Their need to play god started with preventing Germany from obtaining that Berlin to Baghdad Rail Road. — Vaskane
Obviously you're inability at analysis comes from the rigidness of your mind in the word play of "legitimate military target," which is just a distraction from the actual laws. Your "focus" is more like tunnel vision. — Vaskane
You're like bound to definitions, which is cool, but causing you to think very rigidly. — Vaskane
If I take land from you and put civilians in it to protect the area so if you come in and kill them I can call you a terrorist in the news media so people take my side and call you a terrorist, even though I stole your land and moved my own people onto it, onto disputed land in order to make it harder for you to reclaim. Guess what you're doing? Using humans to make enemy objectives harder to achieve. It's against the law to move civilians into disputed territory. Russia's doing the same thing with Crimea. If you want to capture land in todays warfare -- take it, then move your people onto it. — Vaskane
Why exactly did Britain give Palestinian land away is the real question. — Vaskane
Israel had to belong where its roots were and this is the problem, there was no other solution for Israel either. — Vaskane
Britain did not give anything away, they just ended their mandate and fucked out of there. Britain, having at that point still various muslim subjects, did not want to be associated with the jewish state so blatantly. — Echarmion
It may also have been seen as a convenient way to get rid of Jews in Britain. — Echarmion
It also pointedly did not include any actual provisions about creating a jewish state and Britain thereafter studiously avoided making any such moves so as to not antagonise the Muslims — Echarmion
...I assume that it means that Mahommedans and Christians are to make way for the Jews and that the Jews should be put in all positions of preference and should be peculiarly associated with Palestine in the same way that England is with the English or France with the French, that Turks and other Mahommedans in Palestine will be regarded as foreigners, just in the same way as Jews will hereafter be treated as foreigners in every country but Palestine. Perhaps also citizenship must be granted only as a result of a religious test. — Montagu
and I am not in the least surprised that the non-Jews of England may welcome this policy. I have always recognised the unpopularity, much greater than some people think, of my community. We have obtained a far greater share of this country's goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to. We reach on the whole maturity earlier, and therefore with people of our own age we compete unfairly. Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude, and I can easily understand that many a non-Jew in England wants to get rid of us. — Montagu
I assert that there is not a Jewish nation. The members of my family, for instance, who have been in this country for generations, have no sort or kind of community of view or of desire with any Jewish family in any other country beyond the fact that they profess to a greater or less degree the same religion. It is no more true to say that a Jewish Englishman and a Jewish Moor are of the same nation than it is to say that a Christian Englishman and a Christian Frenchman are of the same nation: of the same race, perhaps, traced back through the centuries - through centuries of the history of a peculiarly adaptable race. The Prime Minister and M. Briand are, I suppose, related through the ages, one as a Welshman and the other as a Breton, but they certainly do not belong to the same nation. — Montagu
And the facts are that Britain did not actually ever create a Jewish state, nor did it allow unchecked jewish immigration and ultimately refused to even implement the UN plan for the mandate. — Echarmion
It's clear that everyone understood what was meant by "national home". — Benkei
Just because it wasn't previously used in international legal documents, does not mean that it had no then-current, common sense meaning. — Benkei
Because it was not Britain's place to create it — Benkei
as an empire did not wish to relinquish what it thought it was its right to Palestine. — Benkei
.Why would Schmitt put a target on himself like that?
I don't need his opinion to interpret the law. Schmitt's paper is to show Israel's targeting practice, silly, and the tyranny of context in which it's applied. Two of the Corpus of Laws relevant specifically state "MOVING CIVILIANS INTO AREAS TO IMPEDE MILITARY OPERATIONS," as war-crimes relevant to human shielding — Vaskane
Trying to base your judgement off of if Schmitt said so or not is fallacious to the point of fact of you appeal to authority -- ignoring the wording of the law . Which is exactly what I said I was using to interpret the law, remember? Try not to lose "focus" as you would say . — Vaskane
Bro, and let me put it to you again, I was bitching at you about the law of proportionality, and how obtuse and effed up it is. I wasn't bitching at you about anything else you said. And my complaint was with the Law of Proportionality, not with what you said. But you took what I said as an attack against you, and you tried challenging how Israel uses Human Shielding. My B for not specifying that I wasn't attacking you. But I thought since I was bitching solely about how stupid and effed up ambiguous the laws are that surround the law of proportionality, and not about what you said in particular, I figured the subject in which the bitching was directed at was obviously that of the Law of Proportionality. So effed up and ambiguous that Hamas could technically interpret all of Israel as legal targets. — Vaskane
And yet you're claiming that Britain nevertheless promised to do exactly that. — Echarmion
So the opinions of a single prominent person are indicative of "everyone"? I think not. I mean your quote literally starts with the words "I assume"...
Edit: and actually the sentence immediately preceding your quote is "I don't know what this involves". — Echarmion
The British empire has always consisted of several countries, kingdoms to be exact. See also the treaty of westphalia which speaks of "Princes and States of the Empire" from 1848, which describes how empires were understood. — Benkei
This just underlines you're illiterate when it comes to writings of that time. Marx wrote extensively about nationalism decades before these idiots drafted this document. It's right there in the "internationale". Bentham requested to a Committee for the Reform of Criminal Law, "I will be the gaoler. You will see ... that the gaoler will have no salary—will cost nothing to the nation." - who died in - checks notes - 1832. It's in Theodore D. Woolsey's Introduction to the Study of International Law from 1864.
But don't let history get in the way of actually interpreting a text in light of the times. What a "national home" meant was crystal clear nationalism, nations, etc. were established words used by everybody with an education at the time. — Benkei
It's not enough to just
A repeat what you read about the balfour declaration on wikipedia, which seems your source as every point you make is made there. — Benkei
It kinda feels like a hard determinism all the way down the chain that this shit was bound to happen anyways. — Vaskane
Hence no Heaven.
Everyone else is shit to Jews — Vaskane
I am literally 100% excluded from ever belonging to their ethnoreligion I can never be a Jew. — Vaskane
Hence why Jews created Christianity, for the non Jews.
OK, who do you prefer should have won WW2, the Allies or Axis? — RogueAI
I'm not able to prefer anything other than the current situation, as it is the one in which I exist. Therefore, I prefer the Allies won because it results in my existence. — AmadeusD
What a weird line of thought about this. — AmadeusD
Let me then ask you: was is it a good thing that Nazi Germany was stopped? Was the world better off for that happening? — RogueAI
But here we are, having to deconstruct the question you refuse to answer because you think it's some "gotcha — RogueAI
We are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD
e are actually in the situation where the Allies won, and I exist in it. I am unable to prefer else. — AmadeusD
Of course you can. Pretend you're behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance and you're looking at two possible worlds you might find yourself in: one is a world where the Axis won, and one is a world where the Allies won. Which world would you prefer to be in? — RogueAI
You're unable to prefer any other situation than the one you exist in? Suppose your kids died horribly in a fire. You're telling me it would be impossible for you to prefer an alternate timeline where you died rescuing your kids from the fire? Or suppose you exist and you live in unremitting pain and lack the ability to kill yourself. You couldn't prefer a situation where you were never born? — RogueAI
So, behind the veil, you would prefer the Allies won even knowing they killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in indiscriminate bombing raids? — RogueAI
I wont play 'gotcha' games. — AmadeusD
But this is a ridiculous thing to imagine and so i place no seriousness on that answer. If you want a "why" you wont get one. It's an intuition. Which is my point. — AmadeusD
an Axis victory would have been so much worse. A "lesser of two evils" thing. Am I right? — RogueAI
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” — RogueAI
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.