Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Are Israel's air strikes on Syria legal?

shalal12
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 11:00:46 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Israeli fighters attack Syria when ever they want. They dont hesitate attacking Syrian buildings when they detect the people who are anti-Zionist. Syria is a country and Israel must NOT break international laws! Western media, why are you so silent!?

1. It's 100% illegal.

It's against international laws to get into a country and bomb where ever you want. What will be Israel's reaction if another country do the same work and carry out air strikes on Israel?

2. Can we also attack Israel when we detect terrorists there?!

Those who are called terrorists by Israel are called heroes in Muslim nations as they are fighting with Israel. We also call Netanyaho a terrorist, should we carry out air strikes?
Why doesn't ISIS attack Israel?! ISIS terrorist behead Iranians immediately when they arrest saying" You are with Jews in fact you are telling lie that you are fighting them. It's Taqiyya!"
Why Israel gives terrorists hospitals and weapons?
Why ...
Why...
Why...
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 2:09:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Lol@ 'Netanyaho.'

Firstly, how can something be 100% illegal? Technically, it is either legal or it isn't~~with no percentages involved.

I would say that these airstrikes do violate Syria's airspace (but that isn't uncommon), and they are occurring without the official agreement of Syria, though given the historical and political context, that's highly unlikely anyway. The fact is that both countries have very different agendas. So if Israel is going to hit Syria with full adherence to international law, how exactly does it do so?

Moreover, Israel will always act under the guise that it is targeting terrorists. Generally when they attack Syria, they say it is to prevent Hezbollah weaponry from being transferred to Lebanon. As Hezbollah doesn't particularly like Israel (an understatement), this can be viewed as an acceptable premise.

What cannot be denied is that Israel views its own security and its own agenda as significantly more important that its Middle Eastern neighbours', that's why they are more than prepared to bomb countries such as Syria: because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter for Israel, this is one reason why disregard has been shown to the Palestinians. The primary interest is that Israeli people themselves are relatively safe and there is *always* an overestimation (and paranoia) about the level of danger faced.

Regarding your point of alleged support of terrorists, that is somewhat true~~though Israel can/has argued that it is doing so because these terrorists end up at the Golan Heights, and that therefore as a developed country Israel has some responsibility for treating them. I do not quite know what the (real) reason is yet~~obviously though, Israel has an invested interest in assisting terrorists belonging to al-Nusra and the Syrian rebels, as they're fighting against Assad.

However, it still somewhat seems to be rather pointless.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 2:15:09 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Also, your #2 question is slightly out-of-context. As the present political and circumstantial differences between Syria and Israel are quite vast.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
TheProphett
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 2:23:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Firstly, how can something be 100% illegal? Technically, it is either legal or it isn't~~with no percentages involved.

Oh man, you got him there. How can anyone argue against that?
Topics I would like to debate: https://docs.google.com...

Epic Quotes:

She's a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater - Austin Powers


Economic Forum Revival Co-Leader

If you are interested in starting a political journal for the site, please contact me.
shalal12
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 4:23:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 2:09:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Lol@ 'Netanyaho.'

Firstly, how can something be 100% illegal? Technically, it is either legal or it isn't~~with no percentages involved.
One may justify that action regarding different aspects. I meant from every point of view and regarding every aspects (Even with Hizbullah and Hamas), it's illegal.

I would say that these airstrikes do violate Syria's airspace (but that isn't uncommon), and they are occurring without the official agreement of Syria,
So it's illegal.

My point! It's illegal.

though given the historical and political context, that's highly unlikely anyway.
What's unlikely?

The fact is that both countries have very different agendas. So if Israel is going to hit Syria with full adherence to international law, how exactly does it do so?
With your logic two countries with very different agendas can hit another one. Iran's agendas is also very different from those Zionists, are we allowed to send a couple of Emaad missiles?

Moreover, Israel will always act under the guise that it is targeting terrorists. Generally when they attack Syria, they say it is to prevent Hezbollah weaponry from being transferred to Lebanon. As Hezbollah doesn't particularly like Israel (an understatement), this can be viewed as an acceptable premise.
Acceptable?!
As I said, using your logic, we can also attack them. Will media be again silent if we attack them?

What cannot be denied is that Israel views its own security and its own agenda as significantly more important that its Middle Eastern neighbours',
The blood of Israelis are better in color than those innocent Syrians?

that's why they are more than prepared to bomb countries such as Syria: because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter for Israel, this is one reason why disregard has been shown to the Palestinians. The primary interest is that Israeli people themselves are relatively safe and there is *always* an overestimation (and paranoia) about the level of danger faced.
They are bullying!

Regarding your point of alleged support of terrorists, that is somewhat true~~though Israel can/has argued that it is doing so because these terrorists end up at the Golan Heights, and that therefore as a developed country Israel has some responsibility for treating them. I do not quite know what the (real) reason is yet~~obviously though, Israel has an invested interest in assisting terrorists belonging to al-Nusra and the Syrian rebels, as they're fighting against Assad.

Israel DOES support terrorism. Zionist regime is a terrorist nation and does assest terrorists to reach their dirty plans.
Those wild terrorists whom are supported by Israel kill men and rape innocent girls. You have no idea how many women just got pregnant from those terrorists.

However, it still somewhat seems to be rather pointless.
huh?
Emilrose
Posts: 2,479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 5:13:40 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 4:23:16 PM, shalal12 wrote:
At 12/20/2015 2:09:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Lol@ 'Netanyaho.'

Firstly, how can something be 100% illegal? Technically, it is either legal or it isn't~~with no percentages involved.
One may justify that action regarding different aspects. I meant from every point of view and regarding every aspects (Even with Hizbullah and Hamas), it's illegal.

It's still not factually possible for something to be '100%' illegal. Whatever justification(s) one may use is irrelevant.

I would say that these airstrikes do violate Syria's airspace (but that isn't uncommon), and they are occurring without the official agreement of Syria,
So it's illegal.

In order to *confirm* your point as correct~~you should specify exactly how it is illegal and according to what law. Fundamentally, I'm more or less agreeing with you but I'm also taking into account the circumstantial context involved.

Moreover, it's very popular for those against Israel to constantly exclaim 'it's illegal!', without really knowing which law(s) make it so.

My point! It's illegal.

Again, not disagreeing. But you should present an argument explaining how it is.

though given the historical and political context, that's highly unlikely anyway.
What's unlikely?

The fact is that both countries have very different agendas. So if Israel is going to hit Syria with full adherence to international law, how exactly does it do so?
With your logic two countries with very different agendas can hit another one. Iran's agendas is also very different from those Zionists, are we allowed to send a couple of Emaad missiles?

Nope, you've misunderstood my argument. What I asked was that *how* does Israel realistically approach bombing a country that is has entirely negative relations with? I.E, they cannot really ask and get the consent of Syrian government to 'bomb' certain areas, as they would inevitably decline. Therefore, if Israel doe have concerns regarding Hezbollah, they will address them straight away and proceed with using airstrikes.

Moreover, Israel will always act under the guise that it is targeting terrorists. Generally when they attack Syria, they say it is to prevent Hezbollah weaponry from being transferred to Lebanon. As Hezbollah doesn't particularly like Israel (an understatement), this can be viewed as an acceptable premise.
Acceptable?!

Don't get excited, I'm merely arguing that this IS a premise that Israel uses and (due to the context involving Hezbollah), it can be viewed as acceptable.

Example: if there is a military group (I'm being kind by not referring to them as a terrorist organization) that has professed a hatred of a certain country, saying it wants to destroy, attack it, etc.~~that said country can therefore use the premise of 'self-defence'.

If you want to argue against the validity of that, do so in a logical manner.

As I said, using your logic, we can also attack them. Will media be again silent if we attack them?

What cannot be denied is that Israel views its own security and its own agenda as significantly more important that its Middle Eastern neighbours',

The blood of Israelis are better in color than those innocent Syrians?

Yes, basically. It would seem self-evident that one Israeli loss is greater than other (more numerous) losses. I would point out, however, that Israeli's themselves are also 'innocent' and not deserving of death. Many of them (especially from Europe and the Middle East, excluding the U.S here) are there because their families settled within the land--in the case of Middle Eastern Jews, it was largely involuntary as they were 'forced out' from neighbouring lands. And I needn't refer to the political circumstances of Europe in the early-mid 20th century.


that's why they are more than prepared to bomb countries such as Syria: because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter for Israel, this is one reason why disregard has been shown to the Palestinians. The primary interest is that Israeli people themselves are relatively safe and there is *always* an overestimation (and paranoia) about the level of danger faced.
They are bullying!

Is that all you can argue?

Regarding your point of alleged support of terrorists, that is somewhat true~~though Israel can/has argued that it is doing so because these terrorists end up at the Golan Heights, and that therefore as a developed country Israel has some responsibility for treating them. I do not quite know what the (real) reason is yet~~obviously though, Israel has an invested interest in assisting terrorists belonging to al-Nusra and the Syrian rebels, as they're fighting against Assad.

Israel DOES support terrorism. Zionist regime is a terrorist nation and does assest terrorists to reach their dirty plans.
Those wild terrorists whom are supported by Israel kill men and rape innocent girls. You have no idea how many women just got pregnant from those terrorists.

I never said that they do not support terrorism (in fact I implied that they likely do). However you haven't presented any evidence supporting your assertions.

As for the raping of women and girls, which terrorist group are you referring to exactly? ISIS? Your response is vague at best.

However, it still somewhat seems to be rather pointless.
huh?

I remarked that it was pointless to medically treat individual terrorists, regardless of *if* they have a similar agenda to your own.
Commentator on a picture with David Cameron and a Cat: 'Amazing what you can achieve with photoshop these days. I'm sure that used to be a pig.'

Commentator on Hillary Clinton: 'If Clinton is now what passes for progressive, maybe this country deserves Trump.'

Commentator on British parliament: 'All that talent in one place, where is Ebola when you need it?'

John Kerry on words: 'These aren't just words, folks.'
shalal12
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 6:37:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/20/2015 5:13:40 PM, Emilrose wrote:
At 12/20/2015 4:23:16 PM, shalal12 wrote:
At 12/20/2015 2:09:47 PM, Emilrose wrote:
Lol@ 'Netanyaho.'

Firstly, how can something be 100% illegal? Technically, it is either legal or it isn't~~with no percentages involved.
One may justify that action regarding different aspects. I meant from every point of view and regarding every aspects (Even with Hizbullah and Hamas), it's illegal.

It's still not factually possible for something to be '100%' illegal. Whatever justification(s) one may use is irrelevant.
I am not going to argue on words. :)


I would say that these airstrikes do violate Syria's airspace (but that isn't uncommon), and they are occurring without the official agreement of Syria,
So it's illegal.

In order to *confirm* your point as correct~~you should specify exactly how it is illegal and according to what law. Fundamentally, I'm more or less agreeing with you but I'm also taking into account the circumstantial context involved.

Moreover, it's very popular for those against Israel to constantly exclaim 'it's illegal!', without really knowing which law(s) make it so.
I understand. I should first bring up laws and then call an action an illegal action based on that law. The things were clear enough and every individual could guess what I was talking about.

My point! It's illegal.

Again, not disagreeing. But you should present an argument explaining how it is.

though given the historical and political context, that's highly unlikely anyway.
What's unlikely?

The fact is that both countries have very different agendas. So if Israel is going to hit Syria with full adherence to international law, how exactly does it do so?
With your logic two countries with very different agendas can hit another one. Iran's agendas is also very different from those Zionists, are we allowed to send a couple of Emaad missiles?

Nope, you've misunderstood my argument. What I asked was that *how* does Israel realistically approach bombing a country that is has entirely negative relations with? I.E, they cannot really ask and get the consent of Syrian government to 'bomb' certain areas, as they would inevitably decline. Therefore, if Israel doe have concerns regarding Hezbollah, they will address them straight away and proceed with using airstrikes.
I understand your points.


Moreover, Israel will always act under the guise that it is targeting terrorists. Generally when they attack Syria, they say it is to prevent Hezbollah weaponry from being transferred to Lebanon. As Hezbollah doesn't particularly like Israel (an understatement), this can be viewed as an acceptable premise.
Acceptable?!

Don't get excited, I'm merely arguing that this IS a premise that Israel uses and (due to the context involving Hezbollah), it can be viewed as acceptable.

Indeed.
Example: if there is a military group (I'm being kind by not referring to them as a terrorist organization) that has professed a hatred of a certain country, saying it wants to destroy, attack it, etc.~~that said country can therefore use the premise of 'self-defence'.
Keep being kind. They are really nice men. I have got many friends from that group.


If you want to argue against the validity of that, do so in a logical manner.

As I said, using your logic, we can also attack them. Will media be again silent if we attack them?

What cannot be denied is that Israel views its own security and its own agenda as significantly more important that its Middle Eastern neighbours',

The blood of Israelis are better in color than those innocent Syrians?

Yes, basically. It would seem self-evident that one Israeli loss is greater than other (more numerous) losses. I would point out, however, that Israeli's themselves are also 'innocent' and not deserving of death. Many of them (especially from Europe and the Middle East, excluding the U.S here) are there because their families settled within the land--in the case of Middle Eastern Jews, it was largely involuntary as they were 'forced out' from neighbouring lands. And I needn't refer to the political circumstances of Europe in the early-mid 20th century.
We have no problem with innocent Israeli people. I am a Muslim and I do care for innocent people no matter from which nation.


that's why they are more than prepared to bomb countries such as Syria: because in the great scheme of things, it doesn't matter for Israel, this is one reason why disregard has been shown to the Palestinians. The primary interest is that Israeli people themselves are relatively safe and there is *always* an overestimation (and paranoia) about the level of danger faced.
They are bullying!

Is that all you can argue?
Did you wanna make a specific point?

Regarding your point of alleged support of terrorists, that is somewhat true~~though Israel can/has argued that it is doing so because these terrorists end up at the Golan Heights, and that therefore as a developed country Israel has some responsibility for treating them. I do not quite know what the (real) reason is yet~~obviously though, Israel has an invested interest in assisting terrorists belonging to al-Nusra and the Syrian rebels, as they're fighting against Assad.

Israel DOES support terrorism. Zionist regime is a terrorist nation and does assest terrorists to reach their dirty plans.
Those wild terrorists whom are supported by Israel kill men and rape innocent girls. You have no idea how many women just got pregnant from those terrorists.

I never said that they do not support terrorism (in fact I implied that they likely do). However you haven't presented any evidence supporting your assertions.
Again it's obvious and I didnt provide sources.

As for the raping of women and girls, which terrorist group are you referring to exactly? ISIS? Your response is vague at best.
ALL!!!
And ISIS has this action on its best.
The so called moderate terrorists "Ahrar ash-Shaam". The name says they are Syrian rebels however many of them are from Saudi Arabia, Che Chen and.. who have no zeal or on Syrian women. When the women are fortunate they are just able to chose between a couple of terrorists to marry!!

However, it still somewhat seems to be rather pointless.
huh?

I remarked that it was pointless to medically treat individual terrorists, regardless of *if* they have a similar agenda to your own.
Terrorists are in need of hospitals as they are fighting for years. Providing them with hospitals makes them very powerfull.