Wtf is an illegal war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Printable View
Wtf is an illegal war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
If any of you have a spare day or so. this link, plus all the other links inside, will give you all the info you need. It also contains a timeline on the situation.:)
http://www.mideastweb.org/timeline.htm
Unfortunately it does not give you the answers.:(
A war not approved by the UN, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Oh, papers drawn up and signed off on?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Bullshit.
A war for specifically for regime change is illegal under International Law.
Now that all arguments they use to justify it have broken down, there have been leaks on both sides of the Atlantic showing that this is what the whole thing was about in the first place.
Indeed, both Governments have been bragging about it for a couple of years now. :blink:
I think its when one side is bigger and stronger than you.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
What if you dont obey or belong to the UN?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Settlement didnt start in ernest until 1977 when the Likud Party gained power in Israel.
Ariel was built in the 1980's i think, and has been growing ever since.
In total, there are about 250,000 Jews living in the West Bank.. i would assume most of them are in Ariel so, basically most have went there within the last 25 years.
Number of settlers for specific years? you'd best look up the Israeli stats ;)
Ah, 'k, that's different then.
That would make a larger percentage of the settlers first-generation settlers for sure.
Found a site which appears to be very biased, but I think these numbers sound familiar:sourceQuote:
Israel did not begin to build large numbers of settlements until after 1977. That is also when Egypt negotiated peace. Israel froze settlement building afterward in the hope that other Arab states would follow Egypt's example, none did.
Israel built more settlements in the 1980's and 1990's; nevertheless, King Hussein made peace with Israel, and settlements were not an issue.
Don't read the rest of it as pure facts tho'.
1977, not 1967, and I had it wrong anyway.
This still leaves room for a lot of settlers to not having been involved in any theft, but, I'd say this looks worse than I thought.
Think you got some wrong stuff here mate:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Who does Israel threaten to bomb? Small Arab nations? Which ones??
Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.
You say "we attacked first so we are to blame". Rat-Faced: They were gathering all their army forces (Egypt, Jordan and Syria as one) to attack Israel from three different places, and, literally drive us into the sea.
Try for one moment to think what would have happened if Israel did not attack first.......
Devastation, a second Holocaust.
No Jews left,
And most importantly - no tralalala/Rafi for FST!!!!!!!
About your second point saying the Arabs can attack us now - they have attacked since.... in 1973 the Yom Kippur war started, Israel screwed up, 2000 soldiers were killed. Israel however managed to stop the attack and managed to get the upper hand of the war (they did not lose any land of what they actually got on 67).
Since, there have also been 2 Intifadahs, one of which is still going on.
So, the Arabs, are getting what you call revenge, what I call a pathetic attempt to wash up their loss in previouse war.
You can call it whatever you want, either way, it's the same......
There are, however, a number of settlements in the Gaza strip which have been there for over 30 years.
I read it in the paper - they are doing profiles of all settlements being "emptied out" :lol:
I thought you came from Glasgow Rafi. Or your parent(s) came from there.
My dad :)
I was born in London, and mym mum in Bournemouth :D
Where did that question come from though Bob? :blink:
Not necessarily in that order.Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Maybe he was thinking that neither you, nor your parents would have been in Israel to be shot/bombed/wtf'd in 1967, assuming they lived in England at the time? :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
Exactly.Quote:
Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.
Im not saying whether it was right or wrong.
Im saying Israel started the fighting, which is at odds with what you'd previously posted.
Israel was threatening to bomb Iran just a couple of month ago.. didnt you hear?
They frequently bombed Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in the 80's and into the 90's.
I hear pre-emptive strikes are all the rage these days.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I just thought that most of your relations came from Glasgow. And assumed, wrongly, that you did too.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by tralalala
What was the war about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
oil. don't even try and argue because i'll come to your house and give you a wedgie. don't even try any shit about guns either, i'm more ghetto than any of those lying rappers you fantasize about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
ya dig? good
If it was about oil, why did they stop when Iraq invaded Kuwait - to steal their oil.
IMO I think it is to control the 'buffer' situation between Israel and the hard line Islamic states. In particular Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Btw, since I do believe that we've established by now, that Israel, and what is a minority of the Israeli population in particular (a percentage of the settlers) are in breach of international law, how about the Palestinians?
I mentioned this before:
Quote:
...palestinian terrorism, or freedom fighting if we'll go by your definition, is equally contradictory to the UN's wishes, and seeing as how PLO was/is a big player in Palestine's government and was responsible for terror attacks in the past and most likely condones and possibly has a stake in the occasional attack today, and presumably has a considerable backing from the people, the powers that be in both countries have issues with following the UN's recommendations.
If I may say so, for the sake of fairness, Israel may not be the best country in the world, but in my thinking, neither is the Palestinian nation.
EDit: It may be that PLO no longer condones terrorism, but they used to, some of the current members included.
Oh no. Haven't you heard? Once everything is finished (and even now), our oil prices will plummet.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Hell since Kuwait was invaded by Iraq and we intervened, we've had a steady decline in gasoline prices.....silly.
I was thinking about the longer term implications of the various nations in that area. Not the short term rise and fall of fuel prices for automobile owners.:(Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
As you say. Silly me.:lol:
Do we really need this shit in here Lynx? You took my words, of which l was speaking generally, and twisted them to infer that l was talking about my modis operandi, and you did it deliberately. One would have expected more from the staff. Thankfully others can read my words without your interpretations. :angry:Quote:
Originally Posted by lynx
@SnnY: You accused me of not answering points, then bring things up that you have flogged to death, and which l have answered many times. Your analogy about America\Australia et al has nothing to do with the present situation, there was no international law then, so there can be no illegal occupation.
Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Sarcasm doesn't really suit you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Now if that's your argument, that the war couldn't have been about oil because you're paying more to fill your petrol tank. It's pretty shallow.
Do I need to point out why?
Now, I'm not saying that the war was purely for oil but it's undeniably a huge factor in the US' foreign policy. To deny this is particularly short sighted.
Sure, you've answered it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.
And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.
And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.
EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?
Riiiight...and it has translated lower gas prices.Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
We have better relations with Kuwait ffs.
The water is only up to my ankles.
Oil companies profits are up, if thats what you mean.
Didnt think it was for the consumers benefit, did you?
Better relations with Kuwait ... but better with other oil producing regions? Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
It's not about the the cost of petrol to citizens, your government doesn't care about that. It's about control.That's just babbling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Their profits were there before. Oil costs more period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
As far as consumer benefit, I'm full aware of Bushcronyism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
All right, you posted this: http://cactus48.com/truth.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
According this link the zionist movement were out to steal the arabs' land from the get-go, and you continued by saying that Israel was a zionist state, not a jewish state.
I called you on the credibility of the same link (I used sarcasm so you might not have understood it), as I've further critized the bulk of your links in this thread.
Is there anyone, apart from these radicals you seem so fond of, that distinguishes between judaeism and zionism and makes the same claims of the zionists, who are apparently running the place (given that it is, according to you, a zionist state) planning to do what you say?
In short, is there any actual proof, or is it all like that?
Right, so you justified claiming that all settlers are thieves, and you explained why you think they don't deserve keeping their land even if they've done nothing wrong, and you explained what you have against israelis in general.Quote:
l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.Quote:
And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.
oic
They obviously didn't, given that many of the current settlers own their land according to Israeli law.Quote:
As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?Quote:
And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid :dry: International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.
I generalize?Quote:
Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?Quote:
EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?
There's a good argument :rolleyes:
You expect the Israel and israelis to follow international law, and you demonize them, but their enemies, whose rights you are happy defending are represented, and in part governed by choice, by a former terrorist organization.
You don't see a problem with that?
If international law can recognize the authority of these people, given their past sins, why should Israel pay for theirs?
You seem well happy bashing the Israelis. But in this conflict bashing either side is easy enough, but what about defending the opposition instead?
What makes the PLO any better, or more deserving to be protected by international laws than israel?
Boy, this is getting tedious!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.
Oh excuse me, do you think I'd have asked you that if I hadn't done some research?Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of this zionist idiocy of yours.
Feck, it's nigh on impossible for it to be true, as you yourself later stated that the Israeli government had only a smaller percentage of religious party members.
The settler agenda, and the settlers are right wing religious, as rat later stated. Some of them are the ones actively perpetuating what even remotely sounds like this zionist agenda of your description with any enthusiasm, today
If anyone subscribes to that zionist business at all the way you put it, that would be them.
Yet I can find no official statements saying that they are just zionist, not jewish (or that they subscribe to zionism as anything apart from religion), and that the agenda, the way you describe it exists. They do want a homeland, but that doesn't mean that Israel is out to rob the arabs of their land, or that an element that desires this runs the government. By all accounts the settlers, a minority, are just a small part of the Israeli population.
One Israeli link link I found even said that the goals of zionism had been attained with the founding of Israel, which, I don't think I have to remind you happened before 1967.
And I quite liked this:
sourceQuote:
So*called "non*Zionist" Jews are pleased that Israel exists from a practical standpoint-as a haven for oppressed Jews and as a land imbued with holiness well*suited for Torah study. But they don't generally assign religious significance to the formation of the modern state, and often decry aspects of its secular culture.
You don't have to be a zionist to be israeli.
There is no truth or real research behind what you posted, and having said that, I seriously doubt the rest of your argument was built on any solid research.
Oh no, I never claimed I'd changed my mind about the fact that every settler isn't a thief or that they don't deserve to be treated with the same respect as any palestinian.Quote:
Yes, and what was l supposed to do? l gave my opinion, you gave yours, (which you later claimed you were probably wrong!), what's your problem?
You never recognized any of that, though, and I suppose you aren't going to. This of course ties in beautifully with the fact that you are anti-israeli as rat' says, not pro-justice, or pro-palestinian.
Well, for someone who complains about people twisting words, you sure are doing a remarkable job of trying the same.Quote:
So they were members of the UN but didn't recognise it ... is that your opinion?
I'm saying that the Israeli government made it legal for settlers to own land in defiance to UN resolutions, which aren't synonymous with laws, btw.
sourceQuote:
A United Nations resolution (or UN resolution) is a decision of a United Nations (UN) bodies. Any UN body can issue resolutions. However, in practice, most resolutions are issued by the Security Council or the General Assembly.
The legal status of UN resolutions has often been a matter of intense debate:
Most experts appear to consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding (Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly "recommendations"),
However, the status of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. In particular, it is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding are only those adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression"). Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter" but it is unclear what kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions".
Now, under that one charter they would be bound (but it still isn't law, international or otherwise) obviously, unless you chose to treat it as another recommendation, in defiance with the UN charter today, not necessarily in, say 1979.
It would appear that former Israeli government chose to not recognize the absolute authority of any resolutions made by the UN. Israel, in those days, couldn't have as it is legal for israeli individuals to own land on occupied territory.
Obviously, in your world, individuals don't matter, not if they are israeli anyway, so you have answered my question on whether it's fair to them, by saying that they don't have any rights. Or that they are all thieves anyway, and thus, again, have no rights.
I suppose that's the best answer I'll be getting out of you, regarding whether it's fair to them.
My bad.
Yes, both sides have a history of crime then (the israelis may or may not have terrorist ties, but at least they didn't elect a terrorist organization), but shouldn't they both, then pay for what they've done.Quote:
Both sides have links to terrorism, not just the Palestinians, look at some of the members, past and present, of the Israeli government.
Israelis lose their homes, and Israel compensates Palestine for lost water, what are PLO doing to pay for what they've done?
(Other than agreeing to not blow any more people up, of course.)
Both sides have been wronged, but in the world according to you, one side seems so much less worthy of lenience or redemption.
That means you aren't answering my question, doesn't it?Quote:
Ask the UN.
The UN, who has allowed the opposition to elect outspoken terrorists as their leaders, are forcing Israel to put their land in the hands of the oppostion. Somehow, something seems to be missing here.
Also, while we are at it, since we don't care about individuals now, who is Israel going to give back their land to?
One would presume, as we are looking at the big picture here, that Israel should, going by the resolution of 1979, give back the land to the countries they took it from, and as it is, the state of Palestine didn't exist at the time, which would force Israel to give it back to Jordan, or something. That's what the resolution says, isn't it?
Oh come on, you can't even manage some small measure of a reason as to why PLO is worthy of the redemption it has been given, why should Israel recognize its authority, or be forced to pay heed to their rights, when the israeli people, as criminals according to you, have no rights to retain their property, stolen or not.Quote:
WTF?...Who said they were? When you run out of ideas, bring other matters up as if l have defended them, very cute. l don't defend things l haven't claimed.
Like I said, you don't care about Palestine or fairness, you just don't like Israel.
So, I have made the point that Israel does not attack anyone without a very good reason, otherwise there would have been peace and quiet here for a long time, and from a long time ago..Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You could try being witty, rather than repetitive, in response to this perceived 'trolling'.Quote:
Originally Posted by RioDeLeo
That would be novel.