26
   

Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

 
 
InfraBlue
 
  5  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 01:22 pm
@oralloy,
Then they weren't attacked.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 01:26 pm
Quote:
Mayor of Jerusalem Openly Carrying Rifle


Palestinians have bit off more than they can chew. These guys do not **** around. Of course citizens being stabbed daily will do that to you.


http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/mayor-jerusalem-openly-carrying-rifle#.VhUJFTx8gmM.twitter
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 01:41 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Then they weren't attacked.

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

That's what a preemptive defense is. You begin defending yourself from your attacker before the attack is launched.
parados
 
  7  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 01:44 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Engaging in preemptive self defense doesn't transform the defender into the aggressor.


In 1939, Germany defended itself when it invaded Poland. Germany claimed Poland was massing troops preparing to attack so they had to defend themselves preemptively.

This is the perfect example of how your "preemptive self defense" argument falls apart. Anyone can claim they are acting in self defense while being the aggressor.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 01:49 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
In 1939, Germany defended itself when it invaded Poland. Germany claimed Poland was massing troops preparing to attack so they had to defend themselves preemptively.

Germany was lying. Poland was not about to attack them.


parados wrote:
This is the perfect example of how your "preemptive self defense" argument falls apart. Anyone can claim they are acting in self defense while being the aggressor.

My argument?!? I am not the creator of international law.

Anyway, nothing has fallen apart. If someone makes a bogus claim of self defense, that does not delegitimize actual self defense.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 02:13 pm
@oralloy,
Gosh, a country that preemptively defends themselves against another country could lie? Who would have thunk it?

Any country that defends itself preemptively can lie, international law or not.
In both cases we see a country "preemptively defend" itself and then keep any territory it takes in that "defense." I see a rather real parallel here. Defense does not require taking territory. Nor does defense require keeping that territory for several years.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 02:33 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Defense does not require taking territory. Nor does defense require keeping that territory for several years.


You have defense confused with victory. GTFO.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  5  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 03:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

That's more accurately called a counterattack.

oralloy wrote:
That's what a preemptive defense is. You begin defending yourself from your attacker before the attack is launched.

Seeing as how the Zionists aren't soothsayers, they assumed that Egypt would attack.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 04:23 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

Israel attacked first. You wish to characterize that as a defensive action. But that is just a wish, and it is not based in reality. Your view is the equivalent of saying that up is down, and down is up.

Here is what Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in 1982:

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”
Glennn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 04:43 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

Also, in a radio debate, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, said:

Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”
_______________________

What this means is that Israel was the aggressor, and therefore they were not justified in taking other people's property.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 05:27 pm
@Glennn,
None so blind as those that will not see, Oralboy's unreasoning bigotry trumps the truth any time.

Don't waste your breath.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 06:30 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
unreasoning bigotry


That sums up Islam. Who Israel is fighting. Their bigotry surpasses all others. Look at your own country.

If you are too scared to agree, just squeak.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 07:00 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Gosh, a country that preemptively defends themselves against another country could lie? Who would have thunk it?
Any country that defends itself preemptively can lie, international law or not.
In both cases we see a country "preemptively defend" itself and then keep any territory it takes in that "defense." I see a rather real parallel here.

There is quite a large difference. Poland was not about to attack Germany. Syria and Egypt were about to attack Israel.

Further, Israel will return to 1967 borders in exchange for peace. The only reason they are not returning to 1967 borders is because the Palestinians refuse to make peace.


parados wrote:
Defense does not require taking territory. Nor does defense require keeping that territory for several years.

The land will be returned as soon as the Palestinians decide to make peace.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 07:01 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
They were attacked. It's just that the attack came after they began to defend themselves.

That's more accurately called a counterattack.

Not when it was their original aggression that started the war.


InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
That's what a preemptive defense is. You begin defending yourself from your attacker before the attack is launched.

Seeing as how the Zionists aren't soothsayers, they assumed that Egypt would attack.

That was a pretty easy assumption. Egypt had expelled the UN peacekeepers and had moved their army to Israel's border.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 07:02 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Israel attacked first.

That is incorrect. The first act of war was Egypt's blockade of Israeli shipping.


Glennn wrote:
You wish to characterize that as a defensive action. But that is just a wish, and it is not based in reality.

No, that Israel was acting in self defense is very much a reality.


Glennn wrote:
Your view is the equivalent of saying that up is down, and down is up.

Feel free to try to point out any facts that I am wrong about.


Glennn wrote:
Here is what Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin said in 1982:

“In June 1967 we had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us, We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.”

Israel did indeed have a choice between preemptive self defense and waiting for Egypt to attack first. They chose preemptive self defense.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2015 07:03 pm
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:
Also, in a radio debate, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, said:

Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Egypt had any intention of attacking Israel.” He added that “Israeli intelligence knew that Egypt was not prepared for war.”

Egypt was conducting a blockade (itself an act of war), had expelled the UN peacekeepers, and had massed its armies on Israel's border.

That is more than enough to justify a preemptive self defense.


Glennn wrote:
What this means is that Israel was the aggressor,

Engaging in preemptive self defense does not transform the defender into an aggressor.


Glennn wrote:
they were not justified in taking other people's property.

Who cares? The Palestinians could have had it back if they'd been willing to make peace. It's their own fault for refusing to do so.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2015 12:14 am
@Glennn,
Glennn wrote:

True. But since the truth of the matter condemns Israel for appropriating territory through an act of aggression in contravention of international law, I don't expect the fans of the Israeli regime to concede the point any time soon.

Of course. They are a bunch of sissies afraid of the truth, to put it mildly.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2015 04:52 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
Of course. They are a bunch of sissies afraid of the truth, to put it mildly.

The truth is that Israel was defending themselves in the 1967 war.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2015 06:50 am
@oralloy,
That's a lie.
McGentrix
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2015 06:58 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

That's a lie.


How do you figure?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2021 at 10:06:27