RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention

RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 3:50:19 PM)
I find it funny that people will complain about Israel, however they quite effectively ignore their own country's wrongful occupation of land that continues to the present day, along with similar activities by their own military in the past. But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland.

Aylee -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 3:50:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Breaker and a couple other Bushfeld carbiniers were (among other things) tried and convicted of exposing Boers as human shields along the train cars to keep the Boers from attacking While the Breaker was Aussie, he was with the English. Hmm. I thought that he and another guy were convicted and shot because they shot some Boers in retaliation. (And a preacher.) There was a third guy that was pardoned. However, the trial records were lost and so there is question about whether the UK pulled some sort of cover up and they guys should not have been found guilty. I do not really recall the human shield issue. Although this particular part of history has not been my interest.

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:11:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland. Shakes head at your ignorance. There is no occupation of Northern Ireland, it is part of the UK. A large proportion of Northen Irishmen would tell you the same thing.

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:15:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: hertz Whatever the circumstances, making an innocent 9 year old boy open a bag that might contain a bomb is an evil act. Where's your humanity, Aylee? I suppose it depends. Did they really think that there was a bomb? And why would they think this? This was a shelter after all. Or were they messing with everyone's head in some sort of mind-fuck game. (which I do not believe is the right thing to do, but would explain the sentence.) My humanity? This is the only account I have read of this. And frankly it does not make a lot of sense and leaves me with questions. You are upset at the trial outcome. I understand this. However, I am wondering at the reason and trying to make sense of this. Surely the point is they messed with a nine year olds head, thats just abhorent whoever you wish to look at it.

Aylee -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:22:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Surely the point is they messed with a nine year olds head, thats just abhorent whoever you wish to look at it. Yes it is. And I have stated that. I think that smacking him around was dispicable as well. My question is on whether or not they really believed that they believed there was a bomb. Because that answer gives the answer to the human shield question.

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:29:50 PM)
I dont agree, if there was a bomb in the bag making a kid open it instead was unlikely to save them. Not unless they went and stood some distance away.

thishereboi -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:34:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I find it funny that people will complain about Israel, however they quite effectively ignore their own country's wrongful occupation of land that continues to the present day, along with similar activities by their own military in the past. But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland. Now that's something we can both agree on. Didn't see that coming, did ya[8D]

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:38:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Now that's something we can both agree on. Didn't see that coming, did ya[8D] Somone else without a clue about history.

Aylee -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 4:39:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I dont agree, if there was a bomb in the bag making a kid open it instead was unlikely to save them. Not unless they went and stood some distance away. Yes. Also shooting at the other suspect bag would be insane if they really believed there was a bomb there. This is why I question the whole "human shield" thing.

tweakabelle -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 5:29:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . My question is on whether or not they really believed that they believed there was a bomb. Because that answer gives the answer to the human shield question. Aylee "As the Herald reported in October, the men, who had forced the boy to open bags they suspected of containing explosives, were the only soldiers convicted of a war crime raised by Judge Richard Goldstone in his report on the conflict to the United Nations Human Rights Council." http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-frees-israeli-soldiers-accused-of-using-boy-as-shield-20101122-184a2.html I hope this helps clarify things for you Aylee. The same link also reports : "Within hours of the decision being handed down, 20 members of the Israeli parliament signed a letter which was sent to Mr Peres appealing to him to reduce their sentences and to expunge their criminal record ''The ruling gives them a criminal record for many years - that is a stain that will follow them when they go to study, to work for a living, to move forward with their lives and a variety of other day-to-day activities.''[the MP's letter said] "The letter also described such legal proceedings as an abandonment of the people who were defending Israel ''day and night, at times of war and in danger zones.'' [ end quote] This outrageous petition seems to confirm Hertz's point about the inability of many Israelis to comprehend just how abhorrent Israeli war crimes are. Israeli war crimes are war crimes. All war crimes are a stain on humanity

jlf1961 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 5:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland. Shakes head at your ignorance. There is no occupation of Northern Ireland, it is part of the UK. A large proportion of Northen Irishmen would tell you the same thing. Yes, and a lot of IRISHMEN would disagree with this point. Northern Ireland was part of Ireland BEFORE the British moved in and annexed it as part of the United Kingdom. However, I will also say that due to my native American ancestry, (with a Cherokee ancestor who had his land taken by the Federal Government, and forced to relocate to Oklahoma, along the way his father, mother, wife and two of his three children perished) that the United States is an illegally occupied land and there are MASSIVE reparations that should be paid (which would bankrupt the government.)

Aylee -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 6:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 . My question is on whether or not they really believed that they believed there was a bomb. Because that answer gives the answer to the human shield question. Aylee "As the Herald reported in October, the men, who had forced the boy to open bags they suspected of containing explosives, were the only soldiers convicted of a war crime raised by Judge Richard Goldstone in his report on the conflict to the United Nations Human Rights Council." http://www.smh.com.au/world/court-frees-israeli-soldiers-accused-of-using-boy-as-shield-20101122-184a2.html I hope this helps clarify things for you Aylee. Thanks. From that report, I would have to say that the soldiers really screwed up. That report states that the soldiers themselves suspected that there was a bomb. I may or may not look for more information at some point, as there are there are still parts of the whole thing that do not make sense (how a 9 year old opening the bag helped with time constraints?). I also hope that all involved, the two former soldiers, the boy, and his mother, are able to get some sort of therapy.

Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/22/2010 7:01:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland. Shakes head at your ignorance. There is no occupation of Northern Ireland, it is part of the UK. A large proportion of Northen Irishmen would tell you the same thing. Politesub I think you are being a bit selective in your reading of the situation in the North lol. Those who see the North as legitimately part of the UK are Unionist. I'm not sure if it is strictly an occupation anymore after the Good Friday Agreement which the Irish government signed up to but even so the history remains the same - successive forces of invasion from the Twelfth to Seventeenth Century (Cromwell) imposed foreign control on the land typically to the detriment of the native population. I do think the sentence the soldiers received was absurdly small even if the child wasn’t used as a human shield. May be wrong but an impression I got was the latter wasn’t the case as the men were too close to the bag. I think it is common practice to make those carrying bags open them not only in Israel since the likely hood they will endanger their own lives by opening said bag is lesser. For perspective, as Northern Ireland was brought up it would be worthwhile to point out that even the British authorities who were facing a far less serious situation engaged in very considerable perversions of justice until the 1990’s. This point is well known. In conflict situations justice can very often be compromised so its a positive to see Israeli justice worked by establishing guilt in this case even if the sentence was small. quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The same link also reports : "Within hours of the decision being handed down, 20 members of the Israeli parliament signed a letter which was sent to Mr Peres appealing to him to reduce their sentences and to expunge their criminal record ''The ruling gives them a criminal record for many years - that is a stain that will follow them when they go to study, to work for a living, to move forward with their lives and a variety of other day-to-day activities.''[the MP's letter said] "The letter also described such legal proceedings as an abandonment of the people who were defending Israel ''day and night, at times of war and in danger zones.'' [ end quote] This outrageous petition seems to confirm Hertz's point about the inability of many Israelis to comprehend just how abhorrent Israeli war crimes are. Israeli war crimes are war crimes. All war crimes are a stain on humanity You neglect to mention that it was 20 Knesset members out of some 120 in the parliament. That is just 1/6th so your point that very many Israeli’s are war mongers or insensitive to war crimes doesn’t really work. In any country with a serious conflict, especially a small state that is relatively vulnerable, there is bound to be some polarisation and strong nationalistic feeling so its hardly a reason to criticise Israel.

Cherylmazana -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 2:34:00 AM)
Jif1961 in 1973 these questions and the result for the referendum that the Northern Irish citizens voted upon. Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom? 98.9% said yes 0.6% said no. Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom? 1.1% said yes and 0.6% said no. 57.5% of the voting population voted, so in that case you would imagine that all of those who hated British rule would vote to end it, those who didn’t vote obviously didn’t care, a whole 0.6% wanted change it seems. What most people fail to realise is that Northern Ireland wants to remain British; a very small minority want to unite all of Ireland. Britain has a policy of letting those countries that wish to rule themselves do so, the only reason that Ireland is still part of the UK is because they wish to be, not because they are forced to be. Terrorists are terrorists even if they call themselves patriots, the IRA or any of their splinter groups or Al Qaeda, a small portion that will use terror tactics so they can make the news and try to force people to do what they want because of the fear of bombs. They can vote for their own politicians so they cant even say they have no choice, if all Northern Ireland wanted to be part of Southern Ireland, they would have politicians that reflect that, not the ones they do have. Cheryl

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 4:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Politesub I think you are being a bit selective in your reading of the situation in the North lol. Those who see the North as legitimately part of the UK are Unionist. I'm not sure if it is strictly an occupation anymore after the Good Friday Agreement which the Irish government signed up to but even so the history remains the same - successive forces of invasion from the Twelfth to Seventeenth Century (Cromwell) imposed foreign control on the land typically to the detriment of the native population. Maybe, but as Cheryl has pointed out, there was a referendum in 1973 which voted almost to a person to remain part of the UK. My point about there not being an occupation is based on historical facts. Prior to the Act Of The Union Ireland as a whole did have its own free government. This came about when Pontings ( name ? ) Law was repealed. The Irish Government then voted to join the Union, even if some politicians were said to have been bribed ( Nothing new lol ) It is easy to assert all Catholics want a United Ireland and all Protestants want to stay part of the UK. In reality this isnt the case, Unionists also consider themselves to be Irish and to suggest otherwise would be wrong. No qualms with your views on wrong doings over the last 30 years though, serious errors were made in trying circumstances. Thankfully those are being addressed and hopefully the current terrorists will eventually join the peace process.

Termyn8or -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 7:01:18 AM)
The peace process ? Isn't the official UN definition of peace "the absence of opposition" ? In the US, the opposition was made to be absent. In N Ireland the opposition has also become absent. They're working on that in Palestine. It's been going on since the dawn of mankind, and we only think and pretend we have matured out of such ways. In fact we have not. That's why I no longer get my shorts in a bunch over it, unless it gets too close to home. The founders of this country did express agreement with that notion. Speak of a vote in Ireland ? How about they have a vote BEFORE the occupation occurs. Conquest, along with the subsequent occupation IS the new peace process. Always has been. T

Anaxagoras -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 7:48:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras Politesub I think you are being a bit selective in your reading of the situation in the North lol. Those who see the North as legitimately part of the UK are Unionist. I'm not sure if it is strictly an occupation anymore after the Good Friday Agreement which the Irish government signed up to but even so the history remains the same - successive forces of invasion from the Twelfth to Seventeenth Century (Cromwell) imposed foreign control on the land typically to the detriment of the native population. Maybe, but as Cheryl has pointed out, there was a referendum in 1973 which voted almost to a person to remain part of the UK. My point about there not being an occupation is based on historical facts. Prior to the Act Of The Union Ireland as a whole did have its own free government. This came about when Pontings ( name ? ) Law was repealed. The Irish Government then voted to join the Union, even if some politicians were said to have been bribed ( Nothing new lol ) It is easy to assert all Catholics want a United Ireland and all Protestants want to stay part of the UK. In reality this isnt the case, Unionists also consider themselves to be Irish and to suggest otherwise would be wrong. No qualms with your views on wrong doings over the last 30 years though, serious errors were made in trying circumstances. Thankfully those are being addressed and hopefully the current terrorists will eventually join the peace process. Cheryl's point is technically correct re. the figures but I have to say she is extremely selective with the facts. Almost 100% of the Catholic population boycotted the vote. 58% voted which essentially represented the Unionist majority at the time. The boycott was carried out because the referendum was largely an attempt by the British authorities to legitimise their presence morally because the Unionist majority of th eday would of course carry it. Society up there was deeply divided at the time with sectarian violence at its worst where up to a few hundred people were being killed each year on a very small patch of the Planet. Thus even very moderate protestants would have been anxious to stay in the UK. Thus the referendum itself is seen as merely a political stunt devoid of meaning and it is littlemore than a footnote in history books at this stage. The fact of the matter is that at the time the Catholic vote was denied by gerrymandering even at local elections and intensified violence toward these people led to the British army being called in to protect them back in 1969. A Catholic John Hume, leader of the SDLP, and winner of the "Ireland's Greatest" figure last month because he is the principal figure in the Northern Ireland peace process, essentially started a civil rights movement to help deal with the bad conditions and never advocated violence but even the SDLP boycotted the referendum. The troubles could have been largely avoided but in a very short period of time the British were pointing their guns at Catholics and many were shot at peaceful human rights protests as was recently acknowledged after years of instutional cover up. This gave rise to a resurgent "Provisional" IRA which BTW many Catholics really hated but were between a rock and a hard place at the time. To be honest Unionists consider themselves "British" rather than Irish. Don't get me wrong they are an admirable bunch of SOB's in many respects. If the entire British nation was like them you lot would still be running the US. Your point about the Irish government prior to the act of Union doesn't really sit because in essence it only represented the landed class which was largely Protestant. Thus it wasn't representative of the vast majority of the landless Catholic populace. The fact that it voted for its own abolition through mass bribery where all that voted got titles etc. proves that very point. The Act of Union was essentially pushed through due to the concern over further rebellion thus to maintain its presence in Ireland.

Politesub53 -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 11:09:36 AM)
The ruling Government were none the less Irish, landowners or not, what i think is selective is applying current thinking to the politics of the time. Englans real problem was never Ireland per se, it was to ensure a Catholic ireland didnt provide bases for Catholic France and Spain. Its a shame that back in the day peasants like you and I never got to vote either side of the Irish sea. [;)] As for the troops in Ulster, lets not point fingers at who started shooting first. The British Army went to protect the Catholics. The UPV ( Potestants) laid the first bombs. The first civilians shot by the Army were protestant rioters. My next question ( To anyone ) about Israel having divine right to anywhere, is much the same when asked of anyone. What about the original inhabitants of any area ? How far back in history is it acceptable to go ? Do we stop at the israelites or go prior to that time. Do we stop at the native American tribes, or go back to the earlier tribes ?

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 1:19:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I find it funny that people will complain about Israel, however they quite effectively ignore their own country's wrongful occupation of land that continues to the present day, along with similar activities by their own military in the past. But then, it is an unfortunate truth that many in the United Kingdom continue to justify the occupation of Northern Ireland. I'm struggling to see the point of this comment. Are you suggesting that in the UK as well as in Israel, some people are unable to recognise the difference between 'our land' and 'their land'? Excuse me, but this seems pretty bloody obvious. You surely can't be saying something this dull, so what exactly, are you saying?

hertz -> RE: 3 month suspended sentence for breaching Geneva Convention (11/23/2010 1:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Yes. Also shooting at the other suspect bag would be insane if they really believed there was a bomb there. This is why I question the whole "human shield" thing. Sorry, I still don't get it. Are you saying that the soldiers knew there was no bomb, and just decided to give this 9 year old child nightmares for the rest of his life? On what basis are you coming to this conclusion, given that almost every report you care to read says, clearly, that the soldiers were guilty of ordering a nine-year-old boy to open bags they suspected might be booby-trapped? Is it perhaps that you are struggling a bit with the concept that proud Israeli citizens might act like fucking animals when they think no-one is looking?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875