• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

glorygloryeze said:
So it's fine to do a 'pre-emptive' strike but not retaliate?
So Israel didn't have grounds to attack Iran re Hezbollah etc then, right?
Click to expand...
You're allowed to both pre-empt and retaliate. The use of force must be proportionate to eliminating the threat faced. Can we attack Israel as "pay back" for a perceived wrong 40+ years ago? Nope. FYI, our friends across Le Chanel were far more balls deep in terms of supplying the Argies....most British losses in the Falklands were down to French exocet missiles and super etendard naval strike aircraft
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
You're allowed to both pre-empt and retaliate. The use of force must be proportionate to eliminating the threat faced. Can we attack Israel as "pay back" for a perceived wrong 40+ years ago? Nope. FYI, our friends across Le Chanel were far more balls deep in terms of supplying the Argies....most British losses in the Falklands were down to French exocet missiles and super etendard naval strike aircraft
Click to expand...

Well, that sounds interesting: the Iranian strikes could be argued to be based on Netanyahu's proclamations that go back 40 years, so if he/Israel can feel a need to strike based on those, why Israel be struck by UK for something that far back as well?

Where do you draw the line in terms of "timeline window of retaliation"?
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Why would targeting civilians in New York be justified under that reading?
Click to expand...

Because USA had been funding terrorist organisations overseas to encourage regime change and some of those involved decided that an attack on USA territory is therefore justified.

Funding is funding, surely?

Targetting civilians doesn't seem to be here nor there when it is USA/NATO/UK, Israel 'defending' themselves.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Caroline test has evolved since the 1800s. Israel actually used it before to justify pre-emptive stile on Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it still needs to have an immediate threat that it is responding to. No such one exists currently to justify a pre-emptive strike.

Wow, Israel has used it to justify illegal actions before and not been called up on it. What a shocker!
 
Lost Mango said:
Because USA had been funding terrorist organisations overseas to encourage regime change and some of those involved decided that an attack on USA territory is therefore justified.

Funding is funding, surely?

Targetting civilians doesn't seem to be here nor there when it is USA/NATO/UK, Israel 'defending' themselves.
Click to expand...
We are discussing international law. You're either interested in knowing about international law and its application or you can just get on with making claims such as "Israel is in clear breach of international law" with the comfort of not knowing a single paragraph of public international law.....
 
Lost Mango said:
Yes, but it still needs to have an immediate threat that it is responding to. No such one exists currently to justify a pre-emptive strike.

Wow, Israel has used it to justify illegal actions before and not been called up on it. What a shocker!
Click to expand...
Not being called out on it is relevant as international law is not like municipal law, its essentially a lose collection of agreements and established norms of behaviour between states and therefore if a state does something that most other states accept as reasonable behaviour in the circumstances, that essentially says the action is "legal" in international law.

Although in the 1981 strike they were called out on it.

As to no such threat existing - you can't say that as you are not privy to the relevant information. Legal opinion from an international law expert:

Israel's strikes appear to meet the proportionality test in international law, the necessary test is essentially TBC:

 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
Not being called out on it is relevant as international law is not like municipal law, its essentially a lose collection of agreements and established norms of behaviour between states and therefore if a state does something that most other states accept as reasonable behaviour in the circumstances, that essentially says the action is "legal" in international law.

Although in the 1981 strike they were called out on it.

As to no such threat existing - you can't say that as you are not privy to the relevant information. Legal opinion from an international law expert:

Israel's strikes appear to meet the proportionality test in international law, the necessary test is essentially TBC:

Click to expand...
Trump taking two weeks to think of his response would suggest it isn't an immediate threat.

I imagine opinions on whether it meets the test or not are available in all hues.

theconversation.com

Are Israel’s actions in Iran illegal? Could it be called self-defence? An international law expert explains

This is not the first time Israel is advancing a broad interpretation of self-defence.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
Lost Mango said:
Trump taking two weeks to think of his response would suggest it isn't an immediate threat.

I imagine opinions on whether it meets the test or not are available in all hues.

theconversation.com

Are Israel’s actions in Iran illegal? Could it be called self-defence? An international law expert explains

This is not the first time Israel is advancing a broad interpretation of self-defence.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
Click to expand...
Depends on your interpretation of immediate, bearing in mind once Iran has nuclear weapons capability theres essentially no going back and no combating Iran without risking mutually self assured destruction. Therefore the threat of developing a nuclear weapon may be more imminent than it ever was and you've got to decide whether the Iranian regime with nuclear weapons capability is a tolerable threat or not. It's not an easy decision to authorise a US attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Not being called out on it is relevant as international law is not like municipal law, its essentially a lose collection of agreements and established norms of behaviour between states and therefore if a state does something that most other states accept as reasonable behaviour in the circumstances, that essentially says the action is "legal" in international law.

Although in the 1981 strike they were called out on it.

As to no such threat existing - you can't say that as you are not privy to the relevant information. Legal opinion from an international law expert:

Israel's strikes appear to meet the proportionality test in international law, the necessary test is essentially TBC:

Click to expand...
I am no international law expert infact I no nothing.
So my question is what are the concequences for Israel if found to be breaking international law re Israel bombing iran. My guess is nothing but I hope I am wrong
 
kb 1984 said:
We really haven't learnt a thing have we. Listening to that made me think of this not normally a blunt fan.


Click to expand...

No we haven't and people rushing to back their horse in the race, people and countries who all have their terrible military past, who all sit on their own level of dangerous weapons and nuclear power, I would not trust any of them, across the board. Trump and his clear mental illness and view of the world? Hell no? Iran? Absolutely not? Netanyahu, the guy who lied that Palestine instigated the holocaust? You have to be kidding me, the UK? Even with blind loyalty no........

The whole thing has been fcuked by a bunch of charlatans who I wouldn't have trusted with my year 5 milk money, let alone things of this magnitude. Its fcuked
 
kb 1984 said:
I am no international law expert infact I no nothing.
So my question is what are the concequences for Israel if found to be breaking international law re Israel bombing iran. My guess is nothing but I hope I am wrong
Click to expand...
I don't pretend to be an "expert" in it either, although I did study public international law at university (wrote a "the law is an a*s" piece for my dissertation on the application of the principle called uti possidetis juris to the break-up of Yugoslavia that essentially ended up creating a decade of civil wars). Memory obviously fades.

There's an argument as to whether international law really exists as "law" because as I've said it is largely a set of norms and agreements between states and it is "enforced" only where circumstances allow (if someone like the US breaches a treaty - who is going to do anything about it?)

As to Israel being "found" to have breached international law, that in itself is an issue as in, what independent investigation is going to be conducted into the circumstances on Iranian soil?

Israel has been found to have breached international law in respect of operations in Gaza and the West Bank and sanctions have imposed against various members of the Israeli government and military (including by the UK). Arrest warrants have been issued by the ICC for Netanyahu and Gallant but as we've seen with the arrest warrant for Putin, the likelihood of many countries complying with this warrant if Netanyahu visits them is highly unlikely.
 
The future is looking much worse than the past.

You have an enormous population surge coming from sub Saharan Africa where people will be super short of resources, whilst the first world and in particular Russia and Japan and China are in significant population decline.

It’s not hard to foresee biblical scale migrations occurring, nuclear weapons and rhetoric won’t help.

World’s population has increased 120% in my lifetime. This is a waaaay bigger problem than anything else.

But no one ever talks about it.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I don't pretend to be an "expert" in it either, although I did study public international law at university (wrote a "the law is an a*s" piece for my dissertation on the application of the principle called uti possidetis juris to the break-up of Yugoslavia that essentially ended up creating a decade of civil wars). Memory obviously fades.

There's an argument as to whether international law really exists as "law" because as I've said it is largely a set of norms and agreements between states and it is "enforced" only where circumstances allow (if someone like the US breaches a treaty - who is going to do anything about it?)

As to Israel being "found" to have breached international law, that in itself is an issue as in, what independent investigation is going to be conducted into the circumstances on Iranian soil?

Israel has been found to have breached international law in respect of operations in Gaza and the West Bank and sanctions have imposed against various members of the Israeli government and military (including by the UK). Arrest warrants have been issued by the ICC for Netanyahu and Gallant but as we've seen with the arrest warrant for Putin, the likelihood of many countries complying with this warrant if Netanyahu visits them is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

You created a decade of civil wars? Salute. I thought i was bad.
 
johnola said:
The future is looking much worse than the past.

You have an enormous population surge coming from sub Saharan Africa where people will be super short of resources, whilst the first world and in particular Russia and Japan and China are in significant population decline.

It’s not hard to foresee biblical scale migrations occurring, nuclear weapons and rhetoric won’t help.

World’s population has increased 120% in my lifetime. This is a waaaay bigger problem than anything else.

But no one ever talks about it.
Click to expand...
Yep. Pretty much all problems can be put down to rapid population increases:
1) global warming/environmental destruction = too many people/too much energy consumption/too much building
2) poverty/conflict = increasing resource competition = too many people
In the UK in particular:
- housing crisis
- NHS resourcing
- school resourcing
- emergency service resourcing
- sewerage capacity
- train capacity
- airport runway and terminal capacity
- inflation (demand outstripping supply)

It's literally all root caused by the rate and scale of population growth.

The UK population was 58.89 million in 2000.
In 2025, a quarter of a century later, its 69.55 million. That's a 10 million increase in 25 years. However the growth trend has accelerated rapidly in recent years driven largely by huge increase in met migration to circa 0.5 million a year.
 
johnola said:
The future is looking much worse than the past.

You have an enormous population surge coming from sub Saharan Africa where people will be super short of resources, whilst the first world and in particular Russia and Japan and China are in significant population decline.

It’s not hard to foresee biblical scale migrations occurring, nuclear weapons and rhetoric won’t help.

World’s population has increased 120% in my lifetime. This is a waaaay bigger problem than anything else.

But no one ever talks about it.
Click to expand...

Africa economically has grown faster than europe for the last 50 years. Their population growth has exceeded that. So rather than getting richer their population is getting poorer.
Educate and empower women and have less children.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Yep. Pretty much all problems can be put down to rapid population increases:
1) global warming/environmental destruction = too many people/too much energy consumption/too much building
2) poverty/conflict = increasing resource competition = too many people
In the UK in particular:
- housing crisis
- NHS resourcing
- school resourcing
- emergency service resourcing
- sewerage capacity
- train capacity
- airport runway and terminal capacity
- inflation (demand outstripping supply)

It's literally all root caused by the rate and scale of population growth.

The UK population was 58.89 million in 2000.
In 2025, a quarter of a century later, its 69.55 million. That's a 10 million increase in 25 years. However the growth trend has accelerated rapidly in recent years driven largely by huge increase in met migration to circa 0.5 million a year.
Click to expand...
I think those issues are also magnified by countries wishing to 'develop'....and by continuation the needs and wants of their population increasing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back