Ban Ki-moon calls Israeli settlement expansion an 'affront' to the world

moon2012 said:
No. Israel actually started the 1967 war. That's a fact. The only war which Israel didn't initiate was the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Remember- so-called 'pre-emptive ' wars are illegal . Self-defense must never comprise wars of aggression in themselves- and Israel attacked first.

Another myth broken. Prepare to repel Ziontrolls.
Click to expand...

So I get to tell you that I'm going to punch you in the nose, I make a fist, pull my arm back and line everything up with your nose, and you can't do anything, until I punch you in the nose.

Boy do I want to meet you. :D
 
After reading all of Moon's "input", I have now changed my mind.

I hope the Palestinians do something so stupid that Israel just goes ahead and removes them from the area and let them go live in one of the surrounding Arab States.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You stated that Israel wasn't Israel, before 1848 and I provided irrefutable evidence that you're wrong; you should therefore own your failure and take comfort in it. :chesh:
Click to expand...

Correct- there's was no Israel before 1948. You've simply attempted to state that the word existed- and even then you refuse to produce the context in which it might have been used.
We are talking in terms of states, not words. " irrefutable evidence " you said.
Here's your chance to engage in grown-up conversation on a political discussion board. Over to you- you're in the spotlight where you like it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
After reading all of Moon's "input", I have now changed my mind.

I hope the Palestinians do something so stupid that Israel just goes ahead and removes them from the area and let them go live in one of the surrounding Arab States.
Click to expand...

NeoZionist criminals will all be talking about this new-found support.
 
moon2012 said:
Really ? So you've no objection to Chinese fishing fleets in the Gulf ? How about American diplomats being arrested overseas for non-payment of traffic tickets ? What about the US navy being barred from international waters ? Consider Airforce One being buzzed over the open Pacific ? Give stuff a good think before speaking.
Click to expand...

None of that makes any sense. The US and China can come to terms about fishing rights in the Gulf of Mexico and the South China Sea without assistance from other parties. Diplomats have had a longstanding tradition of being dealt with the way we have come to expect, but if a country chooses to revoke diplomatic immunity, then they are going to hear about it from every nation who does business with them. Who is going to kick a nation out of international waters, when no one nation has a claim to them, exactly (if it's the UN, then most nations and their navies are simply going to laugh)? If AF1 gets buzzed over the Pacific, some country is going to regret attempting to cause problems over international waters, because the US as the injured party, can handle the situation itself.
 
Eno L. Camino said:
None of that makes any sense. The US and China can come to terms about fishing rights in the Gulf of Mexico and the South China Sea without assistance from other parties.
Click to expand...

Can't you see that international law facilitates any such agreements ? Without it, what's to stop China declaring that its territorial waters extend 500 miles ? What will your hypothetic ' agreement ' be based upon and what will support it ? The military ?
The same applies to your other scenarios.
 
moon2012 said:
Can't you see that international law facilitates any such agreements ? Without it, what's to stop China declaring that its territorial waters extend 500 miles ? What will your hypothetic ' agreement ' be based upon and what will support it ? The military ?
The same applies to your other scenarios.
Click to expand...

What is to stop China from declaring this right now, under international law?
 
Eno L. Camino said:
What is to stop China from declaring this right now, under international law?
Click to expand...

This;

Territorial waters or a territorial sea as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (both military and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it; this sovereignty also extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime delimitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Click to expand...
 
Eno L. Camino said:
Yes, I'm well aware of the 12 NM law regarding sovereignty. Why would international law deter a nation that is determined to do its own thing? You place too much faith on inert bodies such as the EU.
Click to expand...


You're deteriorating into bluster. Your ' questions ' are becoming very silly.
 
moon2012 said:
Correct- there's was no Israel before 1948. You've simply attempted to state that the word existed- and even then you refuse to produce the context in which it might have been used.
We are talking in terms of states, not words. " irrefutable evidence " you said.
Here's your chance to engage in grown-up conversation on a political discussion board. Over to you- you're in the spotlight where you like it.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you reveal what you FEEL the mention of ISREAL meant, when it was referenced back in the late 13th century BCE. :D
<this should be good>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top