HOLLYWOOD STOCK EXCHANGE
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
THE ENTERTAINMENT MARKET
Since 1956. More...
All nations are deeply convinced that war should be banned as a means of settling disputes between human communities.
However, in view of the need, should hostilities once more break out, of safeguarding the civilian population from the destruction with which it is threatened as a result of technical developments in weapons and methods of warfare,
The limits placed by the requirements of humanity and the safety of the population on the use of armed force are restated and defined in the following rules.
In cases not specifically provided for, the civilian population shall continue to enjoy the protection of the general rule set forth in Article 1, and of the principles of international law.
...:
CHAPTER II : OBJECTIVES BARRED FROM ATTACK
Immunity of the civilian population
Art. 6. Attacks directed against the civilian population, as such, whether with the object of terrorizing it or for any other reason, are prohibited. This prohibition applies both to attacks on individuals and to those directed against groups.
In consequence, it is also forbidden to attack dwellings, installations or means of transport, which are for the exclusive use of, and occupied by, the civilian population.
Nevertheless, should members of the civilian population, Article 11 notwithstanding, be within or in close proximity to a military objective they must accept the risks resulting from an attack directed against that objective.
Limitation of objectives which may be attacked
Art. 7. In order to limit the dangers incurred by the civilian population, attacks may only be directed against military objectives.
Only objectives belonging to the categories of objective which, in view of their essential characteristics, are generally acknowledged to be of military importance, may be considered as military objectives. Those categories are listed in an annex to the present rules.
However, even if they belong to one of those categories, they cannot be considered as a military objective where their total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers no military advantage.
...
Target-area bombing
Art. 10. It is forbidden to attack without distinction, as a single objective, an area including several military objectives at a distance from one another where elements of the civilian population, or dwellings, are situated in between the said military objectives. .
...
Intentional exposure to danger
Art. 13. Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives, with the idea of inducing the enemy to refrain from attacking those objectives.
Should the Hamas leadership be brought up on war crimes for launching military weapons at civilian populations? {nm} Nov 15, 11:56
Hmmm. Wonder what the USA would do if Mexico kept lobbing rockets into Texas. {nm} Nov 15, 12:14
did the Mexicans have their land along the Texas border taken without their consent to establish a . . . oh wait {nm} Nov 15, 16:12
Lets not over-commit to this logic. Palenstians have been kicked out of places like Jordan for a long time. Nov 16, 04:30
I think Israel prefers assassinations. {nm} Nov 15, 15:00
And you can prove that it was them? {nm} Nov 15, 15:10
Yes, IDF posted it on Youtube Nov 15, 18:42
Your point? This is a fair military objective carried out with precision. It honors the Geneva accords perfectly. {nm} Nov 16, 04:31
Israel prefers assassinations than trials for war crimes. {nm} Nov 16, 08:56
Obama prefers Drones...is there a point here? {nm} Nov 16, 09:36
Yes, there is a point there. Are you purposely ignoring the point or just tring to pick a fight? {nm} Nov 17, 21:42
My dad is one of them. He's in Beersheba at the moment {nm} Nov 15, 16:03
Since when was bombing civilians a war crime? It was done in WWII, and in every war since. {nm} Nov 15, 17:35
Israeli airstrikes have also killed civilians, including a 11-month baby. {nm} Nov 15, 18:58
It's the reality of war in the modern era. War in the 18th century was more civilized. {nm} Nov 15, 19:04
Wars in the 18th century had lots of empty room to have their battles in. {nm} Nov 15, 19:57
Don't forget the Sabra & Shatila Massacre as depicted in the outstanding film 'Waltz With Bashir'. {nm} Nov 15, 21:27
Neither side is completely innocent just as UN's Goldstone Report commission found about last Gaza conflict in 2008. {nm} Nov 16, 09:02
So a soveriegn nation does not have the right to react according to International Law? That is your position? Nov 16, 09:37
I'm just stop responding to your trolling. {nm} Nov 16, 10:24
This is just laziness on your part. Clearly make an argument rather than using talking points here. {nm} Nov 19, 07:53
Ahh here is an interesting point of conflict between us. I do not see how Israel is guilty in this exchange. Nov 19, 07:52
Well, if you looked back further than a week in history, you might see it differently. {nm} Nov 19, 12:24
I said nothing of the sort regarding MY beliefs. Now you are projecting to bait. Uninterested. {nm} Nov 20, 16:41
That's true, but it's combattant and non-combattant status. {nm} Nov 17, 21:44
1899? Nov 16, 02:18
It is a war crime when ppl dressed as civilians target civilian areas. Period. Go read International Law. {nm} Nov 16, 04:32
Since 1956. More... Nov 17, 22:18
I agree. Pls find the portions of the laws that indicate what happens when a civilian location is used as a military Nov 19, 07:55
I did not disagree with this in your post. Why are you arguing this? Some people just can't take YES for an answer ;) {nm} Nov 19, 12:41
From the State Department Nov 16, 04:58
Israel has an *obligation* to defend itself, not a *right*. In that regard, the State Department errs greatly. Nov 16, 07:54
I agree with your IM, but disagree with you title post. A cointry has the RIGHT to defend its borders against agression. {nm} Nov 17, 21:34
There is a big difference in the meanings of the two words, as I shall demonstrate. Nov 18, 17:28
(Reposted with better formatting here) Nov 18, 17:34
A4J, I understand your dictionary definitions; however, the issue of rights and obligations extends beyond the accademic. Nov 19, 13:03
