Gaza rocket fire resumes

[Tierbook]

Doesn't make it moral, actually. It only means you can oppress someone weaker than you.

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 06:06 AM ----------



Free market on violence baby. That should make the most efficient human beings.

For killing and just getting by, that is.

Nothing is moral depending on who you ask.

[Valort]

On their creation in 1945

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:

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.

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.

Furthermore, if you want to bring the UN into the fray, here, have their take on Territorial Integrity:

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.

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.

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 ----------

Israel functions entirely on might makes right, the most morally repugnant basis of morality there is.

They can starve and shoot the Palestinians at will (Valort seemed proud of this) so apparently they should act like dogs and grovel at their masters' feet?

Proof and sources? Or are you back to twisting the truth to fit your little idea of reality again?

[Mercadi]

One last thing. Arabs can be citizens in Israel, Jews cannot in any middle eastern country aside from ISrael.

Actually there are some (very few) Jews still remaining in other Middle Eastern states. I'm saying that because I've seen fresh Jewish immigrants from Iran just a few years ago.

[Kraenen]

Nothing is moral depending on who you ask.

Why would you base it on asking random people?

[Valort]

For what reason does land belong to someone in your opinion? Just because they're stronger militarily?

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.

[Zhangfei]

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:

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.

Well, since the whole "We were here first" point means a loss for the Palestinians,

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.

[Valort]

Actually there are some (very few) Jews still remaining in other Middle Eastern states. I'm saying that because I've seen fresh Jewish immigrants from Iran just a few years ago.

Lets say that Jews living in Islamic nations are either living in constant fear, or kept as "the token jew" to show the world how accepting that country happens to be (Like the ones in Iran, who eventually resort to falsifying passports to escape)

[Kraenen]

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.

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.

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?

You do know Israel took Sinai after a war.... right? (I believe it was in the first war).

[Zhangfei]

Lets say that Jews living in Islamic nations are either living in constant fear, or kept as "the token jew" to show the world how accepting that country happens to be (Like the ones in Iran, who eventually resort to falsifying passports to escape)

Wow, have you asked them all this or is this Israeli propaganda?

[Valort]

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.

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.

[Kraenen]

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.

It matters not who was there first. We have both parties, we have to deal with it. Israel is a state now, but Palestine has the right to sovereignty.

[Valort]

Wow, have you asked them all this or is this Israeli propaganda?

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 ----------

It matters not who was there first. We have both parties, we have to deal with it. Israel is a state now, but Palestine has the right to sovereignty.

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.

[Zhangfei]

I'm sorry, have you never heard of this on the weekly Jihadist meeting?

I wouldn't exactly know given I'm a Christian now, would I? LOL

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.

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.

I could point out the further UN resolution about occupiers needing to leave occupied nations?

[Tierbook]

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.

I could point out the further UN resolution about occupiers needing to leave occupied nations?

so voting in your leaders isnt self-determination?

[Kraenen]

so voting in your leaders isnt self-determination?

Do you not see the contradiction in your terms?

it's a bit humorous actually

---------- Post added 2012-11-18 at 06:34 AM ----------

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.

Actually you didn't answer the question. I asked, for what reason does land belong to someone?

[Zhangfei]

so voting in your leaders isnt self-determination?

Being forced off the land you own isn't self-determination either. That's why Charles de Gaulles' government in exile became a proper government when they retook France.

[Isotope]

So far, since the issue escalated, 506 rockets have fallen in Israeli territories, and 267 were intercepted by the Iron Dome systems. Which means, that effectively, 1/3 of all rockets and missiles have been intercepted. Of the 506 rockets that DID land, only about 50 did any damage to property, and only 3 did any damage to human lives.

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.

[Fuzzzie]

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.

[Valort]

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.

I could point out the further UN resolution about occupiers needing to leave occupied nations?

Provide proof for your dribble. If you can.

[Zhangfei]

Provide proof for your dribble. If you can.

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?