
BTW guys, my "not an argument" remark stemmed from this post:
viewtopic.php?p=153794#p153794
Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....
Moderator: Referees
and they're all pink on the inside.Strangelove wrote:Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....
ukcanuck wrote:........ Der Fehrer ........
Topper wrote:Topper:That explains the smell in Chilliwack.Arachnid wrote:It's like the flowering anus of the lower mainland![]()
I’ve maintained the whole time that it is a violation of the Geneva Convention and a war crime.Strangelove wrote: So you believe that "it" is not a gross violation of the Geneva Convention
... and yet is a "war crime"??![]()
Uhm.. not quite, but in a way. See my next answer.Strangelove wrote:You keep referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. I believe the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defers to the Geneva Convention.
OK, pro primo, the Geneva Convention does not have a definition of what a war crime is. It just sets a number of rules that apply to international conflicts. In popular speech, breaches of the Geneva Convention are often referred to as war crimes, but there are various different definitions of war crimes, so the usage varies.Strangelove wrote:You seem to understand the settlements are not a "war crime" under the Geneva Convention. But you don't seem to grasp that they are also not a "war crime" according to the International Criminal Court.
Now, you are free to speculate on whether or not the ICC might one day rule they are a "war crime".
But until that day comes (it never will, I think you know that) they are NOT... according to the ICC.
You mustn't neglect the all-important "COURT" part of the International Criminal Court!
Until a court rules y'see....
As you may notice the wording is very similar to what can be found in Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Well, diplomats have their own set of rules. Just the other month a whole bunch of reporters were trying to get anyone at the Swedish department of foreign affairs on record saying that Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, which it of course is, but everyone kept dodging and evading the word.Strangelove wrote:Besides, as you said:
Using the phrase 'war crime' in this case equates to 'name calling' and is neither diplomatic nor favourable.![]()
You also said:
"As for the legality issue, why don't we leave it to the lawyers to fight it out?" and concluded it's "open to debate".
.... why then do you continue to call the settlements a "war crime"?
Not so sure… let’s see what you can do with eg Norway, holding in mind that laws cannot be applied retro-actively. Looking forward to what you can dig up!Strangelove wrote:After all, one could lable every nation on Earth as "war criminals" by that definition
... if one wanted to open the history books amirite?![]()
I’m not. I’m saying “peas in a pod”.Strangelove wrote:Please stop trying to paint Israel as "the bad guys"!
Agreed. But interestingly, neither Egypt nor Israel like to point out that they are basically allies.Strangelove wrote:Well those folk should not neglect to point the finger at the jailer to west: Egypt!Per wrote: Some have suggested that Gaza is neither autonomous nor occupied, but rather a gigantic prison camp.![]()
He is a Troubled zombie nowStrangelove wrote:.... did ChristaPuppy say that in retrospect from beyond the grave?![]()
BTW guys, my "not an argument" remark stemmed from this post:
viewtopic.php?p=153794#p153794
Sort of an "inside joke" if you will....
Rules schmules...Per wrote:
What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.
Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?ukcanuck wrote:Rules schmules...Per wrote:
What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.
Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry
If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.
That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..
That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...
Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.
Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...
For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it
You misunderstand, I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the reality of the situation. If you have only one acceptable outcome, you are not going to take chances to be me nice guy, you are going to play hard ball, well at least I would in their shoes...it ain't pretty, and it ain't nice, it just is. If I was African or Native American it makes no difference, survival of the fittest right? I think that's your mantra ...Arachnid wrote:Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?ukcanuck wrote:Rules schmules...Per wrote:
What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.
Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry
If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.
That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..
That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...
Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.
Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...
For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it
Sorry, I don't think the Holocast has anything to do with Israel now. What about all the other injustices in the world? The genocides? The displacements? One tribe over another does not deserve special treatment. We either figure it out together or we all die as one.
Doc schmock, why is everyone afraid of someone that always has a man as his avatar? Unlike moiukcanuck wrote:Arachnid wrote:You misunderstand, I'm not advocating anything, just pointing out the reality of the situation. If you have only one acceptable outcome, you are not going to take chances to be me nice guy, you are going to play hard ball, well at least I would in their shoes...it ain't pretty, and it ain't nice, it just is. If I was African or Native American it makes no difference, survival of the fittest right? I think that's your mantra ...ukcanuck wrote:
Sooooo you're advocating that all the displaced African black slaves ancestors and all First Nations should fight for their traditional lands back or should be compensated?
Sorry, I don't think the Holocast has anything to do with Israel now. What about all the other injustices in the world? The genocides? The displacements? One tribe over another does not deserve special treatment. We either figure it out together or we all die as one.
EDIT: Careful, Doc is watching and waiting for you to step in it...
This case is not that cut and dry.Per wrote: ...violations (or breaches) of the rules set forth in the 1949 Geneva Convention are now (since 2002) declared war crimes in the 2002 Rome Statute, but they are only a subset of its total list of war crimes.
Pro segundo, I think the wording of Art. 8 (2) (b) (viii) of the Rome Statute’s list of war crimes makes it rather clear that the settlements do qualify as such:
As you may notice the wording is very similar to what can be found in Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory
Hmmm... Hillary to Morsi: "Mohamed you caused this mess, you broker a peace deal right fucking now and MAYBE we won't do to you like we did to Mubarak so fast it'll make your nemes spin like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a an exorcism!!"http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/07 ... le-crisis/
Jonathan Schanzer, a former counter-terrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, said the real agenda behind Israel’s assault last month on Hamas’ munitions stockpiles and smuggling tunnels was not simply to end the daily barrage of relatively primitive rockets that have become part of daily life in Israel. The real mission was to eliminate as many as 100 Iranian-built Fajr5 missiles - with the power to reach Tel Aviv - that had been sneaked into Gaza through Egypt. The Obama administration knew in advance of the operation and agreed that the missiles, built in a Sudanese factory, had to be neutralized to protect millions of Israeli citizens who were now within range of the deadly Iranian weapons, according to Schanzer.
Spidey, the poster boy for Devolution.Arachnid wrote: It is not survival of the fittest, it is the opposite indeed.
Death to the weak.Arachnid wrote: It is not survival of the fittest, it is the opposite indeed.
UK and Doc, two peas in a pod...ukcanuck wrote:Rules schmules...Per wrote:
What is open to debate is whether Israel is bound by these rules, having not ratified the treaty.
Here is the bottom line, if I were a rich man yada yada ya... Sorry
If I were a Jew and it were my grandparents in those ovens and gulags and it was my ancestors during the Catholic inquisition or my religion and culture who were the butt of jokes and Shakespeare plays, and I had a chance to get back my natural and historic homeland I would stop at nothing to make it happen and I would be going for the whole enchilada with Jerusalem as the capital And Abraham's temple right exactly where it was when the Romans pulled it down.
That's what I would be doing and Anyone who got in the way is my enemy...and can go fucketh himself..
That's what I would be working towards and I have no doubt that's what the average loyal Jew wants and I am not sure I can blame them for it...
Hence the building of settlements, its a great hardline strategic move... gotta admit.
Now we in the west without having our survival to worry about can see that there are another set of victims in all of this. The poor Arabs who have been happily digging themselves in for two thousand years...
For them there needs to be a solution but whatever that solution is it has to be in line with what Israel wants because they know what they want and they mean to get it