15
   

ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

 
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 12:20 am
A careful analysis of the legality of Israel's ability to defend itself:

Justification for Israel’s retaliation in Gaza against Hamas rocket attacks rests on two well accepted international political and legal norms.

Firstly, Israel is morally justified in waging war against Hamas in Gaza if regard is had to the jus ad bellum (justice of war) doctrine, promoted by American academics Michael Walzer and James Turner Johnson, which justifies a state’s actions for waging war against another state or political entity. The just war doctrine morally permits a state to go to war where there is just cause (such as acting out of necessity in self defence) and war is waged with proper authority, as a last resort, proportionately and for peaceful ends. Israel insists that the attacks on Hamas targets in Gaza are in self defence, as a consequence of recent Hamas rocket attacks on nearby Israeli villages and the attacks of suicide bombers in Israeli towns and cities. Israel’s justification is that its military response is intended to have the effect of disarming Hamas and its ability to attack Israel, thereby bringing about an end to the threat it faces. The fact that attacks on Israel by Hezbollah have diminished since Israel’s war with Hezbollah in 2006, creates a political precedent for Israel which supports its current action against Hamas.

Secondly, Israel is further justified in its actions in Gaza, if Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is taken into account. Although a Hamas controlled Gaza is not a legally recognised nation-state under international law, if it was, then under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Israel would be entitled to act in self-defence against such an entity as it has. Israel’s response to date is also consistent with the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, which acknowledged a state’s right to act in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, provided of course its actions complied with the legal doctrines of necessity and proportionality.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:11 am
@genoves,

Quote:
You are egregiously in error, McTag! Even if I used only one fourth of my brain power, I would be able to rebut anything you posted


Yes, I've noticed all the rebutting you've been doing. Impressive.
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 02:14 am
@McTag,
I am so glad you are learning, McTag. Do you have any questions?

Rule One--Try to find a link from a reputable source to back up your assertions from time to time. It works wonders.
Rule Two- Unsourced and/or unreferenced comments prove nothing unless the poster is a bonafide expert in the subject under discussion.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 04:56 am
@genoves,

No matter how much you cudgel your giant brain, it is not possible with any credibility to defend the indefensible.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 11:20 am
@genoves,
Quote:
if regard is had to the jus ad bellum (justice of war) doctrine, promoted by American academics Michael Walzer and James Turner Johnson, which justifies a state’s actions for waging war a.gainst another state or political entity. The just war doctrine morally permits a state to go to war where there is just cause (such as acting out of necessity in self defence) and war is waged with proper authority, as a last resort, proportionately and for peaceful ends


Geeze, none of these describe the war mongering the USA has engaged in over the last hundred or so years. Obviously these two fellas weren't thinking of the USA when they came up with this idea.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 11:25 am
@JTT,
Spot on! What the hell are we doing in Iraq? They were never responsible for 9-11 even though Cheney loves to mention that date on almost every statement he makes now days.

Our illegal invasion of Iraq cost us over 4,000 lives and the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives.

I'm not sure how conservatives can justify that! What did we get for all those costs?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What the hell are we doing in Iraq? They were never responsible for 9-11 even though Cheney loves to mention that date on almost every statement he makes now days.

Our illegal invasion of Iraq cost us over 4,000 lives and the Iraqis hundreds of thousands of lives.
Ican: The invasion of Iraq was not illegal under international law nor ws it illegal under national law.
The Iraqi civilian violent death rate after the USA invaded Iraq was less than half the Iraqi violent death rate before the USA invaded Iraq.


I'm not sure how conservatives can justify that! What did we get for all those costs?
Ican: We got zero additional al-Qaeda terrorist attacks against American civilians after we invaded Iraq and went after the al-Qaeda in Iraq.

ONE REASON THE USA INVADED IRAQ A YEAR AND ONE-QUARTER AFTER INVADING AFGHANISTAN IS BECAUSE SOME MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA HAD FLED TO IRAQ FROM AFGHANISTAN AND AL-QAEDA BEGAN TO GROW RAPIDLY IN IRAQ.
Congress wrote:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

[7th]Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of the civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi cirizens wrongfully detained in Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;


Wikipedia wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001.
...
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.


Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 09/08/2006, wrote:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq


Transcription of what General Franks, describing the Iraq invasion he led in March 2003, wrote:

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all."


McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 03:30 pm

Interesting programme on our TV yesterday, entitled The Jew Who Dealt With the Nazis, the story of Israel Kasztner.

I didn't realise i.a. that David ben Gurion was reviled by the zionist right, even at the outset.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 04:42 pm
@ican711nm,
You are just making up things. We did break international law when we invaded Iraq. We agreed to various provisions affecting the UN, and one involved getting its approval before such an invasion. Needless to say, we did not get approval.

Your statement about more deaths, etc., coming under Saddam is just an outright lie.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 04:45 pm
Saddam was a bitter enemy of al-Qaida due to his secular ways. Saddam would have nothing to do with al-Qaida. The Bush administration told close to 1,000 lies in building its justification for invasion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Jun, 2009 05:05 pm
@Advocate,
ican loves to show casualty numbers in Iraq by Saddam and from the US war in their country - to justify stopping Saddam from killing his own people. He claims if we hadn't stopped Saddam, the casualty number under Saddam would have been much higher - as if that's justification for an illegal war.

ican leaves out the very fundamental truths about the many countries in this world with leaders who actively kill their own through their tyrannical control of the masses. Bush could have picked a better country to save human lives back in 2003, but instead picked on a hapless leader and country. Our coalition forces ended up killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children by Bush's illegal preemptive attack on a country that had no means to make any threats against our country - except verbally.
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 12:20 am
@cicerone imposter,
As we said and have been saying for a good few years now, Cheney decided to attack this particular tyrannical dictator because of the geological features of his country.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 08:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
So, you would have supported an attack on North Korea?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 09:07 am
Bush and Cheney, both oil men, decided to attack Iraq to grab its oil. Long before the attack, they had maps prepared dividing up the oil among the US oil companies.

When the Iraqis stood up for themselves, it immediately became impossible for Bush to grab the oil. Hundreds or thousands of miles of pipeline would be impossible to defend. Also, the world would know very clearly how Bush lied us into the war.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 03:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
92,133 " 100,591

Deaths per day from suicide attacks and vehicle bombs (now includes non-vehicle suicide attacks)


Deaths per day from gunfire / executions

Weekly graph Monthly table
Weekly graph Monthly table

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Jan 3 568 1035 1430 2806 742 275
Feb 2 604 1201 1449 2536 1007 343
Mar 3976 957 786 1789 2614 1538 415
Apr 3437 1256 1025 1590 2436 1260 483
May 545 619 1226 2103 2769 759 73
Jun 593 833 1215 2426 2108 669
Jul 650 762 1444 3159 2568 583
Aug 790 823 2165 2743 2325 591
Sep 553 943 1330 2408 1221 535
Oct 493 947 1201 2924 1185 527
Nov 478 1533 1208 2969 1043 472
Dec 529 906 996 2662 903 521
12,049 10,751 14,832 27,652 24,514 9,204 1,589
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 12:32 am
@Advocate,
Advocate-- I am interested in the maps Bush and Cheney had to divide the oil among the US oil companies. Do you have a link?
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:16 am
@genoves,

When Baghdad was taken, only the Ministry of Oil building was protected by the US army.

Not the embassies, not offices, not the museum with 4000+ years of history and unique store of priceless and irreplaceable artefacts, nothing else.

Just the geological records in the Oil Ministry.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:22 am
@McTag,
Really? Do you have a link?
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:24 am
@genoves,

You didn't read the newspapers at the time? It was on all the front pages.
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Jun, 2009 01:27 am
@McTag,
Do you have a link? It wasn't in my Newspaper.
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.2 seconds on 11/18/2024 at 08:42:08