Israel & iran

[ima]

Good grief man. I already said through Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Al Qaida. Get it yet?

Eh, Ima, I beleive I said Iran's ATTEMPT to bring down our country. Good luck with your reading disorder.

So how are they going to ATTEMPT to bring down our country? The ACLU?

And you think that they expect this to bring us down?

 

[JStone]

Good grief man. I already said through Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Al Qaida. Get it yet?

So how are they going to ATTEMPT to bring down our country? The ACLU?

And you think that they expect this to bring us down?

Israel's secret plan is to attack Iran by surprise on date night with their goats and camels as per khomeini.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5Xpdu4ELE]Sex with Animals in Islam - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Wolverine1984]

Good grief man. I already said through Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Al Qaida. Get it yet?

So how are they going to ATTEMPT to bring down our country? The ACLU?

And you think that they expect this to bring us down?

Well I'm sure that if Iran would get a nuke and "accidentally" lose it, and then it would "accidentally" appear in the hands of Al Qaeda. This would be a great first step to bring the US down.

Seriously now, I think it's pretty clear that if they support Al Qaeda and the organization that clearly wants to bring down the US, then they themselves support these idea.

 

[ima]

Good grief man. I already said through Iran's support for terrorist organizations like Al Qaida. Get it yet?

And you think that they expect this to bring us down?

Well I'm sure that if Iran would get a nuke and "accidentally" lose it, and then it would "accidentally" appear in the hands of Al Qaeda. This would be a great first step to bring the US down.

Seriously now, I think it's pretty clear that if they support Al Qaeda and the organization that clearly wants to bring down the US, then they themselves support these idea.

So you think that 1 nuke will bring the US down?

 

[Billo_Really]

It is well known that Iran supports & helps Al-Qaida. It is Iran's attempt to kill us Americans & bring down our country.

US: Iran Supporting al Qaeda Treasury Targets Key Al-Qa

That's kind of strange since they haven't attacked another country in over 200 years.

 

[Billo_Really]

Why do you think the Soviets fell?

They ran out of money. Just like we're gonna do if we don't cut that god-damn defense budget in half.

BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but when the Soviets collapsed, Russia kept their army. And if you don't think they can bring us down, then you watch way too much TV.

 

[Billo_Really]

The iranian troglodytes REALLY want a nuke to conduct medical research. EVERYONE knows this.

And, under customary law, a preemptive Israeli strike against a belligerent iran would be entirely lawful.

So, you shut YOUR ******* mouth!

A "pre-emptive strike" is only legal if the threat is "iminant". You can't even prove their program has been weaponized, let alone proving they want to attack people. You and your ilk are the only ones running around trying to start a war. You war-mongers are pretty fucked!

 

[Foxfyre]

Islam believes that it is the will of Allah and does expect to take over our country as well as the rest of the world. But there are widely diverse views in how that will happen.

The Islamofacist militant Islam expects to do it through aggression, threats, terror, and eventually battering everybody into submission.

Moderate Islam expects to do it bloodlessly through attraction, attrition, and overwhelming everybody with sheer numbers until Sharia Law is complete everywhere.

What both groups have on their side is patience and unlimited time.

The former group expects to obliterate Israel and remove it from the face of the Earth. The process can be speeded up and made simpler by winning the world to their point of view that Israel are the oppressors and by forcing them to take in as many Arab refugees as want to live in Israel, and by forcing Israel to stand down from opposing Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Arab control centers.

The second group expects to infiltrate Israel and simply out-birth them until the Arabs are in control.

 

[JStone]

The iranian troglodytes REALLY want a nuke to conduct medical research. EVERYONE knows this.

And, under customary law, a preemptive Israeli strike against a belligerent iran would be entirely lawful.

So, you shut YOUR ******* mouth!

A "pre-emptive strike" is only legal if the threat is "iminant". You can't even prove their program has been weaponized, let alone proving they want to attack people. You and your ilk are the only ones running around trying to start a war. You war-mongers are pretty fucked!

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to bullshit your clueless ass through international law.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Vp642ERhM&feature=related]Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to tackle international law.

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

 

[Wolverine1984]

And you think that they expect this to bring us down?

Well I'm sure that if Iran would get a nuke and "accidentally" lose it, and then it would "accidentally" appear in the hands of Al Qaeda. This would be a great first step to bring the US down.

Seriously now, I think it's pretty clear that if they support Al Qaeda and the organization that clearly wants to bring down the US, then they themselves support these idea.

So you think that 1 nuke will bring the US down?

I'll mark it up for you ....

Well I'm sure that if Iran would get a nuke and "accidentally" lose it, and then it would "accidentally" appear in the hands of Al Qaeda. This would be a great first step to bring the US down.

 

[Billo_Really]

Islam believes that it is the will of Allah and does expect to take over our country as well as the rest of the world. But there are widely diverse views in how that will happen.

The Islamofacist militant Islam expects to do it through aggression, threats, terror, and eventually battering everybody into submission.

Moderate Islam expects to do it bloodlessly through attraction, attrition, and overwhelming everybody with sheer numbers until Sharia Law is complete everywhere.

What both groups have on their side is patience and unlimited time.

The former group expects to obliterate Israel and remove it from the face of the Earth. The process can be speeded up and made simpler by winning the world to their point of view that Israel are the oppressors and by forcing them to take in as many Arab refugees as want to live in Israel, and by forcing Israel to stand down from opposing Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Arab control centers.

The second group expects to infiltrate Israel and simply out-birth them until the Arabs are in control.

Oh c'mon! We have over 800 bases around the world and enough nukes to kill the population of the planet 37 times and you're telling me that a way people worship, is a threat?

But I do like your notion about going in and ******* the jews out of Israel.

 

[JStone]

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to tackle international law.

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

First, master grade school-level spelling. Then, if you ever graduate from high school, you can set your sights on law school.

Baby steps, you know?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Vp642ERhM&feature=related]Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

First, master gradeschool-level spelling. Then, if you ever graduate from high school, you can set your sights on law school.

Baby steps, you know?

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

Just as I thought, you don't know, do you?

 

[Wolverine1984]

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to tackle international law.

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

what's all that talk about legality?
Was that US attack on Iraq legal? Or Afghanistan? Was it in accordance with international law?

I am sorry to say but that international law is a joke. No one pays attention to it, and when it's broken nothing gets done about it.

also, what you "know" about international law does not seem to hold much water.

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be 'jus cogens' (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law"), and prohibits all U.N. members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Some have argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self defense, however, article 51 also stipulates that self defense by a member state is justified only if, "an armed attack occurs," against it. From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemptive_war

As it turns out under international law there is no justification for preemptive war even when the threat is imminent.

 

[Billo_Really]

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to tackle international law.

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

what's all that talk about legality?
Was that US attack on Iraq legal? Or Afghanistan? Was it in accordance with international law?

I am sorry to say but that international law is a joke. No one pays attention to it, and when it's broken nothing gets done about it.

That's a pretty un-American thing to say, since our country is based on the rule of law. Part of what it means to be an American, is respect for the law. That's what made us different. Now, for you to advocate lawlessness, goes against our American heritage. If you're right, that's like saying it was okay for Hitler to invade Poland.

Our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were the most illegal thing a country can do. I'll spell it out for you...

These wars, are wars of choice.
We "chose" to go to war, we did not "have" to go to war.
Wars of choice, are wars of aggression.
And wars of aggression, are crimes against humanity.
And this particular crime, is the highest crime of all, because it contains the collective evil of all the rest.

 

[JStone]

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

what's all that talk about legality?
Was that US attack on Iraq legal? Or Afghanistan? Was it in accordance with international law?

I am sorry to say but that international law is a joke. No one pays attention to it, and when it's broken nothing gets done about it.

That's a pretty un-American thing to say, since our country is based on the rule of law. Part of what it means to be an American, is respect for the law. That's what made us different. Now, for you to advocate lawlessness, goes against our American heritage. If you're right, that's like saying it was okay for Hitler to invade Poland.

Our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were the most illegal thing a country can do. I'll spell it out for you...

These wars, are wars of choice.
We "chose" to go to war, we did not "have" to go to war.
Wars of choice, are wars of aggression.
And wars of aggression, are crimes against humanity.
And this particular crime, is the highest crime of all, because it contains the collective evil of all the rest.

First, learn to spell, then, learn the law: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5141405-post489.html

 

[Billo_Really]

Maybe, you should first learn how to spell "imminent" before you try to tackle international law.

Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube

At least I know what international law allows a country to legally attack another.

what's all that talk about legality?
Was that US attack on Iraq legal? Or Afghanistan? Was it in accordance with international law?

I am sorry to say but that international law is a joke. No one pays attention to it, and when it's broken nothing gets done about it.

also, what you "know" about international law does not seem to hold much water.

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.N. Charter is generally considered to be 'jus cogens' (literally: "compelling law", in practice: "higher international law"), and prohibits all U.N. members from exercising "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Some have argued that Article 51 of the UN Charter permits self defense, however, article 51 also stipulates that self defense by a member state is justified only if, "an armed attack occurs," against it. From this it is reasonable to assume that if no armed attack has yet occurred that no automatic justification for preemptive 'self-defense' has yet been made 'legal' under the UN Charter.

Preemptive war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As it turns out under international law there is no justification for preemptive war even when the threat is imminent.

To the letter of the law, you're right. But I somehow think, if some country has a fleet of ships off are coast line with landing craft and soldiers massing in boats, I think no one could blame us for firing the first shot.

 

[Billo_Really]

First, learn to spell, then, learn the law: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5141405-post489.html

You always puss out when it gets to the point of walking your talk.

 

[JStone]

First, learn to spell, then, learn the law: http://www.usmessageboard.com/5141405-post489.html

You always puss out when it gets to the point of walking your talk.

What, no schools in the slum in which you live to teach you basic spelling?