Bishop of Manchester: Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

[Leonhard]

No, international law may or may not have the best interest of my country in mind. I believe in a robust self-defense. I'm not arguing that we should go to war over any little thing, but I certainly can see why a country like Israel doesn't want Iran to get the bomb - especially in light of Iran's explicit threats. Again, there is no reason not to take the Mullahs at their word.

What reason does the US have again in giving military aid to Israel?

[seer]

Which is not proof of the ruling Mullahs' beliefs.

OK, so they don't believe some basis teachings of Islam?

By definition.

Nonsense, international law is lawless. Invented by godless liberals.

[seer]

What reason does the US have again in giving military aid to Israel?

To help them survive? Because they are our allies, the only real democracy in the area?

[Leonhard]

To help them survive? Because they are our allies, the only real democracy in the area?

In what sense is The State of Israel an ally of the US? Its a democracy sure, but they're also committing war crimes now.

[Paprika]

OK, so they don't believe some basis teachings of Islam?

Muslims have many disagreements on what their Scripture means and how it applies today. I'm still looking for proof.

Nonsense

To act regardless of international law is by definition to be lawless.

international law is lawless. Invented by godless liberals.

It would be great to see proof for this, as well as reasoning from this premise to 'this is why we don't need to abide by it'.

[Leonhard]

It should be noted here that despite what Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin thinks, The State of Israel isn't the true Israel. There's no Biblical mandate for Christians to support them anymore than we're to support any other secular state of the world.

[seer]

It should be noted here that despite what Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin thinks, The State of Israel isn't the true Israel. There's no Biblical mandate for Christians to support them anymore than we're to support any other secular state of the world.

I support them simply because of the long history of antisemitism. After the Holocaust I believe they deserve a state of their own.

[seer]

Muslims have many disagreements on what their Scripture means and how it applies today. I'm still looking for proof.

OK, I gave you their texts and you ignore it. I guess I could go over to and interview each individual Iman.

To act regardless of international law is by definition to be lawless.

That is stupid, first you have to prove that international law is just. It is not. Only laws that conform to the law of God are ultimately just.

It would be great to see proof for this, as well as reasoning from this premise to 'this is why we don't need to abide by it'.

No, you have to prove that by using the word "international" that that somehow makes a law worthy or just.

For instance:

Authoritative interpretations of international law recognize that abortion is vitally important to women’s exercise of their human rights. U.N. treaty bodies, which take a measured approach to interpreting international human rights law, have consistently and extensively opined on abortion access and restrictions. By our count, as of early 2005, at least 122 concluding observations on ninety-three countries spanning more than a decade by U.N. treaty bodies have substantively addressed how abortion relates to fundamental human rights. These bodies reason that firmly established human rights are jeopardized by restrictive or punitive abortion laws and practices. Their jurisprudence on specific human rights and their relevance to abortion are described below.

So international law is moving towards abortion rights - is that just and right Paprika?

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/wrd/wrd0106/

[Leonhard]

I support them simply because of the long history of antisemitism.

Its them wearing big leather boots and holding a beat stick now.

I'm very much against anti-semitism, and the maltreatment of jews, but I don't support The State of Israel's actions, even by "war is horrible" standards, their war crimes are getting inexcusable. I'm pro jews, but I'm against zionism. You'd have some work to do in order to convince me that currently The State of Israel performs any good function worth supporting down there.

After the Holocaust I believe they deserve a state of their own.

So does the Palestinians, unfortunately The State of Israel ironically refuses to consider Palestine a state, even though that people was what originally held the territory.

[Paprika]

OK, I gave you their texts and you ignore it. I guess I could go over to and interview each individual Iman.

So you have no proof.

That is stupid, first you have to prove that international law is just. It is not. Only laws that conform to the law of God are ultimately just...abortion...

This is irrelevant to the definition of 'lawless'.

[Paprika]

The Israeli van Creveld on nuclear proliferation:

Source: www.martin-van-creveld.com/?p=146

"More may be better” was the title of an article published back in 1981 by the redoubtable political scientist Kenneth Waltz. Going against the prevailing wisdom, Waltz argued that nuclear proliferation might not be all bad. Nuclear weapons, he wrote, had prevented the US and the USSR from going to war against each other....Since then over thirty years have passed. Though Waltz himself died in 2013, his light goes marching on. At the time he published his article there were just five nuclear countries (the US, the USSR, Britain, France, and China). Plus one, Israel, which had the bomb but put anybody who dared say so in jail. Since then three (India, Pakistan, and North Korea) have been added, raising the total to nine. Yet on no occasion did any of these states fight a major war against any other major, read nuclear, power.

And how about Iran? First, note that no country has taken nearly as long as Iran did to develop its nuclear program. Started during the 1970s under the Shah, suspended during the 1980s as the Iranians were fighting Saddam Hussein (who had invaded Iran), and renewed in the early 1990s, that program has still not borne fruit. This suggests that, when the Iranians say, as they repeatedly have, that they do not want to build a bomb they are sincere, at least up to a point. All they want is the infrastructure that will enable them to build it quickly should the need arise. That is a desire they have in common with quite some other countries such as Sweden, Japan, and Australia.

Second, the real purpose of the Iranian program, and any eventual bomb that may result from it, is to deter a possible attack by the U.S. Look at the record; one never knows what America’s next president is going to do. There is a distinct possibility that another Clinton, who attacked Serbia, and another Bush, who attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, will occupy the White House from 2016. Thus caution is advised. The Mullahs have no desire to share the fate of Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Khadafy. The latter’s fate in particular gives reason for thought. In 2002-3, coming under Western pressure, Khadafy gave up his nuclear program. As his reward, no sooner did the West see an opportunity in 2011 than it stabbed him in the back, waged war on him, overthrew him, and had him killed. Leaving Libya in a mess from which it may never recover.

© Copyright Original Source

[Leonhard]

American support of The State of Israel should depend on whether that country will work towards a two state solution, dividing the territory into The State of Palestine, and The State of Israel.

[seer]

Its them wearing big leather boots and holding a beat stick now.

I'm very much against anti-semitism, and the maltreatment of jews, but I don't support The State of Israel's actions, even by "war is horrible" standards, their war crimes are getting inexcusable. I'm pro jews, but I'm against zionism. You'd have some work to do in order to convince me that currently The State of Israel performs any good function worth supporting down there.

Good function Len? Yes, they are giving Jews a safe place to live, a defensible nation. And what actions are you speaking of?

So does the Palestinians, unfortunately The State of Israel ironically refuses to consider Palestine a state, even though that people was what originally held the territory.

First, there was never a Palestinian state - never in history. Second, there was a Jewish state that went back 3,000 years. Third, when Jordan had the West Bank (Trans Jordan) and when Egypt had Gaza they never even considered giving the Palestinians a state. And the Jews are the bad guys? Finally, the Jews have been open to a two state solution. Look at the Camp David Summit - it was the Palestinians (i.e. Arafat) that pretty much ruined that. And today Abbas won't even agree that the Jewish state has a right to exist - how do you deal with someone who doesn't think you have the right to exist?

[Paprika]

American support of The State of Israel should depend on whether that country will work towards a two state solution, dividing the territory into The State of Palestine, and The State of Israel.

If we're going to go there, I'd like to add that the UK need to stop shirking the fact that the its territorial divisions post WWII has led to complete messes eg Israel and Iraq.

[seer]

So you have no proof.

But it doesn't matter. Israel, not you will decide what actions they will take. They take the threats seriously. Whether you do or not.

This is irrelevant to the definition of 'lawless'.

OK, so it is lawless if we don't follow unjust laws? Like Martin Luther King did - yes he was a lawless man!