IRI: Israel's nukes world's greatest threat

[rhodescholar]

When Israel is mentioned as being on the wrong side of international law, they are usually referring to one of two aspects. The Occupation of the Occuppied Territories; or, The Status of Nuclear Weapons.

Again, wrong. The agreement dealing with population transfer and territorial occupation is the 4th GC, a secondary one is the UNSC 242 - neither of which are applicable to the israeli situation.

Further, the Rome Statue merely provides a mechanism for the judicial review of war crimes as per the GC and other conventions, the RS is NOT a legal treaty detailing what constitute them. Try reading documents and researching before sounding like an idiot.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I did not mention the 4th Geneva Convention at all. I did mention the Rome Statue in regard to the displacement of the indigenous population and the transplant of Israeli citizens. (A violation of International Law.)

Genius, the RS has NOTHING to do with displacement or anything else, it is a mechanism to create a court of judicial review - an enforcement mechanism.

Second, read the 4th GC, it is THAT treaty that deals with population transfers...

I also mentioned the general belief that the balance of power and the stability of peace in the region is threatened by the Israeli policy of Nuclear Ambiguity.

Really? You mean that before israel had nuclear weapons, there was peaceful relations there? Really?

(Which is not a violation of law/treaty as they are not a signatory to the NPT; but could be subject to sanctions if the true status was actually recognized.)

So now you claim parties can be subject to treaties they never signed? You're fucking psychotic.

I do not think I miss applied the Rome Statue position. The statue is quoted directly.

LOL, you don't even know WTF the RS is, let alone quoted it correctly.

Both these issues (and sometimes more) are often lumped together, describing a pattern of misconduct by the Israelis. Both do not contribute to the stability of the region.

Idiot, if israel did not even fucking exist, it would have zero effect on the ME. None of the indigenous groups get along, and israel has 5 million jews, less than 1% of the entire ME population. Try sticking to rational arguments for once.

My post was meant to distinguish between the two (one a violation of International Law, and one a violation of US Sanction implementation).

You have yet to even offer a rational thought, let alone post one. The israel settlements in the WB are on disputed land as per UNSC 242, and do not involve forcible transfer by the occupying power, which renders the 4GC inapplicable here. Try sticking to something you might actually be informed of, like knitting.

 

[rhodescholar]

And Israel is an ally of the US only in matter of convenience (Remember the USS Liberty. They have no special love for Americans.). / While Iran is being a pain in the ass, there are extenuating circumstances and prejudicial actions that are questionable.

As if you had much credibility before, you now have none. I don't give a shit how polite your tone is, making idiotic, irrational claims about legal treaties that make no sense, claiming israel intentionally attacked US sailors, and running interference for criminal, murderous regimes like iran place you in the shitbox - you are close to ignore status.

 

[RoccoR]

rhodescholar,, et al,

Yes!

When Israel is mentioned as being on the wrong side of international law, they are usually referring to one of two aspects. The Occupation of the Occuppied Territories; or, The Status of Nuclear Weapons.

Again, wrong. The agreement dealing with population transfer and territorial occupation is the 4th GC, a secondary one is the UNSC 242 - neither of which are applicable to the israeli situation.

Further, the Rome Statue merely provides a mechanism for the judicial review of war crimes as per the GC and other conventions, the RS is NOT a legal treaty detailing what constitute them. Try reading documents and researching before sounding like an idiot.

(COMMENT)

Well, if you want to use the 4thGC, then, of course we can. The War Crime in the Rome Statue has its companion in the 4thGC.

Copy Used: Jewish Virtual Library

• In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles
• of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143."

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

All of the Rome Statues has some foundation in either the Geneva Convention, or Subsequent International Tribunals.

While I have, from time-to-time found Wikipedia to be of some insight, it is not always interpreted correctly. You will notice that it has a minor warning.

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011)

I suggest you go to the ICC Page.

Reference; Rome Statues of the International Criminal Court

I did not mention the 4th Geneva Convention at all. I did mention the Rome Statue in regard to the displacement of the indigenous population and the transplant of Israeli citizens. (A violation of International Law.)

Genius, the RS has NOTHING to do with displacement or anything else, it is a mechanism to create a court of judicial review - an enforcement mechanism.

Neither is accurate. But the 4thGC and the RS have many companion points. It so happens that Section III, Art 49, 4thGC (supra) is the companion to Part II, Article 8, Para 2b(viii) of the RS.

Really? You mean that before israel had nuclear weapons, there was peaceful relations there? Really?

(COMMENT)

I said no such thing. I was talking about the Balance of Power.

So now you claim parties can be subject to treaties they never signed? You're fucking psychotic.

(COMMENT)

It only takes one party to be covered by the treaty. In this case, the Occupied Territories are covered by the Treaty; with two points of standing. Israel can counter claim it is above the law. It would be interesting to see how it plays out in court.

The Rome Statues are in place to act "where states are unable or unwilling to do so themselves."

Reference: ICTJ Briefing of Rome Statues

Idiot, if israel did not even fucking exist, it would have zero effect on the ME. None of the indigenous groups get along, and israel has 5 million jews, less than 1% of the entire ME population. Try sticking to rational arguments for once.

(COMMENT)

This has nothing to do with an established pattern of misconduct.

My post was meant to distinguish between the two (one a violation of International Law, and one a violation of US Sanction implementation).

You have yet to even offer a rational thought, let alone post one. The israel settlements in the WB are on disputed land as per UNSC 242, and do not involve forcible transfer by the occupying power, which renders the 4GC inapplicable here. Try sticking to something you might actually be informed of, like knitting.

(COMMENT)

Reference: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Copy of UNSC 242

I believe you are mistaken. While your characterization of the Occupied Territories as being in dispute is probably correct, that has nothing to do with UNSC 242. The UNSC calls for the withdraw of Israeli forces in UNSC 242.

Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

But one can go further: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory

120. As regards these settlements, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only deportations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to organize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the occupied territory.

In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has conducted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited.

Where the idea was advanced that the citation and references posted were incorrect in the applicability of accepted law is a misinterpretation --- is a misinterpretation of existing law.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Staidhup]

60-85 Nucs should keep them safe from the Islamo Fascists. As for the clowns that still prescribe to the false belief that if Israel was no longer in existence that there would be peace in the Mid East had better think twice. Funny in how those that site the Fourth Geneva Convention seem to think terrorism is acceptable and that the right to defend ones self is secondary to the spirit of the law.

 

[amir]

RhodesScholar:
Death to Iran!!!
***
I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
The mullahrchy is not an accurate representation of Iranians, and is against anything decent Persians stand for.
Death to the Islamic Republic!

 

[JStone]

RhodesScholar:
Death to Iran!!!
***
I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
The mullahrchy is not an accurate representation of Iranians, and is against anything decent Persians stand for.
Death to the Islamic Republic!

Persia disappeared a loooong time ago. So, too, its peaceful zoroastrian religion

 

[RoccoR]

Staidhup, et al,

I didn't originally cite the GCIV.

60-85 Nucs should keep them safe from the Islamo Fascists. As for the clowns that still prescribe to the false belief that if Israel was no longer in existence that there would be peace in the Mid East had better think twice. Funny in how those that site the Fourth Geneva Convention seem to think terrorism is acceptable and that the right to defend ones self is secondary to the spirit of the law.

(COMMENT)

I spent a career in counterintelligence, with almost a decade in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region; including Yemen.

Knowing and understanding the reasons and cause for conflict, does not mean you side with terrorists. I am a counterterrorist. But having said that, it doen't mean that I give all would be allies a free pass.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[rhodescholar]

Where the idea was advanced that the citation and references posted were incorrect in the applicability of accepted law is a misinterpretation --- is a misinterpretation of existing law.

This poster is clearly mentally ill. She cannot differentiate between basic concepts of the different treaties mixing them up, and her whole argument is "they are wrong."

When you leave your mental institution and come up with a rational argument that actually applies to the treaties you are talking about, let us know. Until then, IGNORED.

 

[rhodescholar]

RhodesScholar:
Death to Iran!!!
***
I realize this sentiment is to counter all the "Death to America" chants by the thugs of IRI, but you maybe unaware that the people of Iran are the most pro American of all other countries in the region.
The mullahrchy is not an accurate representation of Iranians, and is against anything decent Persians stand for.
Death to the Islamic Republic!

I've no doubt that there are many pro-american iranians, but unfortunately, most are not - and iran has conducted thousands of attacks that have injured or murdered thousands of americans. Every iranian i know is a decent person, but the US is going to have to liquidate the regime and thousands of others of its supporters, from the IRG to the basij, and a lot of innocents are sadly, going to be killed as well. It is inevitable, and would not have been necessary if they were not protected by russia and china, or if there were far more "pro-american" iranians there.

 

[rhodescholar]

I spent a career in counterintelligence, with almost a decade in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region; including Yemen.

Bwaahaahaahahahaha!!!!

This moron cannot even differentiate between the NPT and other treaties, nor cannot come up with a rational post.

No doubt some 53-year old unemployed carpenter armchair internet warrior pounding away on her 1997 eMachine with Windows 95...

 

[Billo_Really]

I've no doubt that there are many pro-american iranians, but unfortunately, most are not - and iran has conducted thousands of attacks that have injured or murdered thousands of americans.

Name a few.

 

[JStone]

Staidhup, et al,

I didn't originally cite the GCIV.

60-85 Nucs should keep them safe from the Islamo Fascists. As for the clowns that still prescribe to the false belief that if Israel was no longer in existence that there would be peace in the Mid East had better think twice. Funny in how those that site the Fourth Geneva Convention seem to think terrorism is acceptable and that the right to defend ones self is secondary to the spirit of the law.

(COMMENT)

I spent a career in counterintelligence, with almost a decade in the Middle East/Persian Gulf Region; including Yemen.

Knowing and understanding the reasons and cause for conflict, does not mean you side with terrorists. I am a counterterrorist. But having said that, it doen't mean that I give all would be allies a free pass.

Most Respectfully,
R

Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.

Worry more about Iran.

 

[Truthseeker420]

How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!

Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?

 

[rhodescholar]

Name a few.

I guess you never heard of the iraqi shia militias armed and trained by iran, who used iranian-built IEDs/EFPs to maim/kill US troops, or the captured iranian officers in iraq, etc.

Are facts important to you, shit for brains?

 

[rhodescholar]

Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?

What negative comments were those, fucking moron?

 

[JStone]

How DARE those damn Jews not just DIE already?!

Is that page one of zionism for dummies,can't refute the negaitive comment about Israel cry ant-semitism?

Jesus King of Israel was a Zionist, dummy

John 12:13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna! “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! “Blessed is the king of Israel!”

Allah who created Israel is a Zionist, dummy

Quran 10:93 We settled the Children of Israel in a beautiful dwelling-place, and provided for them sustenance of the best: it was after knowledge had been granted to them.

No 72 whores in that bordello in the sky for you, dumb motherfucker

 

[Billo_Really]

I guess you never heard of the iraqi shia militias armed and trained by iran, who used iranian-built IEDs/EFPs to maim/kill US troops, or the captured iranian officers in iraq, etc.

Are facts important to you, shit for brains?

First off, junior, when you invade another country, you can expect to be attacked. So getting all pissed off because someone is defending their homeland from a foreign force, is pretty ridiculous. But what's more ridiculous, in light of your so-called "Iranian trained shia militia's", is the US government giving them the political power in Iraq.

Now, let's see some proof of your claim. Or, how 'bout some examples of Iranian terrorism in country's we haven't invaded?

 

[Billo_Really]

Iran is a US designated state sponsor of terrorism in flagrant violation of several anti-terrorism laws.

Worry more about Iran.

And Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions.

 

[rhodescholar]

First off, junior, when you invade another country, you can expect to be attacked. So getting all pissed off because someone is defending their homeland from a foreign force, is pretty ridiculous.

Wrong idiot. I guess reading is not one of your strong suits - it was IRAQ that we invaded, and it was IRAN who was interfering by arming/training terrorist groups in IRAQ.

Their interference wasn an act of war IMO, and iran should have been militarily attacked for doing so.

But what's more ridiculous, in light of your so-called "Iranian trained shia militia's", is the US government giving them the political power in Iraq.

With idiots like you, if the US did not give them a say in the political process, you would have screamed they were being "disenfranchised." With anti-american idiots, no matter what the US does it is in the wrong.

Now, let's see some proof of your claim. Or, how 'bout some examples of Iranian terrorism in country's we haven't invaded?

Uh, Argentina, Israel, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia....And why does iran get a pass to conduct terrorism in a nation the US invades?

 

[rhodescholar]

And Israel is in violation of over 100 UN resolutions.

UNGA votes are not legally binding, UNSC resolutions are - and Israel is not in violation of any UNSC ones. It must suck to be as stupid and uniformed as you are.