IDF vs Hamas naval commando

[JUBA]

Didn't the Israelis take that ship ?

The only thing i saw is their "special" (as in retarded) forces crying


It reminded me of this

Oh btw how's your Mexican husband doing ? tell him i said hi .......

 

[punit]

The thrashing is your continued inability to understand that ANY law on earth -- from parking zones to national borders -- is backed by force of guns. If the authority issuing a law lacks the military power to enforce the laws, then the law is worthless.

The UN's "legitimacy" is by force of military power of the major powers, most of whom are pro-Israel or, at best, neutral. None of the UNSC members -- who are the military muscle behind the UN -- are staunchly pro-Arab.



Modern laws about occupation are a recent advent; they did not apply prior to the world wars. The League of Nations was an impotent farce.

Britain's decision to steal Palestinian land and give it to the Jews was made when colonialists had free rein over what they did. Look up any number of treaties that the colonialists (British, French, Dutch) signed amongst themselves and with others. There was absolutely no consideration given to the people living on the land.

As for the example I gave, France was in no position to cede anything. Germany was the conqueror and could do whatever they wished. In case you missed the analogy, France = Palestinians, Germany = Britain, and Africans = Jews in that example.



Because Pakistan is weak and the leaders of Pakistan like to make noises without actually doing anything.

why blame pakistani politicians
ur army tried to snatch kashmir so many ti
mes. they failed too!

 

[boomslang]

The only thing i saw is their "special" (as in retarded) forces crying


It reminded me of this

Oh btw how's your Mexican husband doing ?tell him i said hi .......

How many Iraqis' cried ? And Afghanis ? And Pakistanis ? And what's with you guys ? When someone kicks you around on this site, you either go to 'You are a false flagger' or you go to gay shit ? Why's that stuff ALWAYS on your minds ?

 

[JUBA]

You want a second round my dear sausage licker ? Ok.

How many Iraqis' cried ? And Afghanis ? And Pakistanis?

As far as i'm concerned they didn't cry out of fear from your pathetic kind, how embarrassing can it get for you, all that firepower and you still sh!t your pants when facing a bunch of farmers

And what's with you guys ? When someone kicks you around

Boy you can't kcik sh!t

you either go to 'You are a false flagger' or you go to gay shit ? Why's that stuff ALWAYS on your minds ?

Are you a false flagger ?
I mean judging by how low your IQ is you look like real American to me
Gay ? ok you're little insecure, don't worry we understand, you should take your time and decides when it's the right time for you and your Mexican husband to come out of your little tiny closet, you're society is very tolerant i'm sure, no worries buddy.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The thrashing is your continued inability to understand that ANY law on earth -- from parking zones to national borders -- is backed by force of guns. If the authority issuing a law lacks the military power to enforce the laws, then the law is worthless.

The UN's "legitimacy" is by force of military power of the major powers, most of whom are pro-Israel or, at best, neutral. None of the UNSC members -- who are the military muscle behind the UN -- are staunchly pro-Arab.

Modern laws about occupation are a recent advent; they did not apply prior to the world wars. The League of Nations was an impotent farce.

Britain's decision to steal Palestinian land and give it to the Jews was made when colonialists had free rein over what they did. Look up any number of treaties that the colonialists (British, French, Dutch) signed amongst themselves and with others. There was absolutely no consideration given to the people living on the land.

As for the example I gave, France was in no position to cede anything. Germany was the conqueror and could do whatever they wished. In case you missed the analogy, France = Palestinians, Germany = Britain, and Africans = Jews in that example.

Because Pakistan is weak and the leaders of Pakistan like to make noises without actually doing anything.

What you fail to understand is that a Veto power has no power to create International Law.
Veto power gives the capability to stop creation, which is not the same thing.

For creation of a binding resolution, you need a majority in the SC voting for it, and no Veto.
In the voting procedure the vote of a permanent member has the same weight as the vote
of a non-permanent member. Only when a resolution is in force, the military power
has any significance.

I never believed nor claimed that countries like Latvia could enforce a resolution.

Britain did not steal Palestinian Land. They fought the Ottoman Empire, which subsequently
ceded the land in a Treaty. Until the treaty was signed, they were occupying the territory.
They never gave any land to Jews. They allowed immigration of Jews which purchased land from
rich Arabs. All perfectly legal.

Germany only partially occupied France in the beginning. The remainder was under control
of the Vichy regime. The occupation did not change the territorial status of occupied France,
so laws pertaining occupation apply. As you say they are much improved after WW2.

The Vichy-regime could have signed a Treaty ceding parts of occupied France to Germany.
They were certainly in a position to do this.

Then You go on and explain the obvious part of your failed example.

What everyone claiming immigration is illegal fails to do,
is to show exactly what crimes have been committed by a group of jews,
which immigrates from Poland to the British Mandate in, lets say 1925,
and then purchases land from a rich Arab.
If noone immigrating has committed any crimes, then their legality cannot be questioned.

You may question the laws, and they can be changed, but retroactive laws
are not conformant with modern principles of justice.

 

[Developereo]

What you fail to understand is that a Veto power has no power to create International Law.

What you fail to understand is plain English and elementary logic. I didn't mention veto power because it is irrelevant. I mentioned military power. The UNSC permanent members also have the biggest military power on the planet. The fact that they have veto power is a secondary consequence of their military power.

Once again, perhaps this will penetrate this time:

-- Every single law on the planet is backed by force of guns.
-- Every single one -- from parking zones to national boundaries.

To say that something is "legal" is simply another way of saying that the entity backing such "legality" has the biggest guns.

The US refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC because the US has the military muscle to do so.
Israel ignores UN resolutions because it knows the US will back it.
Somalia can't ignore any resolutions.

Until you understand this simple principle, which has existed since day one and will continue to exist until the last day, you will not understand what this whole discussion is about.

Britain did not steal Palestinian Land. They fought the Ottoman Empire, which subsequently
ceded the land in a Treaty. Until the treaty was signed, they were occupying the territory.
They never gave any land to Jews. They allowed immigration of Jews which purchased land from
rich Arabs. All perfectly legal.

More falsehoods from you. YOU may be brainwashed by Zionist propaganda, but reality won't change.

Jews only bought a minuscule percentage of the land comprising Israel. Most of it was conquered by force of guns.

Britain was an occupying colonial power and it allowed the Jews to colonize the land against the wished of the local people.

Germany only partially occupied France in the beginning. The remainder was under control
of the Vichy regime. The occupation did not change the territorial status of occupied France,
so laws pertaining occupation apply. As you say they are much improved after WW2.

The Vichy-regime could have signed a Treaty ceding parts of occupied France to Germany.
They were certainly in a position to do this.

When you invade a country and start bombing its cities, you pretty much give the finger to international laws. Germany could have allowed mass migration of Africans to France (the parts under German control) just as Britain allowed Jews to colonize Palestine.

What everyone claiming immigration is illegal fails to do,
is to show exactly what crimes have been committed by a group of jews,
which immigrates from Poland to the British Mandate in, lets say 1925,
and then purchases land from a rich Arab.

As I explained, the part about "purchasing land" is a lie. Only a minuscule portion of the land was purchased. Most of current Israel was conquered by force of guns.

The crime committed by the migrating Jews was to collaborate with a colonial power to colonize a piece of land from the locals.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

What you fail to understand is plain English and elementary logic. I didn't mention veto power because it is irrelevant. I mentioned military power. The UNSC permanent members also have the biggest military power on the planet. The fact that they have veto power is a secondary consequence of their military power.

Once again, perhaps this will penetrate this time:

-- Every single law on the planet is backed by force of guns.
-- Every single one -- from parking zones to national boundaries.

To say that something is "legal" is simply another way of saying that the entity backing such "legality" has the biggest guns.

The US refuses to accept the jurisdiction of the ICC because the US has the military muscle to do so.
Israel ignores UN resolutions because it knows the US will back it.
Somalia can't ignore any resolutions.

Until you understand this simple principle, which has existed since day one and will continue to exist until the last day, you will not understand what this whole discussion is about.

More falsehoods from you. YOU may be brainwashed by Zionist propaganda, but reality won't change.

Jews only bought a minuscule percentage of the land comprising Israel. Most of it was conquered by force of guns.

Britain was an occupying colonial power and it allowed the Jews to colonize the land against the wished of the local people.

When you invade a country and start bombing its cities, you pretty much give the finger to international laws. Germany could have allowed mass migration of Africans to France (the parts under German control) just as Britain allowed Jews to colonize Palestine.



As I explained, the part about "purchasing land" is a lie. Only a minuscule portion of the land was purchased. Most of current Israel was conquered by force of guns.

The crime committed by the migrating Jews was to collaborate with a colonial power to colonize a piece of land from the locals.

You live apparently in a Medieval Society with a Medieval Mind.
Modern International Law is created through conventions which countries may or may not agree to.
Once agreed to they are bound by the convention.
Generally, they follow convention because it makes sense.
If they don't then there may, or may not be ways to make them change.
Quite often, European countries are sued by the EU commission, and are forced to change their laws.
I have personally complained to the EU commision about a fee, that was levied by Denmark
on foreign credit cards, but not on Danish Credit cards. One year later, Denmark changed the law.
My military might is, if not zero, damned close to zero.

No country, regardless of its military power can force through such a convention.
They can block, and render it useless, since their effect on the issue may make or break,
but they CANNOT enforce a convention.
Only when International Law has been created, military might can be used to enforce it.

Any country could refuse to give ICC jurisdiction. The Palestinians has chosen not to,
simply because their whole leadership would soon be between bars.
Their military might is close to non-existent.

Jews only owned the land they had purchased until the creation of Israel.
When UN presented the partition plan, they did not suggest that actual ownership
of any piece of property must change ownership.
The state of Israel was declared, attacked by Arabs, and the borders became that of the cease-fire.
That does not mean that Jews automatically own more property.

When You invade a country, you are bound by the conventions you have signed.
You Sir, are out of touch with the real world.

Crime assume that you are breaking a law. There is no law criminalizing "collaboration".
You just fail at providing any argument supporting your position.

Give sources for any such law, or be defeated.

 

[blain2]

I was quite amused by armchair warrior comments all over this thread putting down the Palestinian fighters. It takes heart, courage, determination and devotion to what you believe in to carry out such missions. Who in their right mind would volunteer to go for such a raid/interdiction operation in a hostile area, without any robust exfil plan, without any air support, against a dominating enemy with massive firepower available to it?

In the vernacular I would say it takes gurda and jigger, to challenge an adversary that has all the technology at its disposal. For these chaps to get out there on nothing more than an inflatable and challenge the Israelis, knowing fully well that not a single one of them will return, is a matter of guts that most here don't have. The reason they do this is obviously to let the Israelis know that despite being outgunned, they will continue to challenge. Obviously a sacrifice in such a way has a huge religious significance too for the Palestinians.

 

[Developereo]

You live apparently in a Medieval Society with a Medieval Mind.

You are denying reality. ANY law on earth is enforced by guns.

The reason your country can suggest laws in the EU is because there is a balance of power in Europe, and no one country can impose its will on the others. If any one country had overwhelming power, it could enact any law it wanted. The charade about "consensus" is a PR campaign. It lets the strong countries pretend they are playing nice, and it lets the weaker countries retain self-respect by pretending they are "consenting" to the established order.

The situation in Ukraine is a case in point. When a strong country wants something, it takes it, and all the laws and conventions can go hang. If you think that, under the right circumstances, such a thing cannot happen in Western Europe, you are living in a fantasy world.

On the ICC, the reason any country can opt out is because the US has allowed it to be an option. If the US declared that ICC rulings are akin to UNSC resolutions, enforced by military might, then no country could reject ICC rulings.

To sum it up, we are going in circles. You keep saying that the actions of Britain, Jews and Israel were "legal" and I am saying that "legal" is just a fancy word for "might is right".

The guy with the biggest guns (and the biggest checkbook) writes the rules.

P.S. I will give you another example.

Say I am a strong country X who captures Sweden. I now decide to allow millions of Africans to come and colonize Stockholm, kicking out most Swedes.

How are my actions any different to what Britain did in Palestine?

If Britain's actions were "legal", then so are mine. If mine are "illegal", then so were Britain's.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are denying reality. ANY law on earth is enforced by guns.

The reason your country can suggest laws in the EU is because there is a balance of power in Europe, and no one country can impose its will on the others. If any one country had overwhelming power, it could enact any law it wanted. The charade about "consensus" is a PR campaign. It lets the strong countries pretend they are playing nice, and it lets the weaker countries retain self-respect by pretending they are "consenting" to the established order.

The situation in Ukraine is a case in point. When a strong country wants something, it takes it, and all the laws and conventions can go hang. If you think that, under the right circumstances, such a thing cannot happen in Western Europe, you are living in a fantasy world.

On the ICC, the reason any country can opt out is because the US has allowed it to be an option. If the US declared that ICC rulings are akin to UNSC resolutions, enforced by military might, then no country could reject ICC rulings.

To sum it up, we are going in circles. You keep saying that the actions of Britain, Jews and Israel were "legal" and I am saying that "legal" is just a fancy word for "might is right".

The guy with the biggest guns (and the biggest checkbook) writes the rules.

P.S. I will give you another example.

Say I am a strong country X who captures Sweden. I now decide to allow millions of Africans to come and colonize Stockholm, kicking out most Swedes.

How are my actions any different to what Britain did in Palestine?

If Britain's actions were "legal", then so are mine. If mine are "illegal", then so were Britain's.

You are saying that all laws are created due to Military power which is NOT the case.
The US has certainly the power to overthrow most conventions but its inner values
will make it prefer a consensus agreement over its own decision.
This is still in development. George H. W. Bush did not attack Iraq alone,
He sought legality in the UN.

In the EU, the countries have voluntarily given EU jurisdiction over certain issues.
EU "constitution" gives every member a veto. They do not need to consent.
Each country votes for their government and thus their representatives to the EU.
Thus all laws are passed without military power being involved.
Enforcements of laws are through state power in the form of Police.
Democracy itself is upheld through force of the Police/Armed forces.
To claim that laws are CREATED through military power is still absurd.

The fact that some things may happen due to military power, does not make it a General Rule.
A country which has veto power can break any International Law, without beeing
criticized in the SC, but will have to handle the reaction of its peers, which Russia is now finding out.
Their power cannot be used to CREATE International Law.

ALL countries have a choice in which conventions they want to sign, and this predates the US.

If somone conquers Sweden, it would become an occupied territory, and the Geneva Conventions normally apply
and they may not transfer their own citizens into Sweden, also they may not transfer Swedes out of Sweden permanently. Swedes, like Arabs in the British Mandate are allowed to move out.
If they do that before the area is occupied, then they do not have the right to come back.
If they do it after the area has been occupied, they do.
There is no law that says that country X cannot let non-X citizens immigrate to Sweden after occupation starts.
If country X has not signed the Geneva convention, they can legally both import Africans and kick-out Swedes.
There would likely be world protests anyway.

If Sweden, in a treaty signs away part or whole territory to country X, then they can import as many Africans as they want.

As for kick-out, Arabs were not kicked-out, they left because it was in their perceived interest.

 

[Pak_Sher]

Its a bird. Its a plane. No...those are bodies of dead terrorists flying.
Good job IDF. Keep up the good work.

Another act of terrorism by the terrorist Zionist state of Israel. Hindus stop the Jew tatay chukee.

 

[Developereo]

You are saying that all laws are created due to Military power which is NOT the case.
The US has certainly the power to overthrow most conventions but its inner values
will make it prefer a consensus agreement over its own decision.
This is still in development. George H. W. Bush did not attack Iraq alone,
He sought legality in the UN.

In the EU, the countries have voluntarily given EU jurisdiction over certain issues.
EU "constitution" gives every member a veto. They do not need to consent.
Each country votes for their government and thus their representatives to the EU.
Thus all laws are passed without military power being involved.
Enforcements of laws are through state power in the form of Police.
Democracy itself is upheld through force of the Police/Armed forces.
To claim that laws are CREATED through military power is still absurd.

The fact that some things may happen due to military power, does not make it a General Rule.
A country which has veto power can break any International Law, without beeing
criticized in the SC, but will have to handle the reaction of its peers, which Russia is now finding out.
Their power cannot be used to CREATE International Law.

The fact that you are lying shows how desperate you are.
I said all laws are backed by force of guns.

Anyone can create any law they want. YOU can create a law that makes ice cream illegal on Wednesdays.

But the fact remains that any law is worthless unless there's military power behind it to enforce the law.

Your little example of US getting UN approval shows how little you know about politics and human relations. The US gets UN approval strictly for PR purposes. PR to the world to say it is playing nice, and -- most importantly -- PR to the American public to say that America is the defender of freedom and rule of law.

The fact remains that, if the situation dictates, the US will do whatever is necessary for its national interests. It may do it directly, covertly, or through intermediaries. And the US is not alone. Any country with the means will do the same.

Any government in the world is elected, paid, and expected to serve that nation's interests, not the UN's.

If somone conquers Sweden, it would become an occupied territory, and the Geneva Conventions normally apply
and they may not transfer their own citizens into Sweden, also they may not transfer Swedes out of Sweden permanently. Swedes, like Arabs in the British Mandate are allowed to move out.
If they do that before the area is occupied, then they do not have the right to come back.
If they do it after the area has been occupied, they do.
There is no law that says that country X cannot let non-X citizens immigrate to Sweden after occupation starts.
If country X has not signed the Geneva convention, they can legally both import Africans and kick-out Swedes.
There would likely be world protests anyway.

If Sweden, in a treaty signs away part or whole territory to country X, then they can import as many Africans as they want.

You are again jumping all over the place. Country X captured Sweden. It needs jack all from Sweden. It doesn't give a damn whether Sweden signs some document or not. The only reason Sweden would sign any documents is to save itself from being bombed into the stone age.

Once country X dominates Sweden, it can do whatever it wants. If it is sufficiently powerful, it can ignore ANY convention int he world, including the Geneva Convention. If it wants to imports millions of people from anywhere in the world, it can do that and get away with it,

You just don't get it. If you are powerful enough, you make your own laws.

As for kick-out, Arabs were not kicked-out, they left because it was in their perceived interest.

Nice fiction. I won't waste time educating you since it's hard to correct a lifetime of Zionist brainwashing.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

The fact that you are lying shows how desperate you are.
I said all laws are backed by force of guns.

Anyone can create any law they want. YOU can create a law that makes ice cream illegal on Wednesdays.

But the fact remains that any law is worthless unless there's military power behind it to enforce the law.

Your little example of US getting UN approval shows how little you know about politics and human relations. The US gets UN approval strictly for PR purposes. PR to the world to say it is playing nice, and -- most importantly -- PR to the American public to say that America is the defender of freedom and rule of law.

The fact remains that, if the situation dictates, the US will do whatever is necessary for its national interests. It may do it directly, covertly, or through intermediaries. And the US is not alone. Any country with the means will do the same.

Any government in the world is elected, paid, and expected to serve that nation's interests, not the UN's.



You are again jumping all over the place. Country X captured Sweden. It needs jack all from Sweden. It doesn't give a damn whether Sweden signs some document or not. The only reason Sweden would sign any documents is to save itself from being bombed into the stone age.

Once country X dominates Sweden, it can do whatever it wants. If it is sufficiently powerful, it can ignore ANY convention int he world, including the Geneva Convention. If it wants to imports millions of people from anywhere in the world, it can do that and get away with it,

You just don't get it. If you are powerful enough, you make your own laws.



Nice fiction. I won't waste time educating you since it's hard to correct a lifetime of Zionist brainwashing.

The basics for creating laws is the willingness of people to accept them.
In early days laws were accepted or else.
Nowadays laws are created through democratic processes, and enforced by state power.

You really cannot see the difference between creating a law, and enforcing a law, can you?

Reason for obeying a law, which may be to your disadvantage could be that you are afraid
of punishment, OR you believe that you gain more, if you live in a society ruled by law,
than you gain in a society ruled by military force.

If you are powerful, you can behave the way you want, but that does not make it law.

 

[Developereo]

The basics for creating laws is the willingness of people to accept them.
In early days laws were accepted or else.
Nowadays laws are created through democratic processes, and enforced by state power.

You really cannot see the difference between creating a law, and enforcing a law, can you?

Reason for obeying a law, which may be to your disadvantage could be that you are afraid
of punishment, OR you believe that you gain more, if you live in a society ruled by law,
than you gain in a society ruled by military force.

You still don't get it.

The power to enforce the law is the foundation of all legal systems. The authority to create laws is assigned to a legislative body to streamline the process, but the bottom line is still the gun.

When Sweden's government passes a law, here's the fine print: "the Swedish government, law enforcement, and, worst case, the Swedish military, are prepared to enforce this law. Either follow it or be prepared to face the consequences."

If you are powerful, you can behave the way you want, but that does not make it law.

It sure does.

If I am a powerful country, I can withdraw from the UN and create my own parallel body. Using my guns, checkbook, and shared interests with like-minded countries, we can create our own set of laws to declare anything we like as illegal. Moreover, we can declare the UN illegal, nullifying ALL its laws and resolutions.

Once again, bottom line, if you have the guns (and they money) you can set up your own legal framework.

 

[EagleEyes]

I was quite amused by armchair warrior comments all over this thread putting down the Palestinian fighters. It takes heart, courage, determination and devotion to what you believe in to carry out such missions. Who in their right mind would volunteer to go for such a raid/interdiction operation in a hostile area, without any robust exfil plan, without any air support, against a dominating enemy with massive firepower available to it?

In the vernacular I would say it takes gurda and jigger, to challenge an adversary that has all the technology at its disposal. For these chaps to get out there on nothing more than an inflatable and challenge the Israelis, knowing fully well that not a single one of them will return, is a matter of guts that most here don't have. The reason they do this is obviously to let the Israelis know that despite being outgunned, they will continue to challenge. Obviously a sacrifice in such a way has a huge religious significance too for the Palestinians.

Most of the Indians cheering for Israel are Hindus, they have no allegiance to Muslims, so anytime when they see a superior force annihilating innocents and those that defend them, they will come out and support them like cheerleaders with no sense of strategic understanding.

The higher ups though in India understand this situation well and look forward to restraining Israel from bombing Palestinians.