Not to any extent. We simply have similar views on some subjects. Apart from that we are complete different.We are cut from the same cloth to a certain extent.
Who says I don't feel compassion for anyone deserving? We aren't talking about morality, or compassion here, the word being bandied about like a weapon, is "Law". As I've said numerous times, if you want to discuss the issue on moral or ethical grounds, it will be short and you won't get much of an objection from me.I'm trying to keep hold of all of my emotion because when I lose one I lose them all. I'm not talking about impulsive action, I'm talking about saying you feel compassion for one yet cannot feel compassion for another that is going through a similar situation.
Of course it was a Rothscild plan, so long as you ignore large parts of history and rewrite others. In any case, it matters not in the reality of today, nor does it bear any weight on the rule and reality of law. You simply place far to much stock in this silly Rothschild conspiracy.Was it Law or Emotion that was the driving force behind the creation of Israel. Neither was the factor in the first step that ended in the creation of Israel, much as you and Colpy dislike the idea it was a Rothschild project.
Says you, without any supporting evidence. Even though you eventually shot yourself and your position in the proverbial foot with your own post. After denying the legality outright.You say you 'check the facts' bulldung .
You'll get no argument from me about the rich wanting to get richer on the backs of the people. But your silly conspiracy falls short on facts and is simply a diversion.WW1 was a war in which the banks were paid back all loans with interest, win or lose. That's right the loser had to pay the banks back before any of the ones fighting got care for themselves, using loans with more interest if it could be arranged. Along with other allegations there is enough 'proof' that they should at least be investigated in full.
I'm here to talk about it, post a thread on the illegality of stopping Iran from having nuclear stockpiles. I'd be interested in hearing what you think.That is the immoral and illegal part that is never talked about.
Bullsh!t. This simply flies in the face of reality. There is literally a ton of documented case law and cases of the little man taking on a giant and winning.Our courts are geared to allow it to seek justice further down the line if the ones who commit the crimes were not also the ones to plan the crime. The US and Israel play that card several times a week, every week, yet it is a card that only they have, nobody else has that same right, under laws that they themselves have written. The down-trodden do not have to accept that as a fact that cannot be changed.
Since they don't need Israel's approval to file a grievance with the ICC, your question is ridiculous.If Hamas made Israel the offer to recognize them if they would allow Hamas's grievances (starting back in Nov '47) to be heard by the ICC would they jump at the opportunity to end this 'armed conflict'?
How many times has someone brought a grievance to the ICC, about Israel?I don't think they would because I don't think they think they could win, Israel would then have 5.5 m Arabs have just come home.
Thank you for conceding that this flotilla had nothing to do with humanitarian aid, and was simply an attempt to break a lawful blockade.The bockade breaking was the goal, at the moment that is the direction things are going despite false claims by Israel and the US, as in the article below.
I'll explain that post in simple terms. The content was secondary, though I acknowledged it. The intent of my post and quoting of said article, was to highlight the tactics used to gloss over and move on, as you had mentioned once before, and have done numerous times. As I clearly stated in the post.
Your point?"attacking Israel"
A few people that Israel has declared to be terrorists (with no opportunity to dispute that charge) had an opportunity to beat up some Israeli military people and they took advantage to give them some bruises. A terrorist would have chosen a softer target for releasing their anger on
Like I said, you're the only one that keeps bringing up the bible.The whole reason those people were given that area is a claim that they lived there some 2,000 years ago and they claim they are fulfilling prophecy. In a sense they are, they are showing that they are still acting just like Jesus said in Matt:23.
At least I can understand the Scripture they are trying to pass of as justification. It's false plain and simple and when confronted they do not push the issue.
Unfortunately you read with blinders on. A ceasefire does not mean the conflict is over, and at anytime, when a lawful act is confronted with violence, they may use lethal for self defense. That of course is made irrelevant by the fact that the flotilla is a neutral third party, and not subject to the cease fire, nor to the agreements between Israel and Hamas. They are however subject to international law regarding armed conflict, laws of naval blockades and so on. As outlined and exampled in your own post, which you conceded to, but still argue about, incessantly. Because it is battling your ideology. Logic and fact is simply taking a back seat to what you want to believe at this point, as you attempt to find something to make it all better for you and continue your course.Bear you remember the legality issue I conceded to was the one of the right to board a ship that is about to enter a blockade, basically a zone of an armed conflict and I have seen no law that states a signed 'cease fire' can justify gun play on the open Ocean.
I've already explained to you, using your own posted laws, why that is patently false.They only have the right to search a confiscate they do not have the right to deviate the ship away from their intended destination.
I watched all the video's I could find, even bought a couple books on the subject. I went so far as to write the authors of said books, and sent emails to the producers of said videos, with links to this site, with a challenge to debate me on the mangled history they use to formulate their BS. If you wish to take up that challenge, feel free to start a thread and I'll tear apart the absurd revisionist history you will undoubtedly use to formulate your strawman.You missed the memo, they already own it and they have for centuries, nothing 'big' happens without them knowing about it and approving it. See how well they have you buffaloed and you claim to be on top of things.
You're trying to do it again.The article shows they cannot claim to be of higher moral character than anybody in the near or far past., they play that card constantly.
That's 9 Turkish citizens. Please try and keep the BS in your posts, to a minimum. Even the article quoted in your post doesn't try and lie about Furkan's nationality, despite being from a biased MSM news source, despite the fact that many of your posts claim that western media is biased in the opposite direction and do not tell the truth.The US has just announced their support for Israel doing an impartial inquiry into the Humanitarian Aid Flotilla Massacre which resulted in the deaths of at least 8 Turkish and 1 American citizens.
The article contains no mention of these fictitious missing people, yet your post would have us believe it does, by the placement of that small caption. This is the same tactic your posts have claimed the pro Israeli propagandists use all the time.(Other people are still missing and may be dead or locked away in Israeli torture chambers.)
White House backs Israeli internal inquiry into Gaza flotilla deaths | World news | The Guardian
Actually that is pretty much the purpose of mounting a defense, lol. Not to mention the investigation will be overseen by an international panel.I doubt Turkey will be happy. Makes about as much sense as letting an accused criminal conduct their own investigation.
I've been looking into those claims, I'm not done yet, but from what I've seen, that malnutrition isn't as bad as in other parts of the developed world. The fact that your posts have switched from the starvation of, to the malnutrition of, is telling. The strawman arguments that fill your posts are likely begin to fall short on evidence, and this is simply a switch, without conceding that starvation is not taking place.Meanwhile, the people of Gaza are hopeful that Israel's 4 year food, medicine and humanitarian aid blockade might be eased enough for them to get food to end chronic malnutrition which is stunting the growth of tens of thousands of Gaza children.
AFP: Arab chief on landmark visit to Gaza
An interesting read and an admission of "re-interpreting international law" by the ICRC...The International Committee of the Red Cross regarding Israel's blockade:
http://web.ceu.hu/legal/pdf%20documents/Nowicki/Meron_The%20Humanization%20of%20the%20Law%20of%20Warbudapest13nov.pdf
More BS "re-interpretation of law"...
Customary International Humanitarian Law
A small quote...
This why I have been able to tear apart the ICRC's interpretation of international law, several times. It doesn't follow conventional international law, it has attempted to rewrite it. The organizations very existence is a laudable countermeasure to conflict. In so being, it sees all conflict as illegal, under their re-interpretation of law.Whereas treaties are written conventions, customary international law derives from the practice of states and is unwritten. A rule is deemed customary, and as such binding on all states, if it is based on widespread, representative and virtually uniform practice supporting the rule.
That does not make their opinion, based on their admitted re-interpretation of law, legitimate. Unless of course it supports your own ideology, and you ignore international law as it is interpreted by the international community.
It is misguided to use the ICRC's definition of laws to bolster a position, they are not a legal body and as mentioned, they are by their mandate, the counter to conflict. It is simply not a viable or intelligent source of legal commentary or opinion, nor would anyone that understands law or uses "critical thought" use them as a legal rebuttal.
Last edited by a moderator: