If you want to talk about UN laws and resolutions, read Article 51 of Chapter 7 of the UN charter.
Allow me to quote some for you:
In fact, by this article, Israel is only RIGHT in defending itself against Hamas (IE, We have a member of the UN under armed attack). Therefore, nothing the UN decides can impair Israel's right to defend itself. In fact, the UN should actually be HELPING Israel defend itself against Hamas, as of this article.Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Furthermore, if you want to bring the UN into the fray, here, have their take on Territorial Integrity:
As in, the PA, and even Hamas, are wrong by bothering the territorial integrity of the state of Israel. What we have here, are some organizations trying to take land from a nation-state which is a member of the UN.Territorial integrity is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states.
But please, by all means, give us sources for your "ban on acquisition of lands in wars".
---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 08:16 AM ----------
Proof and sources? Or are you back to twisting the truth to fit your little idea of reality again?
Rincewind: Ah! We may, in fact, have reached the root of the problem. However it's a silly problem and so I am suddenly going to stop talking to you.
The better character questionnaire (D&D)
Well, since the whole "We were here first" point means a loss for the Palestinians, and the whole "We were squatting in your loft while you were traveling in Europe, therefore it is now ours!" isn't a conclusive win for them either, you could decide who owns land by either going the hell back in history and seeing who has more roots to the place (In which case the Jews take the party cake), you could check who got the area from whoever was in control of it during the time it was given (As in, the British Mandate at that time, and the UN later on), or you could go with the "stronger military" option, which is also correct, given the fact that without that turretless tank Israel had back in 47, they would've been herded into death camps again.
Yes, let me quote one of the very first ones to you:
" Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them"
So how about you get out of their land before waving those UN resolutions around? You broke one of those it's based on when you stole Palestinian land and sovereignty.
You mean they were first? Once again, prove to me that Palestine was entirely depopulated when the zionists came, or this argument is ridiculous, as it is. Zionists came after Palestinians had lived there and bought land off Palestinians.Well, since the whole "We were here first" point means a loss for the Palestinians,
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
HOW in hell did you understand THAT to mean THAT?!
They have their government. They chose their prime minister. Those in gaza supposedly democratically chose Hamas to rule them. By that point, they have it all. No part of your quote speaks of lands, it speaks of governments and sovereigns.
Stop twisting the truth, or simply learn to understand what you read for what it is.
I'm sorry, have you never heard of this on the weekly Jihadist meeting?
Also, you're still deflecting and not providing any sources for your dribble.
---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 08:24 AM ----------
But you asked, so I answered.
And yes, they do have a right to sovereignty, but not inside the borders of an existing country. That would upset the territorial integrity of a UN member.
I wouldn't exactly know given I'm a Christian now, would I? LOL
You took their territories and forced them to leave at gunpoint. That's not self-determination. After all, you can switch off their power and water when you want; that's not self-determination either.They have their government. They chose their prime minister. Those in gaza supposedly democratically chose Hamas to rule them. By that point, they have it all. No part of your quote speaks of lands, it speaks of governments and sovereigns.
I could point out the further UN resolution about occupiers needing to leave occupied nations?
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
Just so you know Iron Dome doesn't try to intercept all rockets. When a rocket is launched they know the vicinity of where it will land. If it's out in the middle of nowhere they just let it go and report it as a rocket fired into Israel. If a rocket has a chance to land to where it could do damage, then Iron Dome fires 2-3 rockets to try to take it out.
I can see why the numbers may be misleading, and I really think Israel should announce how many rockets they fired upon.
Also somebody pointed out in this thread that the US bought them for Israel and gave them all the stuff to make them. Actually Iron Dome was 100% built and designed by a company in Israel. The US did give them some money to build more of them. Also they are in talks to trade the technology and have some of them built right here in the US and shipped to bases over seas.
This is really the last warning here. Any further sniping or flaming or trolling will be met with the full force or our rules system.
Very easy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...tion_1514_(XV)
Now would you kindly slink back to your 47 borders and leave them alone?
In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.