I thought this thread would fade away, seeing as the law prevailed.
But hey, here we are...;-)
British MP banned from entering Canada
- Thread starter earth_as_one
- Start date
But hey, here we are...;-)
Yeah, here we are watching yet one more thread turn into Israel vs Hamas. I think the bone's lost its flavor long ago.
The flavours gone, but the chew is always good.
It gets my blood moving. Ya, I'm kinda messed up like that. I like the fight.
We may share similar political views, but you're far more the gentleman, then I am LG.
I like the odd scrap. Just that I think it has to be about something I feel deeply enough about. Flavor is a big thing with me. lol
Oh it has to interest me too. But some topics hold that flavour for me infinitely.
Well actually it may be more the poster then the topic...;-)
I find some people just so damned entertaining. Especially when you chop up their ideology. It's just the troll in me. :lol:
No wonder you didn't provide a link. "Disproportionate" means the 1,000 to 1 ratio in 'shots being fired', a rocket landing in the desert compared to 100's of shells landing in a crowded city is what that word defines. That earns you the fist recipient of the 'tardy award'. A living breathing f-tard.
The below is about bush but the conventions listed are very real and they do cover the facilities mentioned. Collective punishment might even be separate from this, the other points listed might be useful in expanding defined crimes. Laws of armed conflict would need a formal declaration from both sides that a war is on.
International War Crimes Tribunal
3. President Bush ordered the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic productivity throughout Iraq.
Systematic aerial and missile bombardment of Iraq was ordered to begin at 6:30 p.m. EST January 16, 1991, eighteen and one-half hours after the deadline set on the insistence of President Bush, in order to be reported on television evening news in the U.S. The bombing continued for forty-two days. It met no resistance from Iraqi aircraft and no effective anti-aircraft or anti-missile ground fire. Iraq was defenseless. The United States reports it flew 110,000 air sorties against Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, nearly seven times the equivalent of the atomic bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. 93% of the bombs were free falling bombs, most dropped from higher than 30,000 feet. Of the remaining 7% of the bombs with electronically guided systems, more than 25% missed their targets, nearly all caused damage primarily beyond any identifiable target. Most of the targets were civilian facilities. The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition. Iraq's civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities. The U.S. assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war.[8] Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were:
- electric power generation, relay and transmission;
- water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs;
- telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities;
- food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites;
- railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles;
- oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tank cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks;
- sewage treatment and disposal systems;
- factories engaged in civilian production, e.g., textile and automobile assembly; and
- historical markers and ancient sites.
Apparently just this tidbit is enough to put your self-based facts in the garbage,
Protocol 1
Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977
PART IV: CIVILIAN POPULATION
Section 1: General Protection Against Effects of Hostilities
Chapter I: Basic Rule and Field of Application
Article 48: Basic Rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.
Though on the surface this may seem like a terrible thing and at face value, I would agree. Israel is guilty of not allowing their borders to be used. It in no way confiscated, nor forcibly halted or seized any aid. The convoyes moving said aid, were free to use other venues of movement. Funny how many countries surrounding the area were doing the same thing, for various reasons.
It is that kind of rhetoric that casts doubt on your objectivity and rationality.
No linky, you stinky
Edit to add, I assume for Gaza this would date back even before 1967.
14. President Bush intentionally deprived the Iraqi people of essential medicines, potable water, food, and other necessities.
A major component of the assault on Iraq was the systematic deprivation of essential human needs and services. To break the will of the people, destroy their economic capability, reduce their numbers and weaken their health, the United States: - imposed and enforced embargoes preventing the shipment of needed medicines, water purifiers, infant milk formula, food and other supplies;
- individually, without congressional authority, ordered a U.S. naval blockade of Iraq, an act of war, to deprive the Iraqi people of needed supplies;
- froze funds of Iraq and forced other nations to do so, depriving Iraq of the ability to purchase needed medicines, food and other supplies;
- controlled information about the urgent need for such supplies to prevent sickness, death and threatened epidemic, endangering the whole society;
- prevented international organizations, governments and relief agencies from providing needed supplies and obtaining information concerning needs;
- failed to assist or meet urgent needs of huge refugee populations including Egyptians, Indians, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Sudanese, Jordanians, Palestinians, Sri Lankans, Filipinos, and interfered with efforts of others to do so;
- consistently diverted attention from health and epidemic threats within Iraq caused by the U.S. even after advertising the plight of Kurdish people on the Turkish border;
- deliberately bombed the electrical grids causing the closure of hospitals and laboratories, loss of medicine and essential fluids and blood; and
- deliberately bombed food storage, fertilizer, and seed storage facilities.
Last edited:
We prefer the moniker Assholologist.
To what? The Geneva Convention? Oh brother...
If you think I'm lying, please prove so.
No, it doesn't, it is in relation to inflicting more damage then is required to restrict the enemies abilities.
And what in my posts to you required an ignorant and childish response such as that?
And has no basis in International Law, Geneva Convention or any sort of reality to standard warfare.
Hell, that silly link is to a fake sight, who's credentials when sourced lead you to this...
Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
Go on, click it...it's from the bottom of the page you just posted.
The LOAC says no such thing. The Geneva Convention either. I don't know about the UN Charter, but since it doesn't pertain to war strategy, I highly doubt it says anything at all. The Nuremberg Charter also says nothing about strategic destruction of infrastructure.
Self based? :lol: Your cut and pastes from fake sites don't compare to the info I've studied on war as a requirement of serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Do you know the definition of a civilian object?
Do you know the first things to be taken out in all armed conflict, almost since the beginning of warfare?
I see you really don't want a mature converstation. I can't find every piece of information that you don't know (Which is monumental) on the net. It would take me days, weeks even months to go through all the data. But you're welcome to try and refute my assertion with actual information. Not fake sites that claim things well outside the relm of reality.
Edit to add, I assume for Gaza this would date back even before 1967.
You're right, it is the usual habit of the aggressor to keep sending aid to the country they are invading...do you actually believbe this stuff you post? Serioulsy?
Seriously mhz, you need to read some books, learn about reality, history and international law.
I'm far from an expert, but you haven't a clue about what you post.
Last edited:
Actually, last I heard, Hamas is forbidding Gazans from travelling to Israeli hospitals. Go figure.
What league of nations thing was that? If I'm not mistaken, the league of nations was long gone before the creation of Israel.
So what does it mean? Firing rockets at civilians daily? Machine gunning kids in schools? Blowing up cafes and school buses? Please enlighten. Thank you.
Sorry, my mistake, the UN was the ones in '47, the reference to the league was from 1922. That would mean the mandate they operated under was tied to the Balfour Declaration.
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non*Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
(in part)
The Palestine Mandate
The Council of the League of Nations:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non*Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country;
(in part)
The Palestine Mandate
Lets start with the deaths in Nov '08. How did Israel get punished for those deaths?
Make a big list let the Hague have it. It still comes out a box or two of documents against Hamas compared to several trucks-loads against Israel even with 1967 being a cut-off point. Lebanon in '08 would certainly add lots of charges.
The UN Security Council classifies this area as "occupied Arab territories" since Israel occupied them in 1967:
S/RES/242 (1967) of 22 November 1967
and has reaffirmed that designation many times since:
S/RES/446 (1979) of 22 March 1979
Also this UN debate may answer your question:
A/63/PV.57 of 24 November 2008
Basically the UN recognized back in 1947 that Palestinians were entitled to a nation and reaffirmed that commitment every year.
Since 1967, this areas has been commonly referred to as "Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories":
Amnesty International Report 2008 •
Trex your facts are more than just a little mixed up.
Suffice to say Galloway's personal bank accounts and assets have not been frozen. The actions of the Charity Commission appear to be politically motivated and unfounded just like Immigration Canada's decision to deny Galloway's entry into Canada. I expect Galloway will also win this fight in court.
Galloway is an outspoken critic of Israel. He does not support violence or antisemiticism. Since he has no control or say over Viva Palestina finances or how they are spent, it would seem that accusations that Galloway personally gave money to Hamas are unfounded.
Did I say that? I just don't want the 'details' to start with Hamas doing a move that was in retaliation and have it used as the primary act of aggression. Is that fair or not? If you want to take it back to the beginning of that specific cease-fire then all issues can be examined, including how open the check-points were to be in that time-frame. In the end one of the two will be shown to have lived up to the agreements more than the other side.
So what are they waiting for? Seems the only obstacle to a Palestinian nation is Palestinians.
Wrong. The Israeli government acknowledges itself as maintaining itself as a zionist state:
Herzl and Zionism
Note how the site acknowledges zionism's origin to communist Theodore Herzl.
The Jewish Defense league which successfully prevented British MP George Galloway, (alleged terrorist supporter accused of distributing food, medicine, ambulances, fire trucks... and nappies to hundreds of thousands of malnourished and diseased Gazans) from entering Canada were able to get "justice" (their opinion) simply by writing an open letter to the Canadian immigration minister.
Meanwhile a village in the Palestinian occupied territories has to pay $50,000 to get their day in a Canadian court to have a chance at justice.
The village is called Bi'lin. Here is their legal claim:
Bil'in - Press Release: Bil'in announced that it has commenced legal proceedings in Canada
The Bi'lin villagers have non-violently protested for years against the illegal seizure of their land. (according to Israeli and international court rulings)
Bil'in - Press Release: Bil'in announced that it has commenced legal proceedings in Canada
The Bi'lin villagers have non-violently protested for years against the illegal seizure of their land. (according to Israeli and international court rulings)
Last week Israeli soldiers killed another non-violent Bi'lin protester. Its all documented here on Israeli human rights website B'tselem:
The land the villagers own is on the other side of the fence in the above video. That's the land the Canadia companies intend to develop.
Here are the facts:
Israel has illegally seized about half of the community of Bi'lin as well as many other communities. (As determined by both International and Israeli courts)
See map below:
Israel has built a wall which denies Bi'lin villagers access to their communal farmland and therefore denies their ability to earn a livelihood.
The area the Canadian developer intends to build on is occupied territory. Owned by Palestinians but militarily occupied by Israel according to numerous rulings by the UN, the UNSC, the International Court of Justice, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Amnesty International...
Forcibly removing the inhabitants of an occupied territory and seizing occupied land are war crimes according to international and Canadian law. (see definitions below)
Replacing the transferred inhabitants with your own citizens effectively changes an area's demographics and is also a war crime according to international and Canadian law. (see definitions below)
Two Canadian companies intend to profit by developing the illegally seized Bi'lin land. In the opinion of the people of Bi'lin and their lawyers, the actions of these Canadian companies violates Canadian law. According to Canada's war crime laws, profiting from war crimes even after the fact is illegal and convictions can result in serious fines and jail time.
According to Canadian law:
These Canadian companies know the land belongs to the village of Bi'lin and that the Israeli government's seizure is illegal as determined by Israeli and international courts. Forcibly removing the inhabitants of an occupied territory and replacing them with your own citizens meet the above definitions of war crimes. According to the Bi'lin villagers, profiting by developing this illegally seized land would make the Canadian companies accessories after the fact and in violation of Canadian law.
Canadian companies are obligated to observe Canadian law even when they operate internationally. Canadian companies cannot legally participate in war crimes before, during or after the fact. The Canadian government is obligated to uphold Canadian law.
One day, hopefully the people of Bi'lin will have justice. But it shouldn't cost them $50,000 to find justice in Canada. An open letter from their Canadian supporters should have been good enough considering that Israeli and International courts have already ruled in their favor...
Last edited: