Oh, well since you listen to the radio and watch tv, that makes your evidence much less anecdotal and most certainly qualifies you to speak on behalf of the UK and all of Europe. Help me to keep my posts more civil and help me come up with a better term than "moron" that describes the logic demonstrated above. I really do want to keep it civil. I thought Fat Bastard was Scottish and, therefore, a citizen of the UK. "Oh I got a turtlehead pokin out." I simply cannot believe you doubled down on stupid. Did you even read the document you provided? It is a brief on how the rules of international law encourage aggressors and handicap victims. The very opening paragraph uses the words, " No domestic criminal law system would tolerate their use.". Succesful military engagements run more along the lines of the Powell Doctrine and the use of overwhelming force. Its not exactly a new concept as it appears over and over again in the writings of Sun Tzu from 500bc. No military organization on earth actually acts in consistence with your idea of international law either, including the UN. Just ask the people of Kosovo. You clearly missed the relevant point. Mandela was elected by a black majority in S. Africa. There is no Palestinian majority in Israel. They are firing rockets from their borders into that of another nation, and then trying to hide behind the types of legal technicalities you present to claim that no untoward retaliatory strikes can legally be made. Israel would be much better off just flattening the place the next time they fire rockets (today?) That was exactly the point. Too bad you missed it. Oh no! Spare us please! When you and Mikael/Solar Products get done cleaing the bathrooms at McDonalds, please spare us from your mighty wrath!
What you need to do is READ some of the links presented in this and the other thread, to surveys that have been conducted on what Europeans think of Israel...rather than just ignoring them. READ IT. "Finally, under the traditional approach, the right of self-defence was limited by a ‘functional argument’:73 Article 51 and customary international law entitled states to ‘resort to force only defensively, in the presence of an armed attack and to the extent necessary to repel it" http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/2/359.full Just can't keep it civil can you?? Show me your post where you told me what you would do if someone stole your home and killed your family.
I know I've stated this before, but I'll do it again for your sake. Link spamming your posts without any explanation or summarization of what is supposedly behind the links will cause people not to click on any of your links. It seems like a basic concept, I know, but you seem to be having a hard time with it. Why don't you give it a try and summarize this empirical evidence that shows widespread hatred of Isreal and support of Palestinians in Europe. I would assume it is some sort of scientific poll? I did read it, as you bothered to explain what was in it. Clearly you either did not read, or did not understand my response. This is my problem... how? Oh but I did. When web punks start talking trash about empires falling, I can't help but bring it down to the more likely reality. Just because reality happens to be funny, doesn't mean it is uncivil. Its kind of like pointing out those educational stats of middle eastern countries. Reading isnt your strong suit, is it.
Do you have some kind of problem with reading this, which is the point I'm making about using unreasonable retaliatory force... "Finally, under the traditional approach, the right of self-defence was limited by a ‘functional argument’:73 Article 51 and customary international law entitled states to ‘resort to force only defensively, in the presence of an armed attack and to the extent necessary to repel it" ...and then going to the link I provided.... http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/2/359.full .... in order to read the article that the passage is taken from so that you can read it fully?? That is what happens on most of the forums where they do not want a large copy and paste in the post but rather a very brief point and then a link to the full article. The poll was supplied by Mikael earlier. Go find it yourself...just like you tell me to do when I ask you to supply the post where you claim you answered my question. You read it? Good! Then you will have read the part that says.... ".......... international law entitled states to ‘resort to force only defensively, in the presence of an armed attack and to the extent necessary to repel it" My reading is clearly stronger than yours as you appeared to have read something that isn't there. You can't support your claim by producing the post in question and that says a lot about you.
I don't prefer anyone who uses children like the photo and video I showed. Maybe the world community accepted ANC because of the cause they were fighting for and not their religion. They were not shouting AllahuAkbar when they murdered children in Beslan. ANC was not about Jews or Muslims but about them being accepted into the fold.
I'm impressed. I suspect most people would have problems writing such a lengthy post without introducing a single new fact, argument, or even having a point. It certainly makes my job here easier.
Nice sidestep but it avoids the question. Why is it acceptable for one terrorist organisation to fight for 'freedom' but unacceptable for another to do the same thing? No, it was about getting Africa for the Africans and Africans having a voice in the running of their own country.
Yep...you've obviously got nothing left. The article is clear enough: ".......... international law entitled states to ‘resort to force only defensively, in the presence of an armed attack and to the extent necessary to repel it" I suppose the only thing left to you now is to insult?
I know you're a bit of a coward, but if someone ever tries to steal your land (that's if you own any land) .. don't let them take it without a fight.
And if after a good fight, they wind up with it anyway, that's when its time to start killing women and children right?
Oh...he'd fight all right but at the moment, because nobody has stolen his land, demolished his home and killed his family, the rules regarding fighting are somewhat different. That's why he will not answer when I have repeatedly asked him what he would do if the same happened to him as has happened to the Palestinians. Well, to be honest, he can't answer can he. If he says he would fight then he's a hypocrite and if he says he would not fight he's probably not telling the truth. I can't imagine any man standing by and doing nothing whilst his wife and children are being slaughtered....but maybe Obamaman can. Who knows? I bet he was REALLY pissed off when the Obama health care bill went through!! The thought of a civilised country looking after the health of it's under-privileged citizens must have given him feckin' nightmares!! LMFAO!
But under international law, the Montevideo Convention of 1933 provides that the existence of a sovereign state is independent of recognition by other states, and further provides that a state must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states (I doubt Palestinians have this capacity). Palestinians do not have a defined territory. The seat of power is riven. (Who is in charge ? Nobody) Territories are controlled by terrorists and other half are controlled by former terrorists. There are uncertainties of guaranteed peace. (Very important) Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and other gulf states don't support Palestinians because of Hamas and the trouble they bring.
Ah....Israelis bombing schools: This says it all. Small Palestinian children burning to death, following the phosphor explosives bombardment by Jewish soldiers on their school. http://www.rohama.org/en/news/7085
One shows a group of people teaching a child to blow himself up, the other shows children being taught to defend themselves and their country. Where you trying to equate those two things?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 affirms: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country." The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[Article 5 (d)(ii)], states: "State parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination on all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of ... the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country." The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights [Article 12(4)], states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country." The United Nations General Assembly adoptedResolution 194 on December 11, 1948. Paragraph 11 states: "the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible." UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has been affirmed by the UN over 110 times since its introduction in 1948 with universal consensus except for Israel and the U.S. This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."