On 5 Mar 2024 at 20:12:42 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

> On 05/03/2024 19:02, Tim Streater wrote:
>> Perhaps he wishes to mean International Law.
>>
> Hard to tell with these undeducated swivel eyed remaoners
>
>> Not that there's any such thing, as that barrister chappie who retrained as a
>> comedian, said on his BBC-R4 programme called "Unreliable Evidence". I forget
>> his name for the minute.
>
> Clive Andersen?
> Law is what you can enforce.

That's the badger, thanks.

He had a program dedicated to "International Law", which he described roughly
as the set of treaties and protocols that nations have signed up to.

Which is all very well, but there's no hint of enforcement there, even though
there's a couple of courts that are supposedly set up to deal with the
"justice" side of it, but good luck getting Putin to The Hague.

I accept that there are treaties and protocols, but history is full of
repudiations of these, so the notion of "International Law" becomes a bit
risible. But it suits some people to describe it thus, so they can bleat about
someone "breaking international law", and look all solemn and noble as they do
so.

--
All of science is either physics or stamp-collecting.

Ernest Rutherford

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 09:23:23 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 5 Mar 2024 at 20:12:42 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
> <tnp@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 05/03/2024 19:02, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Perhaps he wishes to mean International Law.
>>>
>> Hard to tell with these undeducated swivel eyed remaoners
>>
>>> Not that there's any such thing, as that barrister chappie who
>>> retrained as a
>>> comedian, said on his BBC-R4 programme called "Unreliable Evidence". I
>>> forget
>>> his name for the minute.
>>
>> Clive Andersen?
>> Law is what you can enforce.
>
> That's the badger, thanks.
>
> He had a program dedicated to "International Law", which he described
> roughly as the set of treaties and protocols that nations have signed
> up to.

That's not law, that's a treaty obligation and treatys can be cancelled.

> Which is all very well, but there's no hint of enforcement there,

There can be, but its still not law.

> even though there's a couple of courts that are supposedly set up to
> dealwith the "justice" side of it, but good luck getting Putin to The
> Hague.

Or enforcing the court judgement even with an in abscentia judgement.

> I accept that there are treaties and protocols, buthistory is full of
> repudiations of these, so the notionof "International Law" becomes a
> bit risible.

We have different words for a reason.

> But it suits some people to describe it thus, so they canbleat about
> someone "breaking international law",

Its just more mindless legal parasite bullshit.

> and look all solemn and noble as they do so.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 09:51:30 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
williamwright addressing Rodent Speed:
"This is getting beyond ridiculous now. You're trying to prove black's
white. You're arguing with someone who has been involved with the issues all
his working life when you clearly have no knowledge at all. I think you're
just being a pillock for the sake of it. You clearly don't actually believe
your own words. You must have a very empty life, and a sad embittered soul.
MID: <j08o6bFeqc1U1@mid.individual.net>

On 05/03/2024 22:23, Tim Streater wrote:
> But it suits some people to describe it thus, so they can bleat about
> someone "breaking international law", and look all solemn and noble as they do
> so.
Thats their Lordships to a T.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 04/03/2024 17:05, Joe wrote:

> But only the two I mentioned have their 'ownership' of the planet
> endorsed by their god. Nowhere in the New Testament is there any
> similar claim of ownership by Christians.

Isn't that statement just being selective in what you are quoting. True
believers also believe in what is said in the old testament and many
loony fringe chistian religions* selectively quote and interpret the
bible for their own ends.

Maybe fringe but possible with very high numbers in the USA.

> And as far as I know, no collectivist religion comes with any message
> from a god.

The 10 commandments?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/03/2024 17:05, Joe wrote:

> Why else would the US send much weaponry and large sums of money
> annually to Israel?
>

The USA has a (poor) track record of supporting the opposition to
regimes, either in country or in neighbouring countries, that they
disagree with. They often finance or provide weaponry to these
opposition/alternative groups, especially in the USA/Russia proxy wars
and more lately in the USA/Russia/Islamic proxy wars.

More often as not this comes back and bites the USA (and some western
allies) in the arse in a big way when it's realised that those
opposition groups were not the good guys and are worse than the regime
that was previously in power.

Is there anywhere in the world that a regime change instigated by an
outside source has resulted in a better outcome for world security?

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 6 Mar 2024 at 13:38:50 GMT, "alan_m" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On 04/03/2024 17:05, Joe wrote:
>
>> Why else would the US send much weaponry and large sums of money
>> annually to Israel?
>
> The USA has a (poor) track record of supporting the opposition to
> regimes, either in country or in neighbouring countries, that they
> disagree with. They often finance or provide weaponry to these
> opposition/alternative groups, especially in the USA/Russia proxy wars
> and more lately in the USA/Russia/Islamic proxy wars.
>
> More often as not this comes back and bites the USA (and some western
> allies) in the arse in a big way when it's realised that those
> opposition groups were not the good guys and are worse than the regime
> that was previously in power.
>
> Is there anywhere in the world that a regime change instigated by an
> outside source has resulted in a better outcome for world security?

Unlikely. Countries that suffer from "regime change" are usually those with
little or no history of democracy or peaceful transfer of power. This mindset
affects the expectations of the populace.

--
Bessie Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
> Joe wrote

>> Why else would the US send much weaponryand large sums of money
>> annually to Israel?

> The USA has a (poor) track record of supportingthe opposition to
> regimes, either in country orin neighbouring countries, that they
> disagree with.

The UK in spades, most obviously with Aden and what is now Yemen.

The memoirs of the fella personally involved in
doing that for decades is very interesting read.

And lets not forget what the UK got up to during WW1
encouraging the arabs to do over the Ottoman Empire
which ended up with the complete and utter mess that
is Israel and the occupied territorys today.

And lets not forget the Jewish Brigade.

> They often finance or provide weaponry to these opposition/alternative
> groups, especially in the USA/Russia proxy wars and more lately in the
> USA/Russia/Islamic proxy wars.

> More often as not this comes back and bites the USA (andsome western
> allies) in the arse in a big way when it'srealised that those
> opposition groups were not the good guysand are worse than the regime
> that was previously in power.

That's certainly true of Aden/Yemen and the utter mess
that happened in Greece, Romania etc during the war.

> Is there anywhere in the world that a regime change instigated by an
> outside source has resulted in a better outcome for world security?

Yep, WW2

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 02:58:53 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 6 Mar 2024 at 13:38:50 GMT, "alan_m" <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 04/03/2024 17:05, Joe wrote:
>>
>>> Why else would the US send much weaponry and large sums of money
>>> annually to Israel?
>>
>> The USA has a (poor) track record of supporting the opposition to
>> regimes, either in country or in neighbouring countries, that they
>> disagree with. They often finance or provide weaponry to these
>> opposition/alternative groups, especially in the USA/Russia proxy wars
>> and more lately in the USA/Russia/Islamic proxy wars.
>>
>> More often as not this comes back and bites the USA (and some western
>> allies) in the arse in a big way when it's realised that those
>> opposition groups were not the good guys and are worse than the regime
>> that was previously in power.
>>
>> Is there anywhere in the world that a regime change instigated by an
>> outside source has resulted in a better outcome for world security?

> Unlikely.

It happened in spades with WW2

> Countries that suffer from "regime change" are usually those with little
> or no history of democracy or peaceful transfer of power.

Yes, that was certainly true of Japan. And still is,
the same party has held power ever since the war.

But that is a separate issue to world security which
has in fact improved very dramatically indeed now
that Japan no longer attempts to dominate SE asia.

> This mindset affects the expectations of the populace.

The expectations of the populace are only relevant in a democracy.

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 05:02:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
More senile "wisdom" from the senile Australian bullshit artist:
"Some things are much harder to do than others."
Message-ID: <h4qo0gFr6h0U1@mid.individual.net>

On Thu, 07 Mar 2024 04:52:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID: <f9056fe6-1479-40ff-8cc0-8118292c547e@googlegroups.com>

"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

> On 03/03/2024 in message <46h9ui5u1u65upm8o5kefi1rmmel49tcbo@4ax.com> Dan
> Green wrote:
>
> > On 3 Mar 2024 17:38:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/03/2024 in message <us1v04$2h1es$2@dont-email.me> The Natural
> > > Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> > > > > > > If you think there is any excuse for blowing new born babies
> > > > > > > to pieces then you must see a psychiatrist now, run, don't
> > > > > > > walk.
> >>>>>>
> > > > > > Its you that are excusing Hamas, not me
> >>>>
> > > > > Haven't mentioned them, see an optician on the way back from the
> > > > > psychiatrist
> >>>>
> > > > The fact that you haven't mentioned them, when they are the root
> > > > cause of everything, is a tribute to your anti-semitic cognitive
> > > > dissonance.
> >>
> > > That's not true, the root cause is Israel's occupation of Palestine,
> > > they need to get out.
> >
> > This is a situation which is Britain's fault for once. We often get
> > blamed for all sorts of shit which is nothing to do with us, but
> > creating Israel out of Palestine in 1948 and all the subsequent shit is
> > down to us, I'm sorry to say. Balfour has a lot to answer for. It would
> > probably be for the best if we admitted we'd made a terrible mistake and
> > pressed for the disestablishment of Israel. That decision - to create a
> > new state out of occupied land - has had disastrous consequences from
> > day 1.
>
> Hear, hear. I thought I was the only person in the world who thought that.
>
+1

--
braind

Tim Lamb <tim@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <xn0oiw9hi7t35jm01l@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> <jgnewsid@outlook.com> writes
> > On 03/03/2024 in message <46h9ui5u1u65upm8o5kefi1rmmel49tcbo@4ax.com>
> > Dan Green wrote:
> >
> > > On 3 Mar 2024 17:38:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
> > > wrote:
> >>
> > > > On 03/03/2024 in message <us1v04$2h1es$2@dont-email.me> The Natural
> > > > Philosopher wrote:
> >>>
> > > > > > > > If you think there is any excuse for blowing new born babies
> > > > > > > > to
> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > then you must see a psychiatrist now, run, don't walk.
> >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > Its you that are excusing Hamas, not me
> >>>>>
> > > > > > Haven't mentioned them, see an optician on the way back from the
> > > > > > psychiatrist
> >>>>>
> > > > > The fact that you haven't mentioned them, when they are the root
> > > > > cause of everything, is a tribute to your anti-semitic cognitive
> > > > > dissonance.
> >>>
> > > > That's not true, the root cause is Israel's occupation of Palestine,
> > > > they need to get out.
> >>
> > > This is a situation which is Britain's fault for once. We often get
> > > blamed for all sorts of shit which is nothing to do with us, but
> > > creating Israel out of Palestine in 1948 and all the subsequent shit
> > > is down to us, I'm sorry to say. Balfour has a lot to answer for. It
> > > would probably be for the best if we admitted we'd made a terrible
> > > mistake and pressed for the disestablishment of Israel. That decision
> > > - to create a new state out of occupied land - has had disastrous
> > > consequences from day 1.
> >
> > Hear, hear. I thought I was the only person in the world who thought
> > that.
>
> From what little I remember, we were being knocked about by militant
> Israelis and walked away.
Ben-gurion was a notorious terrorist in 1948. Wanted by the British. Then we
walked away.

>
> This seems more about territorial ambition rather than opposing religions.
> How would we respond if the French re-took Hastings on some historical
> premise?
> >
>

--
braind

On 3 Mar 2024 at 18:48:33 GMT, "Dan Green" <dhg99908@hotmail.se> wrote:

> On 3 Mar 2024 17:38:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 03/03/2024 in message <us1v04$2h1es$2@dont-email.me> The Natural
>> Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>>>>> If you think there is any excuse for blowing new born babies to pieces
>>>>>> then you must see a psychiatrist now, run, don't walk.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Its you that are excusing Hamas, not me
>>>>
>>>> Haven't mentioned them, see an optician on the way back from the
>>>> psychiatrist
>>>>
>>> The fact that you haven't mentioned them, when they are the root cause of
>>> everything, is a tribute to your anti-semitic cognitive dissonance.
>>
>> That's not true, the root cause is Israel's occupation of Palestine, they
>> need to get out.
>
> This is a situation which *is* Britain's fault for once. We often get
> blamed for all sorts of shit which is nothing to do with us, but
> creating Israel out of Palestine in 1948 and all the subsequent shit
> is down to us, I'm sorry to say.

We didn't create Israel out of Palestine.

> Balfour has a *lot* to answer for. It would probably be for the best

I agree about Balfour; he promised something that he was in no position to
promise, given that Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time.
There were numbers of Jews there by then, but again that had nothing to do
with us. Lots more Jews arrived post WW2, but there again, this happened
despite our efforts to keep them out, or limit the numbers. Or are you
advocating that we should have just sunk a number of the ships arriving there
loaded with refugees.

> if we admitted we'd made a terrible mistake

What mistake would that be?

> and pressed for the disestablishment of Israel. That decision

Whose decision was that then? It certainly wasn't ours.

> - to create a new state out of occupied land - has had disastrous
> consequences from day 1.

The Turks occupied it - had occupied it for a long time. For reasons unknown
to me, the League of Nations after WW1 and with the crumbling of the Ottoman
Empire, "awarded" the mandate for Palestine to the UK. But I'm not sure we
ever wanted it.

--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan