Russian IL-20 shot down by Syria as Israel used it as cover for attack

[oneworld2]

NEDJ noted.

explain

 

[Fledermaus]

Five out of nearly 200 is pretty exclusive by anyone's standards imo and as such supports my claim.

Your silence on that " lots of nations " claim you made confirms a much less so situation.

You failed in that endeavour so , accept it and move on I suppose

You missed a few and ignore the ones by seperatist/rebel forces.

Anyone with a hand held SAM can do it (and have done) it....


It ain't rocket science...

Technically missile science... But of the lowest sort.

Really "exclusive".

 

[oneworld2]

You missed a few and ignore the ones by seperatist/rebel forces.

Anyone with a hand held SAM can do it (and have done) it....


It ain't rocket science...

Technically missile science... But of the lowest sort.

Really "exclusive".

Still no list of "lots of nations " and so the resort to some rebel groups etc

Easier to just admit you were wrong and move on imo............ obviously you are struggling with that option........ so you will have to dance on your own

 

[Fledermaus]

explain

Not Enough Dead Jews....
I I

 

[Fledermaus]

Still no list of "lots of nations " and so the resort to some rebel groups etc

Easier to just admit you were wrong and move on imo............ obviously you are struggling with that option........ so you will have to dance on your own

"Exclusive" = Can be done by anyone with rudimentary training...

Got it.

 

[beerftw]

Just think of it as a bunch of teenagers throwing rocks at wolves, then the wolves come after them and they see a fat kid along the way and knock him over to be a distraction. If you have not guessed the il-20 is the fat kid.

 

[Apocalypse]

How could you have when there wasn't one ?



What you believe and what the law allows are two different things and thus your assertion that the law justified the Israeli attack is rubbish. What you believe is irrelevant in that context and at least now you should be aware that your claim is false

And likewise you support the right of Palestinians to attack IDF personnel before they carry out attacks against Palestinian citizens , correct ? Syrians to carry out attacks on Israelis before they attack Syrian citizens ? Or is it only Jews that have this right ?



Human beings are terrorists , they're not a separate species. You refuse to condemn any inhuman acts/policies carried out by the Jewish state terrorists in the form of the IDF. The racial supremacism ever present in your posts is stopping you from seeing the obvious imo.

You want everyone to apply a different standard to Jews than they apply to other groups otherwise you'll scream Jew hater.................. it's an attempt at censorship and will never work with me or anyone else with the ability to have some degree of independent thought.

Just how it is

You're basing your entire barbaric position that Israel should not act against terrorists untill Jews die on the claim that international law says it's not allowed to act that way. You're wrong as you were in the last 5000 times you made that so-called argument. Hezbollah terrorists work against and target Jews. Israel has the right, both the moral right and the one by international law, to act against them. There is the right to self-defense and it's acknowledged in the UN charter and elsewhere. You'll be talking about an "imminent threat" claiming that this means only when attacked Israel can react and you're wrong, it refers to imminent threat not to an imminent attack.

Did it make sense to you to think that the law would forbid a country from acting against terrorists on a hostile soil? No. You only claim so as is your wish that Israel could be threatened without reacting. Not the case, not going to happen. Pathetic too.

The only special standards here are the ones you use against Jews as is the usual antisemitic agenda.

 

[Westphalian]

You're basing your entire barbaric position that Israel should not act against terrorists untill Jews die on the claim that international law says it's not allowed to act that way. You're wrong as you were in the last 5000 times you made that so-called argument. Hezbollah terrorists work against and target Jews. Israel has the right, both the moral right and the one by international law, to act against them. There is the right to self-defense and it's acknowledged in the UN charter and elsewhere. You'll be talking about an "imminent threat" claiming that this means only when attacked Israel can react and you're wrong, it refers to imminent threat not to an imminent attack.

Did it make sense to you to think that the law would forbid a country from acting against terrorists on a hostile soil? No. You only claim so as is your wish that Israel could be threatened without reacting. Not the case, not going to happen. Pathetic too.

The only special standards here are the ones you use against Jews as is the usual antisemitic agenda.

It's a special interpretation of international law, the same one used to justify invading Iraq, patented by the charlatans and spin doctors of western propaganda.

On that basis I would suggest that Moscow raze to the ground two Israeli air bases since their F-16s now represent a threat to Russian aviation operating perfectly legally in Syria. Imminent threat ........ Clearly ticked.

 

[Apocalypse]

It's a special interpretation of international law, the same one used to justify invading Iraq, patented by the charlatans and spin doctors of western propaganda.

On that basis I would suggest that Moscow raze to the ground two Israeli air bases since their F-16s now represent a threat to Russian aviation operating perfectly legally in Syria. Imminent threat ........ Clearly ticked.

Not really, it's a very basic interpretation. A terrorist threat is perhaps the most obvious threat there is. As long as a terror group places a nation as its target that nation has the right to chase it and its members anywhere. Russia on the other hand has nothing to do in Syria.

You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a threat and what doesn't as demonstrated in this post.

 

[german hick]

Comfortable situation for a country if it can reject any human rights to "terrorists", do with them what it wants and decides itself who is terrorist. And as cherry on the cake, if anyone dares to think something else he is anti semite.

*waiting for the next ban, me evil german nazi*

 

[Westphalian]

Not really, it's a very basic interpretation. A terrorist threat is perhaps the most obvious threat there is. As long as a terror group places a nation as its target that nation has the right to chase it and its members anywhere. Russia on the other hand has nothing to do in Syria.

You clearly have no idea of what constitutes a threat and what doesn't as demonstrated in this post.

I accept that Israel is a peculiar case because other than the US, few states are wholly comfortable with its existence and legitimacy.

But you serially violate international law in Syria, and use excessive force in Gaza against civilians. Israel is protected by the US, but if it were another state it would be a pariah, a North Korea. Israel benefits hugely for the infinite capacity of the US to exercise double standards in everything.

 

[Apocalypse]

I accept that Israel is a peculiar case because other than the US, few states are wholly comfortable with its existence and legitimacy.

But you serially violate international law in Syria, and use excessive force in Gaza against civilians. Israel is protected by the US, but if it were another state it would be a pariah, a North Korea. Israel benefits hugely for the infinite capacity of the US to exercise double standards in everything.

You claim Israel violates international law in Syria yet that was shown by now to be false.
Israel's defensive measures against Gazan terrorists is a completely different discussion with enough threads in the I/P subforum dealing with it, don't hijack this thread towards that and let's remain in the realm of you being wrong about international law and Israel's defensive measures against Hezbollah/Iranian terrorists in Syria. Israel wouldn't be a North Korea or Russia or China or Iran because Israel is first of all a civilized democracy and even before that it's a nation that uses force out of concern for security needs. It doensn't go on adventures far away from home so to protect some dictator butchering his own people helping him to do so - it goes after terrorists at the border.

Is it wrong for Israel to go after terrorists plotting against its citizens in a bordering territory? No. Not morally and absolutely not legally.

 

[german hick]

You claim Israel violates international law in Syria yet that was shown by now to be false.
Israel is first of all a civilized democracy

Jopp, you are right. For some. The others who lived there are driven in the desert and are no Israel citizens. Because they are ALL terrorists.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...

 

[Apocalypse]

Jopp, you are right. For some. The others who lived there are driven in the desert and are no Israel citizens. Because they are ALL terrorists.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others...

For all. Your refusal to recognize that those who target Jews for murder can be considered terrorists is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[german hick]

Comfortable situation for a country if it can reject any human rights to "terrorists", do with them what it wants and decides itself who is terrorist. And as cherry on the cake, if anyone dares to think something else he is anti semite.

*waiting for the next ban, me evil german nazi*

may be you missed this..

 

[Westphalian]

No Apocalypse - Israel's actions in Syria are not legal.

International law is of course largely irrelevant because rich and powerful states are above the law and there is no enforcement. But technically, Israel is a serial law breaker.

 

[Apocalypse]

No Apocalypse - Israel's actions in Syria are not legal.

International law is of course largely irrelevant because rich and powerful states are above the law and there is no enforcement. But technically, Israel is a serial law breaker.

International law is irrelevant only because there is no global government and pretending that laws exist when there's no one to enforce them makes the concept quite meaningless.

That being said you're wrong, nations have the right to defend themselves, nothing forbids attacking, for example, a shipment of arms to a terror group that is working to harm the country's citizens.

 

[Westphalian]

Well, my Apocalypse friend, international law says Stria can defend itself from Israeli air strikes.

So in not so many months one or both of two things will happen:

1. Russia will declare and extend its air exclusion zone to defend its assets in and around Latakia.

2. Syria will be supplied and trained in S-300 or possibly S-400 units.


Either of these are going to reduce Israel's freedom to continue its over 200 air strikes, and place in jeopardy its precious F16s and pilots.

And then no doubt you'll excel yourself in absurdity by telling us that Syria is not allowed to take such defensive measures when it contradicts the offensive measures taken by Israel for so called defensive purposes.

 

[Apocalypse]

Well, my Apocalypse friend, international law says Stria can defend itself from Israeli air strikes.

So in not so many months one or both of two things will happen:

1. Russia will declare and extend its air exclusion zone to defend its assets in and around Latakia.

2. Syria will be supplied and trained in S-300 or possibly S-400 units.


Either of these are going to reduce Israel's freedom to continue its over 200 air strikes, and place in jeopardy its precious F16s and pilots.

And then no doubt you'll excel yourself in absurdity by telling us that Syria is not allowed to take such defensive measures when it contradicts the offensive measures taken by Israel for so called defensive purposes.

I don't play in "let's pretend".

 

[Westphalian]

I don't play in "let's pretend".

You'll be playing in the real world soon enough.

Your irresponsible actions, possibly in conjunction with the French and US, will end up hurting your 'defensive' freedom of action.

 

[Apocalypse]

You'll be playing in the real world soon enough.

Your irresponsible actions, possibly in conjunction with the French and US, will end up hurting your 'defensive' freedom of action.

Sure thing mate.

 

[Casper]

I thought the fight in Syria was supposedly a done deal, so why is it that Russian forces are still there?

 

[oneworld2]

"Exclusive" = Can be done by anyone with rudimentary training...

Got it.

Goalpost shift from examples of said action to ability to perform said action.............. you really are going through the full repertoire in a desperate bid to dupe the reader to the fact that you cannot back up your earlier assertion

 

[oneworld2]

You're basing your entire barbaric position that Israel should not act against terrorists untill Jews die on the claim that international law says it's not allowed to act that way. You're wrong as you were in the last 5000 times you made that so-called argument. Hezbollah terrorists work against and target Jews. Israel has the right, both the moral right and the one by international law, to act against them. There is the right to self-defense and it's acknowledged in the UN charter and elsewhere. You'll be talking about an "imminent threat" claiming that this means only when attacked Israel can react and you're wrong, it refers to imminent threat not to an imminent attack.

Did it make sense to you to think that the law would forbid a country from acting against terrorists on a hostile soil? No. You only claim so as is your wish that Israel could be threatened without reacting. Not the case, not going to happen. Pathetic too.

The only special standards here are the ones you use against Jews as is the usual antisemitic agenda.

Nope, I am basing my whole argument on the fact that if you allow such absurd interpretations of international laws to go unchallenged you may as well do away with them altogether ( something that you would probably welcome imo ) and on the fact that you only think they should be applied for the benefit of Jewish people and to hell with any provisions for anyone else ( hence your complete avoidance on answering whether or not the Palestinian attack against IDF personnel is likewise justifiable under the umbrella of " preventive action ", or Hezbollah attacks that could be interpreted as preventive actions to defend Southern Lebanon )

Article 51 UN Charter refers to self defence in the face of " armed attack " and doesn't include the term " imminent threat " which appears to be your own addition in a bid to make yourself appear right when in fact you are wrong.

Chapter VII: Article 51 ? Charter of the United Nations ? Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs ? Codification Division Publications

Where does it mention anything about " imminent threat " ?

Has Syria not the right to self defence in the face of Israeli aggression ? Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon ? Gazans in Gaza etc etc ?.....according to you they don't so not only are you inventing phrases and attributing them to the UN Charter you are also demanding that self defence in the form of preventive action is only available to Jews and any who challenge the absurdity of this position should be dismissed as Jew haters or supporters of terrorists/terrorism.........Orwell to a tee

 

[Fledermaus]

Goalpost shift from examples of said action to ability to perform said action.............. you really are going through the full repertoire in a desperate bid to dupe the reader to the fact that you cannot back up your earlier assertion

Taint "exclusive" if anyone can do it.