The US is heading toward a grave historical mistake.

Post Reply New Topic

Did they get that from Paul of Tarsus?
Be everything unto all men.

I am aware of the taqiyya
but it is dishonest of us to pick and choose what we think they believe and ignore
what they say they believe.

Last time I checked, the raison d'etre for the State of Israel was to provide a homeland for the Jews. Unlike most nations on earth, it actually has a reason to exist. Most nations exist simply because they have always existed, from time immemorial.



You have a very incorrect view of international law.

Neither the UN, nor any of its subsidiary organs have any lawmaking authority. Member states are not bound by any action of the UN, unless the voluntarily choose so to be, and ratify the instrument that they are signing onto through a process of domestic law.

The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction unless states attorn themselves to its jurisdiction.

The UN cannot send in peacekeepers unless the member state concerned has requested them.

That does not mean that the UN does not have value--but its value lies in it being a talking shop, known to anyone with two clues to rub together as being toothless. That allows for a much fuller and franker exchange of views than could be possible if the body had any real power to effect change other than through collective persuasion.



Any signatory state to the Geneva Conventions can opt out of them.

Article 63 of Convention (I) (Amelioration of the Conditions of Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field), Article 62 of Convention (II) (Amelioration of the Conditions of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea), Article 142 of Convention (III) (Treatment of Prisoners of War), Article 158 of Convention (IV) (Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War), Article 99 to the 1977 Protocol, Article 25 to Protocol (II) of 1977 and Article 14 to Protocol (III) of 2005 all permit a contracting party to denounce the particular convention or protocol.

There is no need to worm out of it--a state notifies the Swiss Federal Council that they are out, and one year later, out they shall be.

JakobVirgil

ruveyn is correct, it is in the Quran that lieing to infidels is okay and even encouraged.

That is a fundamental difference between Judaism and Islam, it is also a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam.

Lieing is generally considered unacceptable behavior in Jewish and Christian doctrine (there are specific exceptions but they are extremely narrow such as protecting someone that has been given sanctuary.

Thank you Dr Yasha,
But of course being the arbiter of truth about Islam know that taqiyya is mostly a Shia thing and
only applies to hiding the fact that you are a Muslim when faced with death?
kinda like that sanctuary thang or Jews pretending to be Xtians to avoid the gas chamber.

That is not what taqiyya means and you know it.

Really
Do some research the verse is


i.e. lie about being a Muslim if it saves your life.
It is not a blanket endorsement of lying.
but go to your anti-muslim hate sites and find more dissembling "facts".

Let's get ready to RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Sorry but the verse is still too vague for me to set the interpretation in stone. Maybe it's just the way it's phrased, I don't know.

Do you get Muslims are supposed to lie from it?
here is another translation.



This "Muslims have to lie" slur allows Morons to discount anything they say and replace it with whatever they want.
It is a perfect situation for folks who think the building of straw men is the ultimate strategy.
Oh the Muslim said he wants piece but he must be lying.
it is sophistry.

When you think about all those Christians back in the day, who martyred themselves by not renouncing Christ out of fear of eternal damnation, a line in the Bible like this would have been mighty convenient

Believe it or not. Most Muslims have no intention to bomb anyone, and most Palestinians would rather not do it either. So it is equally pointless to do the same with Muslims.

Yes but you see the raison d'etre is a fallacy for two reasons.

1) What right do the Jews have to impose their control over another people's homeland?
2) Even if the Jews did not control the land it doesn't stop them from living there.


Yes, except that the UN has so far mandated and allowed the invasion of states that presumably chose to be part of the UN or indeed were not part of the UN. And from what I can tell this is as much of a piece of legislation as any act of parliament or US bill. Just because the UN doesn't impose taxes, its mandates are still a form of loose international government and are meant to uphold a standard of international law.


Of course, but that doesn't seem to matter when overwhelming powers defeat a foe committed of war crimes and they are brought to a war crimes tribunal.



Great, so these things are optional in theory. But sometimes they aren't optional in practice and even if they were optional it's still a form of international legal agreement.

So yeah. International law and Internation Government. Tenuous but still commanding power, authority and order beyond that which any single state can provide.

Yes but you see the raison d'etre is a fallacy for two reasons.

1) What right do the Jews have to impose their control over another people's homeland?
2) Even if the Jews did not control the land it doesn't stop them from living there.


Yes, except that the UN has so far mandated and allowed the invasion of states that presumably chose to be part of the UN or indeed were not part of the UN. And from what I can tell this is as much of a piece of legislation as any act of parliament or US bill. Just because the UN doesn't impose taxes, its mandates are still a form of loose international government and are meant to uphold a standard of international law.


Of course, but that doesn't seem to matter when overwhelming powers defeat a foe committed of war crimes and they are brought to a war crimes tribunal.



Great, so these things are optional in theory. But sometimes they aren't optional in practice and even if they were optional it's still a form of international legal agreement.

So yeah. International law and Internation Government. Tenuous but still commanding power, authority and order beyond that which any single state can provide.

The U.N. is a piece of sh*t organization that will eventually go the way of the League of Nations. It is nothing and it is run by and for wretched corrupt worthless people.

ruveyn

Neither of those make its raison d'etre fallacious.

And while we're at it, whose homeland? There was no such thing as Palestine until the Romans showed up and created the name for its merger of Syria and Judea after the last of the Jewish - Roman wars. If there is a displacement of a people from their homeland, it is the diaspora.

Today's Palestinians are not the Philitini of the ancient world. Today's Palestinians are Hashemites, and they have a homeland: it's called Jordan.



UN Mandates are binding upon no state which chooses not to be bound by them.

So cite me an example of UN lawmaking. Just one.



You are confusing the actions of individuals with the actions of states. States are never liable to another state unless they voluntarily agree to be, or unless the other state conquers them by force. Germany was liable to the Allied Powers after World War I because she chose to sign the Treaty of Versailles. Even with a metaphorical gun to her head, it still took a signature on a roll of parchment to make her liable--and her government's willingness to honour that signature.



Lovely rhetoric--but completely devoid of good sense, factual accuracy or a scintilla of intellectual effort. I'm glad you're not a member of your country's foreign ministry.

This is fascist nonsense made by a monster who supports an evil state of affairs with no sort of real evidence whatsoever. And if anyone wants to call anything about what I said an insult, I want you to then try and justify wilful racist sentiment.