Sure. I’ll be happy to do so.
First please explain to me why you see no difference between someone who is a Zionist and someone who isn’t and someone who supports the Balfour Declaration and someone who doesn’t.
Sorry, I’m not willing to let any country be the ‘arbiter of reality’ and what is ‘factually true’.
My post was satire of Ibn Warraq’s posting style. My post was entirely within the rules. In fact, it was also a satire of the modding of these threads, and the way certain posters take advantage of being allowed to criticize “the post and not the poster” to hurl insults and scorn.
I have not violated a rule, therefore, your stepping in as a mod is frankly inappropriate.
Don’t feel obligated to respond every time Finn hits the “tattle” button. If you respond every time with a warning it makes it look like you are exercising favoritism. (I sincerely know that is not your intent.)
So noted. You have no actual answers to the demonstrated errors you have made regarding Article 51. You have no cites for the invented metrics which you created and applied to Article 51 but which do not appear in reality. You also attempt to dispute a fact that is not disputed by any reputable intelligence analysts, and you are attempting to do so sans any citations, at all.
You seem to be going the route of conceding that your point is unsupportable but not offering a retraction. Do you wish to support your argument and cite where the requirements you have claimed exist actually exist? Or will you accept that your position is wrong and remain silent on the topic?
Despite your claims of “purpose”, the fact remains that armed attacks have occurred and the UNSC has not exercised an effective remedy. Therefore Article 51 still is in force and applies. Your desire to shift the actual topic when you are challenged on the facts will be taken to indicate that you tacitly admit you cannot actually defend your original position and have decided to abandon it without an explicit retraction.
No, your argument, again, demonstrates an attempt to change the subject with spurious questions. The fact that Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas is not in dispute by any honest, reputable intelligence analysts. You are providing a rationalization for your argument as it cannot be supported with reason. You are now actually attempting to deny that Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxy forces, doing so without a cite, and claiming that not only do you not have to provide extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but you are inventing busy work to attempt to fallaciously shift the burden of proof.
If you contend that Hezbollah and Hamas and not Iranian proxy forces, you need to cite a reputable source for such a claim. As it’s been proven, repeatedly to be true, this will admittedly be hard for you to do. In fact, it will be impossible. This is why I am blasphemously secure in my position. Being right on the facts and the logic tends to do that. As such, your pretense about “legal principles” is revealed to be so much misdirection given that the fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and you are only attempting to deny it since it reveals that your argument is unsupportable.
Let the record show that after claiming that one article supported the Conspiracy Theory that the recent assassination attempts were a “false flag”, despite the fact that said article didn’t even mention the claim, Red has now claimed that another cite offers proof. When asked to actually quote and discuss that proof, he has refused. This is because that proof does not actually exist.
[QUOTE=BordelDeMerde]
The dozens of illegal incursions, coup d’etat, “regime changes”, and other violations by the US and other states which may have gone previously unchecked does not change my reading of the Articles or preclude the SC from acting responsibly now.
[/QUOTE]
Can you document anywhere that the US was ever charged (or whatever) with violations of the Charter in any of these cases? Because, if not, then YOUR reading of the Charter and your interpretation is on par with my dogs opinion on the matter. Whether it changes your reading really is about as irrelevant as it gets, unfortunately, unless you can demonstrate something to back up your opinion, it remains simply your opinion, without substantiation. Which brings us back to precedence, which pretty clearly shows that, in fact, Israel won’t be violating the Charter by using a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities. This won’t necessarily preclude individual countries making their displeasure felt, but it won’t be either ‘illegal’ OR ‘criminal’ for Israel to act.
-XT
[QUOTE=BordelDeMerde]
Based on the article’s language, e.g., “…Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council…” The requirement for immediate reporting indicates the SC process in the earlier articles apply. Meaning no attacks without SC authorization.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I get that YOU think that. Some folks think Revelations in the Bible is a prophesy of the future, some think it’s allegorical, some think it’s just a stream of consciousness trip on acid. While all of their thoughts might be amusing or even thought provoking, it doesn’t mean that their thoughts on the subject really mean anything, unless they are Biblical scholar types, in which case their arguments might have a bit more weight behind them. Are you a specialist in international law and the UN Charter by chance?
-XT
Then I’m sure Israel wouldn’t mind the US withholding its veto protection and letting the chips fall where they may.
Needs work.
Complaining about moderation belongs in ATMB, not in the middle of the thread. Since you’re not just complaining about moderation but also taking potshots at another poster, I’m giving you a formal warning here. And I’m closing the thread because at best, it’s about a 50-50 mix of digs at other posters and actual content, and that isn’t good enough.