Trump trashes internatioinal law

Northwestman said:
So a court will decide for Bush, but you have decided against Israel when no court has done so.

Don't you think that is contradictory?
Click to expand...

It seems that you're not entirely on top of the concept of international law. If a state acts in contravention of customary law, specific ratified treaties and agreements, United Nations membership commitments, etc. then that state is recognized as acting illegally without recourse to the international courts for some form of declaration- which is what you appear to be seeking. The United Nations General Assembly is empowered to judge illegalities according to the laws already enshrined in the UN structure. That's what it's for.
The Security Council is the executive arm of the United Nations. That means that the SC is empowered to order action against states which act in contravention of international law. The structure of the SC is such that any permanent member can veto such action- and the US veto is all that has kept Israel alive for sixty years. That doesn't mean to say that Israel isn't already guilty of breaches of international law, it simply means that Washington Zionists have- so far- managed to prevent the international community from taking action against it.

So- Trump is promoting the trashing of established international law and , were he POTUS, he would be inciting criminality by openly supporting Israel's illegal settlement program. Smug neoZionism supporters might think that that's the end of the matter- but the rest of the international community, those who depend upon international law in all of their international dealings- will seek retribution against the United States, whether the president who seeks to trash international law is Trump, Clinton or any other Washington neoZionist.

We do not live in a world wherein it is wise to have the international community seeking retribution against the United States. Past leaders have been wary enough to simply punt the issue of Israeli criminality. Should one actually endorse it then the international shit will well and truly hit the international fan.
Have you any idea how deep in debt the US is to China ?
 
Last edited:
Rana said:
I have mostly ignored this poster for the last 10 years. You will find great solace if you do as well.
Click to expand...

I quite enjoy humiliating the dumbass. He's absolutely desperate to learn how to be intelligent.
Your cool is admirable, mind.
 
Milagro said:
Maybe you ought to actually start reading those UN Resolutions especially 242.
Click to expand...

Hello- somebody is anxious to disgorge his latest hasbara handout. Let's cut him off at the pass.

Withdrawal from Territories
The most controversial clause in Resolution 242 is the call for the "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."
Click to expand...

There's nothing ' controversial ' about it at all. Any ' controversy ' is simply belly-wind from gutted neoZionist fascists, and their supporters . ' Territories ' means ALL territories and the absence of the definite article in the ENGLISH text does not detract from that . The well-known example illustrates this;
' Dogs are not allowed in ponds in the park ' does not mean that dogs are allowed in some ponds but not in others. By the same token- ' Israel must withdraw from occupied territories ' does not mean that it can remain in occupation of some of them. Any honest person appreciates that- scurrilous neoZionists and their lickspittles know that full well. Their protest is the belly-wind of shysters.

In addition, the definite article WAS included in the text given to those parties who wanted it in French, the United Nations other official language of the time. Thus Resolution 242 unambiguously demands the withdrawal of Israelis from ALL occupied territories and they don't have an iota of an excuse to remain. ' Facts on the ground ' can be quickly dismantled .
 
moon2012 said:
Hello- somebody is anxious to disgorge his latest hasbara handout. Let's cut him off at the pass.



There's nothing ' controversial ' about it at all. Any ' controversy ' is simply belly-wind from gutted neoZionist fascists, and their supporters . ' Territories ' means ALL territories and the absence of the definite article in the ENGLISH text does not detract from that . The well-known example illustrates this;
' Dogs are not allowed in ponds in the park ' does not mean that dogs are allowed in some ponds but not in others. By the same token- ' Israel must withdraw from occupied territories ' does not mean that it can remain in occupation of some of them. Any honest person appreciates that- scurrilous neoZionists and their lickspittles know that full well. Their protest is the belly-wind of shysters.

In addition, the definite article WAS included in the text given to those parties who wanted it in French, the United Nations other official language of the time. Thus Resolution 242 unambiguously demands the withdrawal of Israelis from ALL occupied territories and they don't have an iota of an excuse to remain. ' Facts on the ground ' can be quickly dismantled .
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no way in this world that Israel will retreat back to the 1967 border, as it is and was indefensible. Tel Aviv was only 11 miles away from artillery barrages in the West Bank and they will never go back to that situation, especially with loonies like Hamas around. You can piss into the wind all you like but it won't make an iota of difference. Maybe you could contact your Hamas and Hezbollah mates and tell them that your mission has failed?

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/MandateN2 - 10-29-07-English.pdf
 
Last edited:
Milagro said:
There is absolutely no way in this world that Israel will retreat back to the 1967 border, as it is and was indefensible.
Click to expand...

Israel will be compelled to comply with international law sooner or later. Your bleating ' no way ' amounts to wishful thinking. Palestine must have defensible borders too- and the international community supports that view.

Tel Aviv was only 11 miles away from artillery barrages in the West Bank and they will never go back to that situation, especially with loonies like Hamas around. You can piss into the wind all you like but it won't make an iota of difference. Maybe you could contact your Hamas and Hezbollah mates and tell them that your mission has failed?
Click to expand...


No part of Israel can be considered to be so far away from modern war machines, aircraft, rockets etc. as to be considered immune from attack- so your ' distance means safety ' nonsense falls on its ass immediately. Again, Palestine must be safe from Israeli attack and so the ONLY solution is compliance with international law. Even criminal-minded Zion-pumpers such as yourself know that to be true in those rare sober moments of the realization of the failure of the dream of Greater Israel.
 
Northwestman said:
I did and I still see no actual convictions. Your opinions are not case law.
Click to expand...

It not ' opinion ' and ' case law ' is unnecessary- as I took the trouble to explain. Don't you understand the authority of customary law , treaty , agreement and United Nations membership responsibilities ? Do you think that Israel can be signatory to these principles and still be acting legally by ignoring them ?
 
goon2012 said:
I support any and all actions by the Israeli's to protect the where they live.
No land should be returned; because the idiot Arabs thought they could win and lost their asses.
They should feel grateful that they could get their sandals and boots off quickly and then run faster in the sand.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
moon2012 said:
Israel will be compelled to comply with international law sooner or later. Your bleating ' no way ' amounts to wishful thinking. Palestine must have defensible borders too- and the international community supports that view.




No part of Israel can be considered to be so far away from modern war machines, aircraft, rockets etc. as to be considered immune from attack- so your ' distance means safety ' nonsense falls on its ass immediately. Again, Palestine must be safe from Israeli attack and so the ONLY solution is compliance with international law. Even criminal-minded Zion-pumpers such as yourself know that to be true in those rare sober moments of the realization of the failure of the dream of Greater Israel.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything of substance to show when this "sooner or later" will occur; because without some kind of time line, it just appears to be hubris?
 
moon2012 said:
It not ' opinion ' and ' case law ' is unnecessary- as I took the trouble to explain. Don't you understand the authority of customary law , treaty , agreement and United Nations membership responsibilities ? Do you think that Israel can be signatory to these principles and still be acting legally by ignoring them ?
Click to expand...

It is your opinion and you are not a court so your opinion counts for squat.

Not all UN resolutions are law. Try harder.
 
You know what is funny?
Not seeing a string of posts by FREEDUMB. Pleasing like a good cigar.
Now attack my girlfriend weaking, since that is all you or the other two blubbering manginas, IHA and Tom are good for.

I see the lastest Yurtroll incarnation jumped right on that bandwagon too.
Nice job yurtard. Almost fooled me by dumbing yourself down but you have blown it with Darla AND your legal blithering.
 
Northwestman said:
It is your opinion and you are not a court so your opinion counts for squat.

Not all UN resolutions are law. Try harder.
Click to expand...

There's no need to start trolling just because you can't get your head around it. I'll just leave you off the list of folk who genuinely want to know the score. No biggie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top