Israel/Iran begins....now what

[rickyb]

When was it disowned by them?

im not sure i ever heard that, but chomsky is the one who i watched the video on that. chris hedges has an hour long interview on the history of hamas.

 

[Box Ox]

look at Hamas' own charter

the charter was repeatedly disowned

When was it disowned by them?

im not sure i ever heard that

Of course.

 

[tourists24]

yes thats what i was thinking of, so the charter was repeatedly disowned and written by a handful of them.

So why haven’t they changed it yet? And why would Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad vow to repeat the October 7th attacks “time and time again until Israel is annihilated”?

 

[rickyb]

So why haven’t they changed it yet? And why would Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad vow to repeat the October 7th attacks “time and time again until Israel is annihilated”?

i dont know you'd have to look it up. email norman finkelstein, he will answer.

its okay for hamas to kill non civilians that are israeli under international law.

 

[tourists24]

i dont know you'd have to look it up. email norman finkelstein, he will answer.

its okay for hamas to kill non civilians that are israeli under international law.

I don’t need to look it up. I believe them when they say that.

You can say it’s ok for Hamas to kill your allowed targets, but it’s not going to get you peace, so the war continues til Hamas is eliminated

 

[vantexan]

its okay for hamas to kill non civilians that are israeli under international law.

Then logic follows that if Hamas violated international law on October 7th by killing civilians then Israel has a right to declare war on Hamas and do what's necessary to make sure Hamas doesn't attack civilians again. And it's impossible to do so without civilians getting killed also. None of this would have happened if Hamas hadn't attacked on October 7th.

 

[rickyb]

Then logic follows that if Hamas violated international law on October 7th by killing civilians then Israel has a right to declare war on Hamas and do what's necessary to make sure Hamas doesn't attack civilians again. And it's impossible to do so without civilians getting killed also. None of this would have happened if Hamas hadn't attacked on October 7th.

no you can just keep following international law on oct 7.

international law says an occupying force (israel) may kill hamas only when its on israeli territory

international law says the occupying force (israel) does not have a right to kill hamas in gaza because thats defending an occupation.

this was happening before oct 7th too just not on the same scale.

 

[tourists24]

no you can just keep following international law on oct 7.

international law says an occupying force (israel) may kill hamas only when its on israeli territory

international law says the occupying force (israel) does not have a right to kill hamas in gaza because thats defending an occupation.

this was happening before oct 7th too just not on the same scale.

And yet Israel continues to go after Hamas in Gaza. Sounds like your international law should arrest Israel

 

[rickyb]

And yet Israel continues to go after Hamas in Gaza. Sounds like your international law should arrest Israel

exactly thats why Israel has been in so much trouble recently plus theyre committing genocide.

but the courts are political.

 

[tourists24]

exactly thats why Israel has been in so much trouble recently plus theyre committing genocide.

nah,,,, bu they ARE eliminating Hamas.

 

[tourists24]

but the courts are political.

And irrelevant if they don't do anything about their rulings. Maybe a strongly worded resolution will stop Israel

 

[vantexan]

no you can just keep following international law on oct 7.

international law says an occupying force (israel) may kill hamas only when its on israeli territory

international law says the occupying force (israel) does not have a right to kill hamas in gaza because thats defending an occupation.

this was happening before oct 7th too just not on the same scale.

So by your interpretation of international law the side you favor can commit acts of war but the side you're against has to just take it. They aren't allowed to declare war and go into their enemy's territory. Have you ever heard of a war being declared where the one declaring war said we're really, really mad and as soon as they come back onto our land we're going to get them? Doesn't work that way and never has.

 

[rickyb]

So by your interpretation of international law the side you favor can commit acts of war but the side you're against has to just take it. They aren't allowed to declare war and go into their enemy's territory. Have you ever heard of a war being declared where the one declaring war said we're really, really mad and as soon as they come back onto our land we're going to get them? Doesn't work that way and never has.

Were talking about the rules under occupation.

Google the rules

For example when america occupied vietnam, usa did not uave a right to attack them within vietnam, but they had a right to attack you in vietnam and within america as long as they werent civilians. america had a right to attack attacking vietnamese within america.

 

[rickyb]

And irrelevant if they don't do anything about their rulings. Maybe a strongly worded resolution will stop Israel

i dint think theyre irrelevant

 

[tourists24]

i dint think theyre irrelevant

I'm sure you don't think they are.

 

[rickyb]

I'm sure you don't think they are.

Do you understand english?

Thats like me saying i think theyre releveant

 

[tourists24]

Do you understand english?

Thats like me saying i think theyre releveant

touche.... I typed that wrong. Meant to say I'm sure you think they're relevant. Only relevant though if you can back up your decisions. They have very little real power.

 

[vantexan]

Were talking about the rules under occupation.

Google the rules

For example when america occupied vietnam, usa did not uave a right to attack them within vietnam, but they had a right to attack you in vietnam and within america as long as they werent civilians. america had a right to attack attacking vietnamese within america.

Well amigo America didn't occupy Vietnam. We were there at the behest of the government of South Vietnam to prevent them from being taken over by the government of North Vietnam.

Israel, before this war, didn't occupy Gaza. And declaring war on Hamas means they get to go after Hamas.

 

[Box Ox]

Were talking about the rules under occupation.

Google the rules

For example when america occupied vietnam, usa did not uave a right to attack them within vietnam, but they had a right to attack you in vietnam and within america as long as they werent civilians. america had a right to attack attacking vietnamese within america.

Well amigo America didn't occupy Vietnam. We were there at the behest of the government of South Vietnam to prevent them from being taken over by the government of North Vietnam.

Let us not forget that you're talking to a communist about Vietnam here.

 

[vantexan]

Let us not forget that you're talking to a communist about Vietnam here.

True, I forget it's more than just about being stupid.