Australian Politics Forum - WW3? An informed conservative perspective

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #195 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:27am

So all of your accusations against Israel are really nothing to do with Israel, they are just a segue into your whinge about the UN not having it's own army, or the only army?

Quote:

No, the Zionists were self-interested

To this day they have a strong interest in not being slaughtered for being Jewish. You make it sound like that is a bad thing.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #196 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:18am:

Under international law you cannot force people to be stateless.

That's what the Netanyahu Cabinet is doing.

Quote:

Yet that is what would happen if you insisted the locals could not "create a state" until the UN did.

Nice one: a people can say they "deserve" a state, and then proceed to take other people's land by force.

Quote:

In any case I am pretty sure you understanding of the international law is wrong.

Addressed in my previous two posts.

Quote:

So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #197 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:39am

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

Quote:

So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

The mind boggles. It's no surprise you support the CCP, despite them starving 50 million people to death through an "administrative error" and rewarding the leaders responsible.

Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #198 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:43pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:39am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

Quote:

So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

The mind boggles. It's no surprise you support the CCP, despite them starving 50 million people to death through an "administrative error" and rewarding the leaders responsible.

Nonsense, you lying (or low IQ) ideologue....

Quote:

Do you have any idea how absurd you sound?

I know you are incapable of debating the issues - which is why you grabbed hold of my answer to your final (typical) GIGO question, rather than addressing the earlier points I made in that post.

Not surprinsing from a delusional "individual freedom" ideologue who thinks "shared belief"/"subjective reality" = objective reality.

Delusion: (def.) a fixed false belief not amenable to external evidence.

Deplorable - a prize example of the "human condition" resulting in your "freedom or death" absurd ideological monstrosities.

"All must submit to rule of law, for all to be free": Cicero.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:48pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49091 At my desk.	Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Reply #199 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:46pm I am not sure what there is left to debate. I feel like I am resorting to argumentum ad absurdum, except you keep agreeing with me.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #200 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:53pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:46pm:

I am not sure what there is left to debate. I feel like I am resorting to argumentum ad absurdum, except you keep agreeing with me.

Keep agreeing with you?

In my #196, I refuted every point you made, apart from your final misconstued question with which I agreed: there is no effective international law at this stage.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 46568
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #201 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:15am:

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:36pm:

Quote:

The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law.*

The UN approved the creation of the two states side by side.

Correct

Quote:

The Jews accepted the UN's resolution, the Arabs didn't.

Correct.

Quote:

On what basis do you say the Jews had no right to create a state along the approved UN lines?

On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto).

Quote:

What other international law requirement was missing?

Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today.

Quote:

The approval of Muslims who have been hellbent on wiping them out since the 7th century, in accordance with they creed that says there will be peace only when all the Jews are killed by Muslims?

Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels.

Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege.....

Quote:

Give us ONE example where the UN created a state, you eyewateringly stupid ijit, and the international law that empowers it to do so.

You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage.

Re the UN's ability to create a state:

https://kentlaw.iit.edu/

The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ...

Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist.

So the UN DIDN'T have the ability to create states then and doesn't have the ability now, 75 years later. But the Jews should have waited.

You are an idiot. And absurd, stupid idiot.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #202 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm

Quote:

Keep agreeing with you?

Only when I accuse you of saying the most absurd things.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

Quote:

So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #203 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:04pm

Frank wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:15am:

Frank wrote on Apr 24^th, 2024 at 7:36pm:

Quote:

The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law.*

The UN approved the creation of the two states side by side.

Correct

Quote:

The Jews accepted the UN's resolution, the Arabs didn't.

Correct.

Quote:

On what basis do you say the Jews had no right to create a state along the approved UN lines?

On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto).

Quote:

What other international law requirement was missing?

Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today.

Quote:

The approval of Muslims who have been hellbent on wiping them out since the 7th century, in accordance with they creed that says there will be peace only when all the Jews are killed by Muslims?

Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels.

Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege.....

Quote:

Give us ONE example where the UN created a state, you eyewateringly stupid ijit, and the international law that empowers it to do so.

You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage.

Re the UN's ability to create a state:

https://kentlaw.iit.edu/

The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ...

Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist.

So the UN DIDN'T have the ability to create states then and doesn't have the ability now, 75 years later.

Did you miss it?: "This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states"...(may authorize the UN to create new states).

Quote:

But the Jews should have waited.

Of course, rather than go to war with people who objected to their land (Palestine mandate land) being confiscated to create a new state.

Quote:

You are an idiot. And absurd, stupid idiot.

See my reply to FD; you are suffering the same delusions as him.

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #204 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:12pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:

Quote:

Keep agreeing with you?

Only when I accuse you of saying the most absurd things.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

[quote]So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

I agreed with your ideologically misconstrued question; while noting an individual group cannot set up a UN sanctioned state by themselves when another group objects. Only the UNSC can adjudicate the matter - except that the UNSC is rendered powerless by your "individual freedom" delusions.

Catch-22.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49091
At my desk.

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #205 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:13pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:

Quote:

Keep agreeing with you?

Only when I accuse you of saying the most absurd things.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

[quote]So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

I agreed with your ideologically misconstrued question; while noting an individual group cannot set up a UN sanctioned state by themselves when another group objects. Only the UNSC can adjudicate the matter - except that the UNSC is rendered powerless by your "individual freedom" delusions.

Catch-22.

This "another group" being the Muslims who object in principle to Israel's existence?

Are you just making up rules as you go along?

Also, what is an "individual group"?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #206 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:22pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:27am:

So all of your accusations against Israel are really nothing to do with Israel, they are just a segue into your whinge about the UN not having it's own army, or the only army?

Your error there: both propositions are important (stop displaying your nuance-less, black and white brain...)

Quote:

To this day they have a strong interest in not being slaughtered for being Jewish. You make it sound like that is a bad thing.

This debate - and that above statement - is at least important for showing why political discourse in the demoracies is so hyperpartisan and insane these days.

1. No-one likes being slaughtered for whatever reason; the causes require examination.

2. Genocide is always deplorable, whoever does it.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49091 At my desk.	Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Reply #207 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:28pm Apologies, that statement was from back before I realised just how absurd your position is.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12978
Gender: male

Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective
Reply #208 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:30pm

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:13pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:12pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 2:56pm:

Quote:

Keep agreeing with you?

Only when I accuse you of saying the most absurd things.

thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25^th, 2024 at 11:31am:

[quote]So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day?

Yes.

I agreed with your ideologically misconstrued question; while noting an individual group cannot set up a UN sanctioned state by themselves when another group objects. Only the UNSC can adjudicate the matter - except that the UNSC is rendered powerless by your "individual freedom" delusions.

Catch-22. ...no need to apolologise for low IQ, you can still learn.

This "another group" being the Muslims who object in principle to Israel's existence?

Yes.

Quote:

Are you just making up rules as you go along?

No.

Quote:

Also, what is an "individual group"?

In this case, a group who wanted to carve a state out of other people's land (which was sanctioned by the UN) vote) - as opposed to the creation of a state (or states) under international law...law which is ineffective at this stage, owing to your delusioal "individual freedom" ideology.

Catch-22.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49091 At my desk.	Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Reply #209 - Apr 25^th, 2024 at 3:34pm Can you quote the relevant legislation that you are paraphrasing? If a visiting foreigner had helped them out, would that mean they were no longer breaking the law, because they were not acting as an "individual group by themselves"?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged