• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0Vx4PrUoAA6BIO.jpg

The people who are booked don't even want to perform, they're contractually obligated too. So there's the million jokes about the first women to lose their rights in the Trump presidency.
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO
Trump says he wants to stock up on nukes because we apparently don't have enough already with enough to destroy everything.

We don't have to destroy everything, just China.

More seriously though, they might be sold off or stored in other countries to make them nuclear powers like Pakistan. Putin wants to redraw MENA, so nuclear bombs are going to help, just like how Soviet ones helped during Israel-Arab war for Egypt.


Also that he's not really knowledgeable about some important things that a president should know.

But I suppose Donald Trump also doesn't know that he constantly looks like he's trying to get Vladimir Putin to go to the junior prom with him, so that may not even be a barrier anymore.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-23/trump-releases-very-nice-letter-he-received-vladimir-putin

Actually, they are already dating.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
That's ma homestate <3
 

Trainer Yusuf

VolcaniNO

This sort of **** happens all the time in Turkey and Russia and their diaspora, so expect this to turn into an international issue soon.

Just recently pro-Erdogan Turks raided an pro-CHP Alevi center in Germany. They also routinely assassinate or plan to assassinate Kurdish political figures a la MOSSAD.

(I should probably also mention that this sort of **** happens routinely regardless of an authoritarian right-wing populist revolutionary or hate groups like KKK because of other reasons
It has begun... Obama issued new sanctions on Russia for the cyberattacks!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-unveils-plan-punish-russians-election-hack-n701236

It won't last if Trump isn't impeached for treason.

Naw, they're a hypocracy.
Actually, it is against the increasing number of non-Whites in North Carolina, so it is just straight up colonialism, just like the gentrification policies in Harlem and Brooklyn.
 

Mordent99

Banned
This sort of **** happens all the time in Turkey and Russia and their diaspora, so expect this to turn into an international issue soon.

So, uh, cases of an ambassador being murdered in the country they're emissaries for "happens often"?

Given all the stories of violence over the New Year, it seems this sort of thing is getting much, MUCH more common of late.

Actually, it is against the increasing number of non-Whites in North Carolina, so it is just straight up colonialism, just like the gentrification policies in Harlem and Brooklyn.

"Colonialism", right, uh-huh. You make it sound like an invasion.
 

bobjr

You ask too many questions
Staff member
Moderator
Trump is basically going to mask the GOPs worst actions I think. They're going to use him as a scapegoat whenever things go bad for them, when they're the ones passing the worst long term stuff. Yes Trump is terrible and will be reactionary in the worst way, but when it comes to the long term "Who can we screw over to put money in our pockets" things, it's the main party.
 

Silver Soul

Well-Known Member
Alright. Good news that the House Republicans backed off on gutting the watchdog after Trump called attention to it... but that was too close.
 

Mordent99

Banned
Alright. Good news that the House Republicans backed off on gutting the watchdog after Trump called attention to it... but that was too close.


Yes, they held an emergency session to change their minds after their decision sparked outrage. Know why? Cause they can talk the talk but can't walk the walk.

The Republican party doesn't even believe in the causes they support, they're just in it for their own selfish gain. They have no courage nor convictions, and when a decision they make turns public opinion sour, they show their true colors and wimp out.
 

Swordsman4

Well-Known Member
What do the liberals think about Obama stabbing Israel in the back at the UN? I'm curious to see how they spin Israeli settlements as dangerous, bigoted, and hateful...
 

Remix2

Well-Known Member
What do the liberals think about Obama stabbing Israel in the back at the UN? I'm curious to see how they spin Israeli settlements as dangerous, bigoted, and hateful...

You do realize that those settlements are illegal under international law.
 

Swordsman4

Well-Known Member
You do realize that those settlements are illegal under international law.

You do realize that the land belongs to Israel and the Palestinians break international law daily and don't get so much as a slap on the wrist, right?

Now personally, I wouldn't want to build settlements in an area with a bunch of blood lusting terrorists, but they do have a right to their own land. Israel won the land when the arabs invaded them back in 1967 because they won the war.

It's their land, they can do whatever the heck they like with it. Foreign nations can't tell them what to do with it anymore than I can tell you what to do with your property.
 
Last edited:

Pikachu52

Well-Known Member
What do the liberals think about Obama stabbing Israel in the back at the UN? I'm curious to see how they spin Israeli settlements as dangerous, bigoted, and hateful...

The issue is their legality under International Law. The West Bank was annexed by Israel after the 6 day war in 1967. Prior to that since 1948 it had been controlled by Jordan, though Jordan's annexation was not recognised Internationally except by the UK. Artcile 49(6) of the fourth Geneva convention prohibits states from transferring their own civilian populations into territories they occupy as a result of war:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Israel is a party to the convention so the rule applies - though they have disputes it's application to the settlements. Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also declares transfer a war crime, but Israel has never ratified that treaty.

Interational bodies and UN organs are generally of the consensus that the settlements are in breach of this provision. The 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice provides at [120]:

As regards these settlemeilts, the Court notes that Article 49, paragraph 6, of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The Occupy- ing Power shall not dlrport or transfer parts of its ow11 civilian population into the territory it occupies." That provision prohibits not only depor- tations or forced transfers of population such as those carried out during the Second World War, but also any measures taken by an occupying Power in order to oirganize or encourage transfers of parts of its own population into the ciccupied territory.
In this respect, the information provided to the Court shows that, since 1977, Israel has condiucted a policy and developed practices involving the establishment of Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, contrary to the terms of Article 49, paragraph 6, just cited

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Opponents of this view argue art 49(6) only applies to either forcible mass transfers or to situations where transfer causes displacement of local populations - they would argue that the settlements therefore don't breach the article as they are voluntary settlements and were not intended to displace Palestinians from the area.

Another, and in my opinion better, argument would be that the Oslo accords in leaving the issue of settlements to be resolved post their ratification represent Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and thus there is no basis for declaring them illegal.

As to whether the settlements are "dangerous, bigoted or hateful" (those are not the best terms to apply here) comes to a question as to the settlements affects on the human rights of Palestinians living in the West Bank. The Economic and Social council's 2005 report highlight discriminatory polices against Palestinians by the Israeli government, particuarly in relation to roads:

As pointed out in my main report to the sixty-first session of the Commission (E/CN.4/2005/29) bypass roads have been built to link settlements to each other and settlements to Israel which are closed to Palestinian traffic. Palestinians have been compelled to use secondary roads in poor repair - or blocked by checkpoints or roadblocks. Aware of this problem, the Government of Israel has approached donors with the request that they fund the construction of new roads for the Palestinian population. This further illustrates the manner in which Israel allows the interests of its settler community to outweigh its manifest responsibility as occupying Power to provide basic facilities for the protected persons under its control.

http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Reports/2005/G0511608.pdf

A Human Rights Council Report in 2013 also made conclusion that the settlements constituted breaches of rights to self-determination, non-discrimination, access to water and freedom of movement.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf
 

lemoncatpower

Cynical Optimist
The issue is their legality under International Law. The West Bank was annexed by Israel after the 6 day war in 1967. Prior to that since 1948 it had been controlled by Jordan, though Jordan's annexation was not recognised Internationally except by the UK. Artcile 49(6) of the fourth Geneva convention prohibits states from transferring their own civilian populations into territories they occupy as a result of war:



https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/appl...6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5?OpenDocument

Israel is a party to the convention so the rule applies - though they have disputes it's application to the settlements. Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also declares transfer a war crime, but Israel has never ratified that treaty.

Interational bodies and UN organs are generally of the consensus that the settlements are in breach of this provision. The 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice provides at [120]:



http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf

Opponents of this view argue art 49(6) only applies to either forcible mass transfers or to situations where transfer causes displacement of local populations - they would argue that the settlements therefore don't breach the article as they are voluntary settlements and were not intended to displace Palestinians from the area.

Another, and in my opinion better, argument would be that the Oslo accords in leaving the issue of settlements to be resolved post their ratification represent Palestinians accepted the temporary presence of Israeli settlements pending further negotiation, and thus there is no basis for declaring them illegal.

As to whether the settlements are "dangerous, bigoted or hateful" (those are not the best terms to apply here) comes to a question as to the settlements affects on the human rights of Palestinians living in the West Bank. The Economic and Social council's 2005 report highlight discriminatory polices against Palestinians by the Israeli government, particuarly in relation to roads:



http://www.miftah.org/Doc/Reports/2005/G0511608.pdf

A Human Rights Council Report in 2013 also made conclusion that the settlements constituted breaches of rights to self-determination, non-discrimination, access to water and freedom of movement.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/FFM/FFMSettlements.pdf

wow thank you for this. I better understand what is happening out there now thanks to you!
Do you have an opinion personally on the matter?

Seems like they should all take equality classes :p
 
Top