mislim da odgovor na bilo koje pametno pitanje u vezi dvoje poginulih nikada necemo znati

Evo brineš i ti mene i ne mogu dovoljno da se načudim da se o ovome raspravljavam sa navodno sunarodnikom,ali ajde



Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.


Protection of the civilian population
Article 51 -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

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.

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an 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.

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.



General protection of civilian objects
Article 52-- General protection of civilian objects

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.



Commentary of 1987
General protection of civilian objects

[p.631]
"Article 24
1. An air bombardment is legitimate only when directed against a military objective, i.e. an objective whereof the total or partial destruction would constitute an obvious military advantage for the belligerent;
2. Such bombardment is legitimate only when directed exclusively against the following objectives: military forces, military works, military establishments or depots, manufacturing plants constituting important and well-known centers for the production of arms, ammunition or characterized military supplies, lines of communication or transport which are used for military purposes;
3. Any bombardment of cities, towns, villages, habitations and buildings which are not situated in the immediate vicinity of the operations of land forces is forbidden [...];



' Article 47 -- General protection of civilian objects '
1. Attacks shall be strictly limited to military objectives, namely, to those objectives which are, by their nature, purpose or use, recognized to be of military interest and whose total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a distinct and substantial military advantage.
2. Consequently, objects designed for civilian use, such as houses, dwellings, installations and means of transport, and all objects which are not military objectives, shall not be made the object of attack, except if they are used mainly in support of the military effort."

Finally, destruction, capture or neutralization must offer a ' definite military advantage ' in the circumstances ruling at the time. In other words, it is not legitimate to launch an attack which only offers potential or indeterminate advantages. Those ordering or executing the attack must have sufficient information available to take this requirement into account; in case of doubt, the safety of the civilian population, which is the aim of the Protocol, must be taken into consideration.
In the case of Article 52  there must be a definite military advantage for every military objective that is attacked. In the case of Article 57  (Precautions in attack) ' this condition must also be fulfilled, but in addition, the military advantage which should also be concrete and direct must be weighed against the civilian losses and damage which could result from an attack.

ne vidim zasto je bitno sto smo sunarodnici. ono sto sam doživeo od bombardovanja mi govori da su ameri uglavnom mada ne uvek pazili na civile. zasto bi moja pripadnost srpskom narodu promenila ono što sam svojim očima video. a doživeo sam pogodak cilja koji nije vojni. pukom srećom moja porodica i jos gomila ljudi nisu izginuli. ali taj vojni cilj je okružen stambenim naseljima. vojni cilj je bila vojna fabrika bombardovana desetinu puta uz taj jedan kiks.

kad sudim o humanosti bombardovanja srbije 1999te na pamet mi padaju scene iz drugog svetskog rata ali i sarajevo i vukovar. ponovicu, osecam se srecnim sto sam doziveo srbiju 1999. a ne beograd 1941. bilo koji nemacki grad 1944-45. vukovar 1992. ili sarajevo 1992-95


u onome što si naveo suština je:
1. Attacks shall be strictly limited to military objectives, namely, to those objectives which are, by their nature, purpose or use, recognized to be of military interest and whose total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a distinct and substantial military advantage.

vojni cilj je širok pojam, toliko da su natovci čak i zgradu rts-a pokušali da uguraju u taj cilj. most je apsolutno vojni cilj npr zato što tenkovi ne lete

Šerovao sam jedan tekst jutros gde Marija Zaharova govori o stokholmskom sindromu,kapiram da je u tome problem ne znam šta bi drugo moglo biti...

Vrlo je bitno što smo sunarodnici,jer je to beyond me šta pričate.Da li si svestan da govoriš o gadjanju nekog objekta valjda Krušika čega li već i kao super gadjali su ga 10 puta samo jednom promašili divno,a ti ljudi nikad i ni po kom osnovu nisu trebali ispaliti ni jednu raketu ni na cilj ni van cilja?!Nisu trebali nikad ni biti tu i gadjati bilo šta.

Siguran sam da tako razmisljaju i oni koji su dobili artiljerijom u bosni.

Ali... znam da se neces sloziti sa tim jer je artiljerijom tukao neko ko je po tvojoj logici to trebao da radi, naravno opravdano.

to da li su trebali da bombarduju ili ne je jedna tema, a kako su to radili je druga. ja sam sposoban da ih posmatram odvojeno. ti?

NE,rekao sam i zašto

Jel to ti pokušavaš da staviš znak jednakosti izmedju VRS i NATO? Šta ću sve čuti na ovoj temi

Famozna "opsada Sarajeva" pretpostavljam

...

NATO pešadija foruma opet izvrće teze praveći od žrtava krivce, a od ubica nevinašca