Starmer's vision quest

[winjim]

A bit too glib, that one.

Would be reasonable if the attacks had been against the military, but they weren't. It was an attack purely aimed at civilians. Pop back and tell me how the massacre of 1000 civilians (or 900, or 800, makes no difference) sits within international law.

I mean, don't think that I don't realise you are hoping to manoeuvre me into a position where I am defending Israeli occupation and atrocities. I'm not quite that thick, TC

Tell us how the 'right to self defence' sits in international law, whence it derives, how it is structured and who is the arbiter.

 

[multitool]

States don't have rights. People have rights.

Total horseshît.

What on earth do you think international law is about?

Article 51. The Nicaragua case etc etc etc.

What Israel didn't have the right to do is a response way out of proportion to the original attack. Literally everyone bar the Israelis are acknowledging that this has happened.

But quite what impact you expect the leader of a minority opposition party with less than 1/3 of the seats in the legislature to have is beyond me.

 

[multitool]

Tell us how the 'right to self defence' sits in international law, whence it derives, how it is structured and who is the arbiter.

I'm sure you can Google it for yourself. Come back if there's anything you still struggle with.

edit: see my previous response which I posted before seeing this.
Some key words: Art 51, ICJ, Nicaragua, Caroline.

 

[Poacher]

Would be reasonable if the attacks had been against the military, but they weren't.

Probably would have been against the military, but most of them were busy in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing civilians.

 

[multitool]

Probably would have been against the military, but most of them were busy in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing civilians.

It is true that some forces had been moved. Two commando platoons (roughly 100 soldiers in total) were moved to West Bank shortly before 7/10. But to suggest that the long border with Gaza was undefended is just not true. Israel is one of the most militarised countries I've been to, and I've been to a lot. It's actually to the north and east of WB that are the most heavily defended.

Again, I'm not going to defend any Israeli actions beyond stating that as a sovereign state and member of UN, it has the same inherent right to self-defence as any other state.

You can question its responses, and I'd be right there with you, but if you question it's basic rights you have to extend that to all countries.

 

[BoldonLad]

Probably would have been against the military, but most of them were busy in the illegally occupied West Bank, killing civilians.

Not condoning killing civilians, but, From the results, the Israeli military must be incredibly ineffective.

 

[winjim]

I'm sure you can Google it for yourself. Come back if there's anything you still struggle with.

edit: see my previous response which I posted before seeing this.
Some key words: Art 51, ICJ, Nicaragua, Caroline.

No, I'm asking what your understanding is. You can start with article 51 if you like. Article 51 of what?

 

[multitool]

No, I'm asking what your understanding is. You can start with article 51 if you like. Article 51 of what?

As if I'm not going to spot sealioning a mile off

 

[winjim]

As if I'm not going to spot sealioning a mile off

You're the one asserting Israel's 'right to self defence'. I asked you a sensible question about it and you declined to answer so now I'm having to hold your hand through it like a toddler. I know there's no point, but suffice to say, article 51 can go in the shredder as far as I'm concerned.

 

[multitool]

article 51 can go in the shredder as far as I'm concerned.

Article 51 of what? A moment ago you were claiming you didn't know.
It's a bad look if you try patronising somebody and then get your arŝe handed to you.

As for the rest of your post, you'd better let the rest of the world and the ICJ know that international law actually hinges upon what Wimjim of Cyclechat thinks.

 

[winjim]

Article 51 of what? A moment ago you were claiming you didn't know.
It's a bad look if you try patronising somebody and then get your arŝe handed to you.

As for the rest of your post, you'd better let the rest of the world and the ICJ know that international law actually hinges upon what Wimjim of Cyclechat thinks.

You are a twat.

 

[multitool]

You are a twat.

 

[multitool]

Away from Wimjim's sweary tantrum, and back to the issue of Starmer and what an incoming Labour admin will do. I've had a look at the FT, which is usually a pretty reliable source of meaningful information and today we have this:

https://www.ft.com/content/47de4513-bd5d-474f-a10f-18cab13f94ab

Worth a read for those who claim that the party is controlled by the oleaginous Mandelson, or that Labour are in hock to capital.

I also see that the FT is reporting that Labour plans to abolish hereditary peers in its first year. Nothing radical there them. Hereditary peers have only been there for a millennium.

Clearly further reform of our bicameral system is needed, especiallyin the light of abuse of peerages, but there needs to be a workable alternative that provides checks and balances.

The FT might be behind a pay wall, so here are some screenshots

 

[qigong chimp]

"Quite why Keir Starmer has rowed back on Labour’s previous pledge to renationalise the water industry is unclear. Presumably the best way to look like you’re responsible with money is to present yourself as the continuity candidate, letting calamitously run monopolies spray it everywhere then demand that consumers of that luxury product, water, foot the bill yet again."

Marina Hyde.

 

[theclaud]

"tHIs IS bIG bOy poLItICs!"


View: https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1717920557721628945?t=xGZ8bb09dM4Lybsi2LU9WQ&s=19