No Missiles For Hezbollah

[Billo_Really]

"An act of aggression"??? Try sending Iranian missiles to our radical Islamic enemies right here in the USA & see what we do.

I like how you consider that wrong (which, I do to), but you're perfectly okay with the US sending arms to al Qaeda cells in Syria, or arms shipments to Israel so they can launch un-provoked "acts of aggression" against their neighbors.

It's okay for Israel to wipe out a weapons depot in Syria in spite of the fact that they weren't attacked (or even threatened) by these weapons, but it is not okay for Iran to launch an attack against rebels that did attack them first.

The one type of person I hate more than any other, is a fuckin' hypocrite!

And you, are a fuckin' hypocrite, big-time!

 

[Lipush]

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Its an act of aggression and its a war crime and Israel killed 42 Syrhttp://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/explosions-damascus-earthquake.htmlttp://mondoweiss.net/2013/05/explosions-damascus-earthquake.htmlan soldiers and some countries are trying to get the UN to do something about it.

You're right!

Thank you for the correction.

I was not intending to correct you, just providing more info.. Just reading on Mondoweiss in comments to that article I provided a link for that there are reports two IDF soldiers were captured, as well as 42 Syrian soldiers being killed. Reading about the threat of chickens to Israel, too, big threats to Israel chickens are. In Gaza in 2008/2009 the IDF killed about 170,000 by flattening the pens with bulldozers with the poor animals still inside.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

No chickens, either!

 

[Billo_Really]

I was not intending to correct you...

Now, now, now, an "act", is not a "war". It is what it is. The fact that I used it for my own personal gain as a set-up to another point, doesn't make it any less epic. I mean, how many posts have you seen by others where they admitted they were wrong on an issue, without being sarcastic or disengenous? For me, in over 8 years of blogging, I can't think of more than a half-dozen instances (out of the over 50,000 posts I've read) where this has happened.

So I over-exaggerated my error. It was worth it to trash those who are so rightous in making ridiculous statements, like bombing Syria was actually "defending" Israel.

 

[Billo_Really]

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

Their goal wasn't keeping missles from reaching Hezbollah.

Israel is trying to drag my country into this conflict because it ain't got the chops to go up against Russia on its own.

 

[RoccoR]

loinboy, et al,

Let me get this straight.

et al,

The "Nuremberg principles" have long since been overtaken by events and replaced by the ICJ/ICC/ Rome Statues:

• Reference Links:
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

War Crimes are defined in Part II Article 8.

However, it is difficult to charge Israel with a War Crime, in this case, when they were interceding against an International Crime in progress (Enforcement of an Arms Embargo and U.N. Security Council ban on weapons exports by the Islamic Republic).

• Reference Links:
  • Sanctions Committee - 1737
  • UNODA - Small Arms and Light Weapons

Most Respectfully,
R

Member states of the UN cannot act uni-laterally on their own militarily against a sovereign nation, they need UNSC approval to do that.

And there are no laws that allow wars of aggression, the Nuremberg Principles were not over-turned.

(COMMENT)

• You are advocating for the Assad Government.
• You want to obstruct Israel from destroying illicit weapons, being used to suppress the people from exercising their right of self-determination.
• You want to further the cause of the Ba'athist Regime against its own people.

You are suggesting that the Israelis are waging a "war of aggression." What is the Israeli motive?

• territorial gain?
• subjugation?
• military conquest?

Where is the Article 39 Action by the UN? (Determination of Aggression)

No, I think your argument has a hidden agenda. You are supporting action to strip the people of Syria of any support against a repressive regime that they would like to change. You support Hezbollah, which supports the Assad Government; both of which are supported by Iran.

The "Nuremberg Principles" were replaced by a modern set of law and codes. They represent a set of legal precedence; as all old legal principles and practices do; but, are not the system in use today.

The "Wars of Aggression" are hostile actions taken by one side or the other for some purpose and benefit that could not be achieved though some peaceful means.

EXAMPLE: The 1973 Yom Kipper War, was a "War of Aggression" to conquer and destroy the State of Israel, which they could not achieve through other means. It was a "sneak attack" by Egypt and Syria (including Expeditionary Forces from Iraq and Jordan). The purpose was to secure territorial gain and institute a regime change.​

The "War of Aggression" terminology is "Cold War" language of the 20th Century dogma.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...was the US invasion of Iraq legal under today's code?
What about the US invasion of South Vietnam (or Korea)?

 

[Billo_Really]

The "Nuremberg principles" have long since been overtaken by events and replaced by the ICJ/ICC/ Rome Statues:

But they weren't overturned or repealed, a "war of aggression" is still outlawed according to international law. There are no laws that make it legal.

• You are advocating for the Assad Government.

  I'm saying Israel committed an un-provoked act of aggression, this has nothing to do with the Assad government.
  
  
  

  You want to obstruct Israel from destroying illicit weapons, being used to suppress the people from exercising their right of self-determination.

  Israel has no right destroying anything that did not attack them first.
  
  
  

  You want to further the cause of the Ba'athist Regime against its own people.

No. My country has been at war for 10 years and I don't won't to be involved in another one. And I'm also getting sick of these war-mongering Israeli's. I wish they would pick a fight with Russia. Israeli's don't deserve a country.

You are suggesting that the Israelis are waging a "war of aggression." What is the Israeli motive?

• territorial gain?
• subjugation?
• military conquest?

Their motive is to drag the US into this conflict because they can't take on Russia by themselves, or they'll get their ass kicked.

Where is the Article 39 Action by the UN? (Determination of Aggression)

If you need someone telling you how wrong it is to attack someone that did not attack you first, then you've lost all sense of morality.

No, I think your argument has a hidden agenda. You are supporting action to strip the people of Syria of any support against a repressive regime that they would like to change. You support Hezbollah, which supports the Assad Government; both of which are supported by Iran.

I don't give a shit about the people of Syria and neither do you. I do care about a conflict that could lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia that if carried to the extreme, would result in the extinction of all life on planet earth.

The "Nuremberg Principles" were replaced by a modern set of law and codes. They represent a set of legal precedence; as all old legal principles and practices do; but, are not the system in use today.

But they weren't repealed, "aggression" is still illegal.

The "Wars of Aggression" are hostile actions taken by one side or the other for some purpose and benefit that could not be achieved though some peaceful means.

A war of aggression is the worst crime a nation can commit.

A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of "might makes right", under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law.

Nothing has made that legal.

EXAMPLE: The 1973 Yom Kipper War, was a "War of Aggression" to conquer and destroy the State of Israel, which they could not achieve through other means. It was a "sneak attack" by Egypt and Syria (including Expeditionary Forces from Iraq and Jordan). The purpose was to secure territorial gain and institute a regime change.​

Israel has started the last 6 wars they've been in.

The "War of Aggression" terminology is "Cold War" language of the 20th Century dogma.

The Cold War was about deterrence, not aggression. The US and Soviet Union never had a battle against each other.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

The "Nuremberg principles" have long since been overtaken by events and replaced by the ICJ/ICC/ Rome Statues:

But they weren't overturned or repealed, a "war of aggression" is still outlawed according to international law. There are no laws that make it legal.

• You are advocating for the Assad Government.

  I'm saying Israel committed an un-provoked act of aggression, this has nothing to do with the Assad government.
  
  
  Israel has no right destroying anything that did not attack them first.
  
  
  No. My country has been at war for 10 years and I don't won't to be involved in another one. And I'm also getting sick of these war-mongering Israeli's. I wish they would pick a fight with Russia. Israeli's don't deserve a country.
  
  
  Their motive is to drag the US into this conflict because they can't take on Russia by themselves, or they'll get their ass kicked.
  
  
  If you need someone telling you how wrong it is to attack someone that did not attack you first, then you've lost all sense of morality.
  
  
  I don't give a shit about the people of Syria and neither do you. I do care about a conflict that could lead to a direct military confrontation with Russia that if carried to the extreme, would result in the extinction of all life on planet earth.
  
  
  But they weren't repealed, "aggression" is still illegal.
  
  
  A war of aggression is the worst crime a nation can commit.
  
  Nothing has made that legal.
  
  
  

  EXAMPLE: The 1973 Yom Kipper War, was a "War of Aggression" to conquer and destroy the State of Israel, which they could not achieve through other means. It was a "sneak attack" by Egypt and Syria (including Expeditionary Forces from Iraq and Jordan). The purpose was to secure territorial gain and institute a regime change.​

  Israel has started the last 6 wars they've been in.
  
  
  

  The "War of Aggression" terminology is "Cold War" language of the 20th Century dogma.

  The Cold War was about deterrence, not aggression. The US and Soviet Union never had a battle against each other.

• 
  
  Well, at least you're being honest when you say that you don't give a shit about the people of Syria. I, for one, always root for the underdog in a fight. Must be that "David and Goliath" story I learned in Hebrew school as a kid. Then why don't I support the Palestinian "David" against the Goliath "Israel"? Because I view the Palestinians as being part of the Goliath Arab Empire as a whole. I don't get why your heart bleeds for Palestinian Arab farmers and fishermen but not Syrian Arab carpenters and shoemakers. Why do you give a shit about the Palestinian people?

 

[MJB12741]

Just curious. Are you an American? If so, why do you stay here & daily suffer in misery with all those Zionists in the USA when you can go live in Gaza? And you won't even have to pay taxes to Israel anymore. Heh Heh.

"An act of aggression"??? Try sending Iranian missiles to our radical Islamic enemies right here in the USA & see what we do.

I like how you consider that wrong (which, I do to), but you're perfectly okay with the US sending arms to al Qaeda cells in Syria, or arms shipments to Israel so they can launch un-provoked "acts of aggression" against their neighbors.

It's okay for Israel to wipe out a weapons depot in Syria in spite of the fact that they weren't attacked (or even threatened) by these weapons, but it is not okay for Iran to launch an attack against rebels that did attack them first.

The one type of person I hate more than any other, is a fuckin' hypocrite!

And you, are a fuckin' hypocrite, big-time!

 

[toastman]

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

Their goal wasn't keeping missles from reaching Hezbollah.

Israel is trying to drag my country into this conflict because it ain't got the chops to go up against Russia on its own.

YOUR country makes its own decision on weather to go to war or not. Stop with the conspiracy theories

 

[MJB12741]

Isn't it interesting how Israel's greatest enemies like loinboy are also America's greatest enemies?

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

Their goal wasn't keeping missles from reaching Hezbollah.

Israel is trying to drag my country into this conflict because it ain't got the chops to go up against Russia on its own.

YOUR country makes its own decision on weather to go to war or not. Stop with the conspiracy theories

 

[Hossfly]

"An act of aggression"??? Try sending Iranian missiles to our radical Islamic enemies right here in the USA & see what we do.

I like how you consider that wrong (which, I do to), but you're perfectly okay with the US sending arms to al Qaeda cells in Syria, or arms shipments to Israel so they can launch un-provoked "acts of aggression" against their neighbors.

It's okay for Israel to wipe out a weapons depot in Syria in spite of the fact that they weren't attacked (or even threatened) by these weapons, but it is not okay for Iran to launch an attack against rebels that did attack them first.

The one type of person I hate more than any other, is a fuckin' hypocrite!

And you, are a fuckin' hypocrite, big-time!

The mere presence of the weapons in that depot were a threat because of their proximity to Israel. Get real or get lost.

 

[toastman]

Isn't there a conspiracy section here for people like loinboy to stars thread about how Israel is responsible for everything bad in the Middle East

 

[Roudy]

loinboy, et al,

Let me get this straight.

et al,

The "Nuremberg principles" have long since been overtaken by events and replaced by the ICJ/ICC/ Rome Statues:

• Reference Links:
  • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

War Crimes are defined in Part II Article 8.

However, it is difficult to charge Israel with a War Crime, in this case, when they were interceding against an International Crime in progress (Enforcement of an Arms Embargo and U.N. Security Council ban on weapons exports by the Islamic Republic).

• Reference Links:
  • Sanctions Committee - 1737
  • UNODA - Small Arms and Light Weapons

Most Respectfully,
R

Member states of the UN cannot act uni-laterally on their own militarily against a sovereign nation, they need UNSC approval to do that.

And there are no laws that allow wars of aggression, the Nuremberg Principles were not over-turned.

(COMMENT)

• You are advocating for the Assad Government.
• You want to obstruct Israel from destroying illicit weapons, being used to suppress the people from exercising their right of self-determination.
• You want to further the cause of the Ba'athist Regime against its own people.

You are suggesting that the Israelis are waging a "war of aggression." What is the Israeli motive?

• territorial gain?
• subjugation?
• military conquest?

Where is the Article 39 Action by the UN? (Determination of Aggression)

No, I think your argument has a hidden agenda. You are supporting action to strip the people of Syria of any support against a repressive regime that they would like to change. You support Hezbollah, which supports the Assad Government; both of which are supported by Iran.

The "Nuremberg Principles" were replaced by a modern set of law and codes. They represent a set of legal precedence; as all old legal principles and practices do; but, are not the system in use today.

The "Wars of Aggression" are hostile actions taken by one side or the other for some purpose and benefit that could not be achieved though some peaceful means.

EXAMPLE: The 1973 Yom Kipper War, was a "War of Aggression" to conquer and destroy the State of Israel, which they could not achieve through other means. It was a "sneak attack" by Egypt and Syria (including Expeditionary Forces from Iraq and Jordan). The purpose was to secure territorial gain and institute a regime change.​

The "War of Aggression" terminology is "Cold War" language of the 20th Century dogma.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, I really admire your trying figure these lunatics out by spending all this time on an elegant, intelligent response, but its really very simple with them. Everything they say and do evolves around one thing....HATRED OF JEWS. As a result nothing Israel does can be right, even when it targets the armaments of a genocidal tyrant that has killed over 100,000 of his own people.

 

[Lipush]

No missiles for Hezbollah.....

Bummer!

lol.

Their goal wasn't keeping missles from reaching Hezbollah.

Israel is trying to drag my country into this conflict because it ain't got the chops to go up against Russia on its own.

You're an idiot!

Yes, their goals was trying to keep those missiles from Hezbollah's hands! And they suceeded this! thank God.

And Israel doesn't try to drag USA into anything! the attack was by Israeli hands, not involving your country in anyway!

In fact, it only shows people like you, who whine about Israel's "attempt" to drag USA into Syria, that you're wrong and badly so! these attacks show nothing but that we take our fate in our own hands! and not waiting for you! since you obviously prefer that those missiles will reach Hezbollah.

Yes, Obama is making himself look like a chicken. while he fills his mouth water, Netanyahu makes sure his civilians are protected.

Well done, indeed well done!

 

[RoccoR]

et al,

No matter who does what to whom, the White House needs to keep a very tight leash on DOD, DOS, and the CIA. We don't want to get involved. We are very bad at this, especially with the current leadership we have.

If this were such a big deal, and the death count actually meant something in the Arab world, then the Arabs (who have put together armies in the past to attack Israel) could send a relief column to Syria. But I don't think this is such a big deal to the Arabs. They will sit back and do nothing, --- watching America get sucked-in, as if we could make a difference.

The US needs to put as much distance as it can between Syria and anything that could draw us into to yet another political-military failure.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Isn't there a conspiracy section here for people like loinboy to stars thread about how Israel is responsible for everything bad in the Middle East

Speaking truth has nothing to do with spouting conspiracy theories. People who cannot face the truth call it conspiracy.

 

[MJB12741]

Oh yes, the truth Sherri, the truth. And the truth is NO MISSILES FOR HEZBOLLAH. God I love the truth, don't you?

Isn't there a conspiracy section here for people like loinboy to stars thread about how Israel is responsible for everything bad in the Middle East

Speaking truth has nothing to do with spouting conspiracy theories. People who cannot face the truth call it conspiracy.