them, who have been cast from their home to metropolitan France after the independence). However, I think that early colonists who followed the military conquests would have been as valid targets for a local resistance as the French soldiers.

What difference does that make, all their lives, or 'just' 10-20 years?

	04-05-2004 17:42									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Azazel What difference does that make, all their lives, or 'just' 10-20 years?

Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back. Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

Of course, if you were brought in your new place at 5 or 10, it is completely different than if you have decided to go there at 25. Because you couldn't weave a sufficient bond with the place of origin.

	04-05-2004 17:48									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back.

And otherwise, it's ok to shoot at you?!

quote: Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort.

When you're an adult, you can leave and not 'contribute to the conquest effort'. Fricking irrelevant.

Maybe the people of the baltic state should shoot the Russians who settled in the baltics.

	04-05-2004 18:02									#65
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel quote: Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back. And otherwise, it's ok to shoot at you?!

As far as "ok" can mean in a context of war.

quote: quote: Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort. When you're an adult, you can leave and not 'contribute to the conquest effort'. Fricking irrelevant.

Leaving is much harder to do than coming. Your attachment to the land can be as genuine as every other native's.

quote: Maybe the people of the baltic state should shoot the Russians who settled in the baltics.

If there was a war between the people of the Baltics and the Russians, and if the Russians didn't try to rapatriate their citizens back home, it would end up like this. Since no war is occuring, the Baltics are doing it in a more peaceful way, but they are clearly trying to get rid of Russian colonists, who had been sent here to "russify" the area. The language issue, raised so oftne by the Russians, is the most visible symptom of the Baltic people trying to get rid fo Russian colonization, despite many Russians calling these countries their home.
However, there are two points with which Russian settlers are different from Israeli ones: 1. The Russification policy started under Czarism. I doubt there are many Russians living in the Baltics that aren't implemented since a very long time.
2. The authoritarian nature of czarism and sovietism means that not every Russian in the Baltics wanted to be there. Quite different in nature with Israeli settlements, in particular with Israeli illegal settlements, that are discouraged by Israel itself.
Yet, I don't think these differences are any difference in the eyes of the displaced or humiliated people.

	04-05-2004 18:34									#66
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor . I actually consider adult settlers (not born in the settlement) to be valid targets, even more than soldiers, because they chose to come to the war zone and to wage the war.

So you no longer believe in the Geneva conventions?

	04-05-2004 18:43									#67
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark So you no longer believe in the Geneva conventions?

What do the Geneva convetions say about settlers? (no confrontation here, I just lack the information completely)

	04-05-2004 18:44									#68
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor When you wage a war, when you enter a war zone, when you bring your children to a war zone, you should not expect any humanity.

once again - the territories were captured in 1967, a war which resulted from aggression against Israel. The Gaza Strip, and West Bank were NOT under any state's recognized sovereignty. Their status was disputed (although I would agree that the principle of self determination strongly supports the notion of a territorial settlement giving MOST of the territories to the Palestinians) The war had ended, and there was relatively little violent resistance within the territories. (Im speaking of the period 1967 to 1987) They were NOT entering a "war zone". They WERE entering territories whose status was subject to dispute.


I will go so far as to agree with Spiffor on this. I feel no sympathy for settlers who will lose their homes, who will see their lives disrupted when they are FORCIBLY expelled from their homes in the territories. They made a choice to live in lands whose status was subject to dispute. The notion that they are valid targets of war is, however, both in contradiction to all principles of international law (this is true, BTW, even if the territories are NOT disputed, and the settlements are themselves violations of international law as many claim) and it is vile. I am sure Spiffor will reflect on this and understand it.

	04-05-2004 18:46									#69
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor What do the Geneva convetions say about settlers? (no confrontation here, I just lack the information completely)

Civilians are not valid targets of military action. One ceases to be a civilian by taking up arms. Not by living somewhere, even if that is A. In a war zone or B. In a settlement itself founded in violation of international law. Ergo, an unarmed settler (and i realize many adult male settlers are armed - Im not sure what the Geneva convention says about civilians who keep weapons for personal protection, like many settlers and most Iraqis) is NOT a valid target. Period.

	04-05-2004 18:47									#70
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I feel nothing about this crime. It is simply same old, same old. All the fresh new outrage really does nothing and means as much.

There is a point at which outrage either must be so vast as to create a sea change, or must die, to free people to act and make the hard choices regardless of the past.

This killing does nothing towards either goals-it is horrific, but really not more so than countless other horrific acts, so in about 5 months, as the violence continues, it will be but a postscript and a statistic.

As for the utter idiocy that Americans are more enlightened or care more:

There is a reason folks America is hated in so many parts of the world, and it is not that crap that they hate us for our freedom. Are the Europeans better? No, their history is just as sad towards others, and they certainly have us beat in their history towards each others. But again, the idea Americans care more is absurd.

	04-05-2004 18:50									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark once again - the territories were captured in 1967, a war which resulted from aggression against Israel. The Gaza Strip, and West Bank were NOT under any state's recognized sovereignty. Their status was disputed (although I would agree that the principle of self determination strongly supports the notion of a territorial settlement giving MOST of the territories to the Palestinians) The war had ended, and there was relatively little violent resistance within the territories. (Im speaking of the period 1967 to 1987) They were NOT entering a "war zone". They WERE entering territories whose status was subject to dispute.

On this:

There was violent resistance in Gaza after 1967, resistance in which the Israelis came and buldozed and razed large sections of many camps to make way for their tanks.

As for calling it disputed-please. Israeli sovereignty over any of these lands has never been recognized. Certainly Israel can gain some of these territories at the bargaining table, but right now, these are definitelly under military occupation by Israel, meaning the settlements in Gaza have no right to exist and are violations of the rules of war, even the large settlement blocks on the coast.

	04-05-2004 18:51									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by GePap Are the Europeans better? No, their history is just as sad towards others

Actually, our history is far worse than yours. As a world power, the US has acted in a much less terrible fashion than the European powers. I mean, even Belgium managed to create an absolute hellhole which is ridden by plagues, famines and wars, beyond repair.

	04-05-2004 18:55									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

For suture reference:

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War

The document is quite massive, and I haven't begun to reas it yet. I just post the link so that everybody interested can look at the text in its entirety.

	04-05-2004 19:00									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Actually, our history is far worse than yours. As a world power, the US has acted in a much less terrible fashion than the European powers. I mean, even Belgium managed to create an absolute hellhole which is ridden by plagues, famines and wars, beyond repair.

The US was better acting by proxy. Though, if one considers our behavior towards the Native Americans, which is annologous to European Colonialism, we were slightly, but not significantly better, though we did attempt cultural genocide and tried to destroy them economically as well.

Europeans has bigger numbers of people to oppress-that does not make the oppression of small groups less heinous.

	04-05-2004 19:01									#75
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap On this: There was violent resistance in Gaza after 1967, resistance in which the Israelis came and buldozed and razed large sections of many camps to make way for their tanks. As for calling it disputed-please. Israeli sovereignty over any of these lands has never been recognized. Certainly Israel can gain some of these territories at the bargaining table, but right now, these are definitelly under military occupation by Israel, meaning the settlements in Gaza have no right to exist and are violations of the rules of war, even the large settlement blocks on the coast.

It is true that Israeli sovereignty has never been recognized. Its also true that apart from Jerusalem, it hasnt been formally annexed it either, prefering to advance its claims in negotiations. Its also true that Egypt neither claimed sovereignty over Gaza, nor did the nascent PLO claim sovereignty over it, nor did anyone recognize any sovereignty over it. Jordan, OTOH, DID claim soveriegnty over the West Bank, and Pakistan recognized that, but Jordan has since forfeited its claims. So NO one has de jure sovereignty over either Gaza or the West Bank. Ergo its disputed territory, and is not occupied territory per international law.

Ergo the settlements are not violations of the Geneva conventions. Though they ARE obstacles to peace, and any new ones established since the Oslo accords ARE violations of that accords promises not to create unilateral facts on the ground.

	04-05-2004 19:02									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor For suture reference: Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War The document is quite massive, and I haven't begun to reas it yet. I just post the link so that everybody interested can look at the text in its entirety.

Thank you for posting the link.

	04-05-2004 19:12									#77
	Tired of ads?

quote: It is true that Israeli sovereignty has never been recognized. Its also true that apart from Jerusalem, it hasnt been formally annexed it either, prefering to advance its claims in negotiations. Its also true that Egypt neither claimed sovereignty over Gaza, nor did the nascent PLO claim sovereignty over it, nor did anyone recognize any sovereignty over it. Jordan, OTOH, DID claim soveriegnty over the West Bank, and Pakistan recognized that, but Jordan has since forfeited its claims. So NO one has de jure sovereignty over either Gaza or the West Bank. Ergo its disputed territory, and is not occupied territory per international law. Ergo the settlements are not violations of the Geneva conventions. Though they ARE obstacles to peace, and any new ones established since the Oslo accords ARE violations of that accords promises not to create unilateral facts on the ground.

Where in the convention does it say that the soverign control of one location must be decided before the convention comes into fore? that is absurd. The land most certainly is NOT Israeli-yet the Israeli army is there-that makes it an occupation, and all the rules on military occupations and war apply. Ther long standing claim the Geneva convention does not apply to these lands is long standing bunk that no one save the Israeli government has ever given serious weight to.

According to your line of thought then, tommorrow the PLA could claim total soverignty over everything beyond the green line and what? You would agree unequivocally that now it is not disputed and all the settlements are illegal? I seriously doubt it.

To make it very simple-this is land that is NOT Israeli, occupied by the Israeli military, hence it is under occupation, hence the Geneva convention applies.

	04-05-2004 19:12									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

In regards to the Geneva Convention, I believe the key here can be found in article 3...

quote: Persons taking no active part in hostilities

I do believe this would cover a mother and 4 children in an unarmed vehicle, regardless of where they are and how they got there.

	04-05-2004 19:29									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Because unless you have been completely uprooted, or have rejected your place of origin, you have a place you are familiar with to go back. Because if you willingly came to settle, you willingly came to contribute to the conquest effort. Of course, if you were brought in your new place at 5 or 10, it is completely different than if you have decided to go there at 25. Because you couldn't weave a sufficient bond with the place of origin.

Interesting a commie in defense of property rights.

	04-05-2004 19:37									#80
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GePap [According to your line of thought then, tommorrow the PLA could claim total soverignty over everything beyond the green line and what? You would agree unequivocally that now it is not disputed and all the settlements are illegal? I seriously doubt it.

IF the PA claimed sovereignty, over say, North Tel Aviv, and the Israels claim to soveriegty over North Tel Avid was not widely recognized, and the PA occupied North Tel Aviv, and the PA planted settlements in North Tel Aviv, than those settlements would NOT be violations of the Geneva Convention, that is correct.

	04-05-2004 19:38									#81
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The militant praising this says it was a reprisal. I think reprisals are meant to be terrible, so I am not at all suprised that certain people support this sort of thing.

I'd hope that such people are subject to Israeli reprisals, but hopefully not the, "We got the bastard! And four civilians as well, never mind, it was an unavoidable accident" type.

	04-05-2004 19:39									#82
	Increase the size of your Attachments

outrage must extend to the deaths of arabs at the hands of terrorists

I present this item from Reuters, about the murder of 4 Algerian peasants.




http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L01155172.htm

	04-05-2004 19:51									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark IF the PA claimed sovereignty, over say, North Tel Aviv, and the Israels claim to soveriegty over North Tel Avid was not widely recognized, and the PA occupied North Tel Aviv, and the PA planted settlements in North Tel Aviv, than those settlements would NOT be violations of the Geneva Convention, that is correct.

Sorry, but again, what count is NOT a claim of sovereingty. The issue is what LAW applies. What code of law applies in Gaza? Lets take this crime: who has the right to persecute? Is it the PLA? Is it Israeli civil authorities? Is it the Israeli MIlitary? Who has jurisdiction? THAT is what counts. Israeli civil authority does NOT apply to the territories. Neither it seems does PLA law, at least not if an attack is on Israeli,c ause Israel then deserves the right to attack. Israel also carries out military operations in Gaza as well. So, it is the IDF that has final control and jurisdiction, over individual who are not Israeli citizens (in fact, they are not citizens of anywhere), thus it is an occupation by a foreign army on a civilian population. It was so in 1967, it is so today. Either Israel grants all Palestinians citizenship and has them fall under Israeli civil law, or it allows the PLA to delcare independence and then make Pals Citizens of Palestine, or it accepts the fact the Geneva Convention applies, but you don;t get to create a legal limbo for 1.2 million people.

It is as plain as the sun in the daylight sky.

	04-05-2004 19:52									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

Why exactly are we arguing if it is Ok to slaughter an unarmed pregnant woman and her children again?

	04-05-2004 20:10									#85
	Support Apolyton

No one posting in this thread says, or thinks, that it is a good thing for a woman and four children to be killed in a hail of bullets.

The differences to be seen in the reactions of various people depend upon whether they are partisans or not.

Those who are Israelis or who side with them express loathing for the killers.

Those who side with the Palestinians point out that this atrocity was provoked by other atrocities commited by individual Israelis upon arabs.

Neutrals could not care less about the provocations - from such a standpoint it is all too obvious that while each side insists on responding to provocation by further atrocities there will be no end to it.

A close examination of who has done what to whom and when is just not going to break the cycle of violence.

Who could not be sympathetic to that woman and to those children. And to the bereaved husband and father?

But if Israelis go on acting as that family did their chance of ever getting on with their neighbours is nil.

That does not justify what happened any more than it will justify the next set of murders carried out by Israelis.

It is just a statement of the obvious.

The writer of the article first posted in this thread seized upon this incident for its propaganda purposes. That is a bad idea in itself but, effective as the article unquetionably is to further inflame the partisan, it is not calculated to engage the neutral. The effect on me is to distract me from my disgust for the gunmen while my lip curls a bit at someone whose first thought is to propagandise.

	04-05-2004 20:12									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GePap Sorry, but again, what count is NOT a claim of sovereingty. The issue is what LAW applies. What code of law applies in Gaza? Lets take this crime: who has the right to persecute? Is it the PLA? Is it Israeli civil authorities? Is it the Israeli MIlitary? Who has jurisdiction? THAT is what counts. Israeli civil authority does NOT apply to the territories.

from 1948 to about 1965, Israel applied military administation to predominantly arab areas WITHIN the green line, notably the Upper Galillee. No international organization, to my knowledge, claimed that the Upper Galilee was "occupied territory" nor that Israeli settlements in Upper Gallilee (of which there were several) were violations of the Geneva Convention. In fact it IS de jure sovereignty that matters, not the form of administration.

	04-05-2004 20:16									#87
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader No one posting in this thread says, or thinks,...

Sorry but the protestations that the woman was a voluntary soldier were a bit nauseating and stank of someone giving justification for the act. I may have gone a bit overboard though. If so I apoligize.

	04-05-2004 20:19									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader The writer of the article first posted in this thread seized upon this incident for its propaganda purposes. That is a bad idea in itself but, effective as the article unquetionably is to further inflame the partisan, it is not calculated to engage the neutral. The effect on me is to distract me from my disgust for the gunmen while my lip curls a bit at someone whose first thought is to propagandise.

But of course the intent of the those who commited the murder apparently WAS propaganda purposes. The woman and her children were murdered on the very day the Likud party was voting on a proposal to WITHDRAW from the Gaza settlements. Which was being opposed on the grounds that the withdrawl was a withdrawl under fire, a concession to terror and therefore a reinforcer to terror. TO which Sharons response was that he had weakened Hamas, and that this was NOT a withdrawl out of weakness. Well, the act of terror VERY probably influenced the vote and thus stopped the withdrawl - since the terrorists DONT want a withdrawl.
Unless the terrorist acts can convince people around the world to crack down on support for Hamas, (to accomplish which requires propaganda) Hamas has every incentive to keep using violence to disrupt ANY hopeful move.

	04-05-2004 20:21									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Spiff - if you think settlements are so terrible, shouldnt you be PARTICULARLY outraged at an attack that disrupted a move toward Israeli withdrawl from Gaza settlements?

Hamas - the best friend the Israeli far right has.

	04-05-2004 21:21									#90
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark if you think settlements are so terrible, shouldnt you be PARTICULARLY outraged at an attack that disrupted a move toward Israeli withdrawl from Gaza settlements?

I should. Actually, I didn't get the attack was aimed at having the referendum fial. Indeed, these terrorist *******s show once again they couldn't care less about the ordinary people, they care about furthering war and hatred, the very situation that gives them an edge

And indeed, I think Sharon's unilateral move to disband Gaza settlements was a good move. I didn't chime in with the criticism in France (who cares if it is unilateral? It's the frigging best news that came from Israel in years!). I only wish he disbands the settlements that are far off in west bank territory, and gives definitive borders to Israel: no support for any settlement past the (reasonable) border.