Soccer Dad

Yes, they are wrong.

And so is the UN and the international community, which rushed to condemn Israel before knowing the entire story.

Shame on them all!

93% of Israel is Palestinian land. This Palestinian ownership includes private and public land, land for common use or usufruct and natural resources in, above or below ground. In short, not only does Israel not have a right to dictate to Palestinians in general on land but they do not own the seas either. Israel has no right to exist at all. In light of the facts, nothing Israel does is right. Except to leave Palestine. Anyway, the best thing to come out of this Flotilla thing is it nailed the coffin on the relationship between Israel and Turkey. Under the circumstances the Islamic world is being forced to form a coalition and that will spell the end of Israel.

This is incorrect. The land in Israel was owned by the Sultan which was passed on to the British Mandate government and then to Israel upon its independence. Israel has defended itself for a long time. What happened Monday may well spell the end of Israel's relations with Islamist Turkey, which I view as long overdue.

The full title is "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea" i.e. there must be an "armed conflict" before the manual becomes applicable. Now, so sorry, but the terms "armed conflict" and "ceasefire" are mutually-exclusive, and it is indisputable that Israel ended the armed conflict that they called "Operation Cast Lead" by declaring a ceasefire. The moment Olmert declared that ceasefire is the exact moment that the San Remo Manual ceased to be applicable, because at that moment Israel lost any "right" to impose a blockade the Gaza Strip. If you don't believe me then ask yourself what Israel did with its navy during the Lebanon War of 2003 i.e. WHILE the war was raging the IDF blockaded Tyre and Sidon, and the instant the ceasefire came into effect the Israeli govt recalled its navy.

The fact that Hamas continues to send rockets into Israel contradicts you.

No, it doesn't. The term "armed conflict" is not equivalent to the odd angry shot across the border, and that militants inside Gaza still shoot some qassams in the general direction of Sderot is no more an "armed conflict" than is the inevitable relatiatory attack by IDF F-16s on the Rafah tunnels. Again, it is instructive to take a step back and look elsewhere e.g. the frequent exchange of fire between North and South Korea or the very frequent artillery fire between Pakistan and India are NOT "armed conflicts", even though they are much, much deadlier than any qassam fired from Gaza in hope but very little expectations.

Well then, johnboy (11.39 pm), feel FREE to reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict.

Well then, johnboy (11.39 pm), feel FREE to reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict.

Well then, johnboy (11.39 pm), feel FREE to reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict.

CK Tan pops up out of the woodwork to demand that I supply him with a definition of "armed conflict".

He wishes to do this because he dearly wants it to mean whatever is convenient for Israel...

The answer is, of course, reliant upon a review of state practices, case law, and customary law, but nonetheless there is a simple test that anyone can use to determine wether any shootin' 'n' bombin' 'n' fightin' amounts to an "armed conflict".

That simple test is Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter, and I invite CK Tan to run his eyes over those two articles and then to explain to all of us how a drizzle of bottle-rockets with the explosive power only slightly higher than that of a water-filled ballon meets the criteria set out in those two articles.

When you are ready, CK, I'll wait....

johnboy SIDE STEPS. As USUAL. Instead of JUSTIFYING his claim that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict, he PULLS up his regular 51 SMOKESCREEN. And then wants ME to explain FOR him. Sorry, johnboy, YOU make the CLAIM, YOU do the job. That is, if you are UP to it. Oh, you might also wish to REGURGITATE the examples that you PLAGIARIZED previously that "PROVE" you are right.

johnboy SIDE STEPS.

As USUAL.

Instead of JUSTIFYING his claim that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict, he PULLS up his regular 51 SMOKESCREEN.

And then wants ME to explain FOR him.

Sorry, johnboy, YOU make the CLAIM, YOU do the job.

That is, if you are UP to it.

Oh, you might also wish to REGURGITATE the examples that you PLAGIARIZED previously that "PROVE" you are right.

I invite CK Tan to run his eyes over those two articles and then to explain to all

That's an argument?

drizzle of bottle-rockets with the explosive power only slightly higher than that of a water-filled ballon meets the criteria set out in those two articles

Even the Goldstone Report knows better than that:

1649. There is little independent confirmation of the types of weaponry held by Palestinian armed groups or the number of weapons that may be stockpiled. According to an Amnesty International report, of February 2009, the arsenals held by armed groups in the Gaza Strip include: al-Qassam (or al-Quds), 122mm Grad and 220 Fadjr-3 rockets as well as the al-Battar, the Banna 1 and Banna 2 anti-armour rockets.

...(b) 122 mm Grad rocket

1652. 122 mm Grad rocket is a Russian-designed missile with a range of approximately 20 to25 kilometres. Given the higher level of technological sophistication and the fact that it is manufactured with material not easily (if at all) available in Gaza, it is likely that they are not made in Gaza.

1653. While most 122 mm Grad rockets have a range of about 20 kilometres, some have landed 40 kilometres inside Israel.997 Global Security has concluded that on the basis of photographs, that the rockets that struck open space near Yavne and Bnei Darom on 28 December 2008 were Chinese-manufactured 122 mm WeiShei-1E rockets, which can travel distances of 20 to40 kilometres.998
While the commission notes that the Grad rockets have a longer range, it neglects to mention that they are more accurate.

According to GlobalSecurity.org:

Recently [prior to January 2009], Hamas imported factory manufactured rockets from China and Iran. Based on a family of Soviet rockets dating back to World War II, these rockets have the range to hit many more Israeli cities, and their introduction help precipitate the current conflict.

The Iranian rocket, called a Grad, has a range of about 12 miles, long enough to hit the Israeli cities of Ashkelon and Sderot. The Chinese rocket, called the WS-1-E (and sold on a rather cheap looking Web site for a defense company) has an even greater range of up to 27 miles, and better accuracy than the Grad. And according to Amanda Castle, the public relations manager at Jane�s Information Group, Israeli intelligence agencies also believe Hamas possesses Iranian Fajr-4 rockets, which have a range long enough to hit Tel Aviv. [emphasis added]

One does not even have to research the accuracy of Hamas weaponry, considering that the Goldstone Commission itself points out the premeditated pattern of Palestinian terrorist attacks:

1692. Where rockets have landed in towns and villages in southern Israel, they have caused localized property damage. This has included private houses1036 and cars.1037 During the operations in Gaza, a total of nine schools and kindergartens in Sderot, Beersheba, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Kiryat Ha Hinoch were hit and damaged by rockets.1038 Two kindergartens were struck and damaged by rocket fire in Ashdod.1039 On 8 January 2009, a Grad rocket hit a school in Ashkelon.1040

Think about that: 5 different Israeli cities were hit by Hamas rockets, and in each city schools are hit. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that schools are being targeted--unless of course you are a member of the Goldstone Commission.

Clearly you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the 'drizzle' of 8,000 rockets fired into Israel over the years.

Neither is your alleged knowledge of international law supported by referring people to articles you cannot summarize.

Good night, John-Boy.

CK Tan asks me to prove a negative i.e. that a pathetic drizzle of bottle-rockets does not rise to the level of an "armed attack".

CK shares with most Israeli apologists a fundamental (but extremely convenient) misunderstanding of International Humanitarian Law.

The first and foremost aim of such law is this: do not escalate the conflict.

Israeli apologists like CK think that the first and foremost aim of such law is this: to provide the excuse for why one side (and it is invariably the Israeli side) can escalate the conflict.

It allows CK to claim that those bottle-rockets allow Israel to blockade Gaza. Strangely, though, Israel never appears to run the same ruler over its own actions.

One example: The CK-doctine should mean that Israel's overflights of Lebanon justify Lebanon's acquisition of AA missiles, yet Barak insists that this is a "red line" that will result in war.

Or this: A Turkish ship was just assaulted on the high seas, and Turkish citizens were killed. Regardless of the rights or wrongs of the blockade the CK-doctrine should now mean that Turkey is entitled to escalate this into a full-blown armed conflict between the IDF and the Turkish navy.

How odd, but it appears that there is one rule for Israel, and quite another rule for everyone else.

Daled Amos makes this pointless point: "Clearly you have absolutely no clue whatsoever about the 'drizzle' of 8,000 rockets fired into Israel over the years"

Those last three words give the game away i.e. "over the years".

Daled, Operation Cast Lead was an "armed conflict". Nobody will dispute that, no matter how one-sided it was.

Daled, the state of Israel ENDED that "armed conflict" by proclaiming a ceasefire.

You really do need to agree that such a proclamation draws a line under that "armed conflict" otherwise, of course, Israel declaring a "ceasefire" has no meaning, amounting to nothing more than Israeli duplicity.

So it is quite pointless for you to point out how many qassams were fired "over the years", because the only relevent count now is how many were fired "since Operation Cast Lead".

The answer: very few, and almost none that anyone - even Israel - attributes to Hamas.

There is no "armed conflict". There hasn't been since Operation Cast Lead ended, and Israel actually brags about that fact in order to "prove" that it "won" that spectacularly one-sided conflict.

There is a simple question that flows from that point: can a country instigate a blockade when there ISN'T an armed conflict?

The answer is clear-cut: No, it can't.

So johnboy, who DRAGS out his ragged 51 SHOWPIECE to AVOID answering directly my SIMPLE question, now WHINES that I am an "apologist" who "MISUNDERSTOOD" International Humanitarian Law.

Which MEANS that you are NOT an apologist for the THUGS & HOOLIGANS and that YOU truly UNDERSTAND the laws PERFECTLY.

STRANGE then, isn't it, that you STILL refuse or UNABLE to PROVE what you CLAIM is ACCURATE or CORRECT.

But for those who KNOW you, it is soooooo boringly TYPICAL.

I repeat, YOU make the CLAIM, YOU do the job. So cut the infantile BLABBING, johnboy, and BE the MAN you THINK you are - and ANSWER my query.

Dear Daled,

It is VERY typical of johnboy to make FALLACIOUS claims (he's one of the resident Israel BASHERS at haaretz) and then, when CHALLENGED, goes left-right-centre, ANYWHERE but the POINT he's supposed to JUSTIFY.

His SNAKE OIL knowledge of INTERNATIONAL LAWS - at times, based on shamelessly PLAGIARISED material - and CURRENT affairs provide some LIGHT moments though.

For his LATEST ha-ha-ha, go to :

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177334

See his PROFOUND claim in post #2.

Then try to contain your CHUCKLES :-)

CK Tan seems to be under the impression that the more skillful exponents of hasbarah wish to indulge him with correspondence.

CK, I'm not certain that they do, since your incoherent nonsense tends not to be of much help in "explaining" Israel's actions.

They may want to take people for a ride - as do you - but they don't really need to take them atop a braying donkey.

So, johnboy THROWS out EVERYTHING but THE answer to DEFLECT attention that he has been CAUGHT - once again - REPEATING his LIE that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict.

As Mark Twain said, "It is BETTER to keep your mouth SHUT and appear STUPID than to OPEN it and REMOVE all doubt."

And johnboy OPENS his mouth FOUR TIMES :-)

CK Tan appears not to understand my argument.

That militants have fired bottle-rockets at Israel is not in doubt, nor is the fact that International Law says that it is illegal to indiscriminately fire ANYTHING and ANYONE i.e. the firing of bottle-rockets at Israel is illegal, no question.

What is in doubt is wether firing bottle-rockets amounts to an "armed conflict" against the state of Israel.

It does not, CK, because it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and, therefore, does not allow Israel to invoke the "self-defense" provisions of Article 51.

Or, in short: if qassams are fired at Israel then Israel is perfectly entitled to fire back, but Israel can't respond to those qassam attacks by ESCALATING this from a "cross-border artillery barrage using pathetic bottle-rockets" into an "armed conflict".

That latter term has a real meaning, CK, becasue in the post-1945 world it substitutes for such quaint terms such as "declarations of war" and "state of war" (both of which are now legal dead letters).

Now, don't get me wrong:
I know that you don't understand this.
I know that it flies way over your head.
I know that I am wasting my time explaining this.

I know all that, because I know that you are thoroughly incapable of getting your head out of your arse, because you want the world to work in the way that is most convenient for Israel.

And in that I can only say to you: "CK, you are a true zionist".

Congratulations, sunshine.

Dear Daled,

This is johnboy's EXACT words (posted in Jan 2010) re rocket attacks against Israel OVER THE YEARS :

There has been more than enough examples to establish that cross-border artillery barrages do NOT rise to that level (of armed attack). (his EMPHASIS)

Now, five months later, he has CUNNINGLY refined his take :

There IS no "armed conflict"...since Operation Cast Lead ended.

Why the CHANGE?

Cos he was caught LYING then. And now. And that's why he is INCAPABLE of giving a DIRECT answer to my SIMPLE query.

So, johnboy THROWS out EVERYTHING but THE answer to DEFLECT attention that he has been CAUGHT - once again - REPEATING his LIE that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict.

As Mark Twain said, "It is BETTER to keep your mouth SHUT and appear STUPID than to OPEN it and REMOVE all doubt."

And johnboy OPENS his mouth FOUR TIMES :-)

Dear Daled,

This is johnboy's EXACT words (posted in Jan 2010) re rocket attacks against Israel OVER THE YEARS and prior to Op Cast Lead :

There has been more than enough examples to establish that cross-border artillery barrages do NOT rise to that level (of armed attack). (his EMPHASIS)

Now, five months later, he has CUNNINGLY refined his take to :

There IS no "armed conflict"...since Operation Cast Lead ended.

Why the CHANGE?

Cos he was caught LYING then. And now.

And that's why he is INCAPABLE of giving a DIRECT answer to my SIMPLE query.

johnboy, the FACT is that you ONLY can REGURGITATE a PATHETIC one-liner DEFENSE - "it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4)" - of your CLAIM that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict.

Without NOTHING else, you WHINE :

I know that you don't understand this.
I know that it flies way over your head.
I know that I am wasting my time explaining this.

Which of course REMINDS me of the STORY by Hans Christian Andersen about the EMPEROR and his NEW CLOTHES.

Now, now, all HAIL johnboy, the PSEUDO-LEGAL king, and CONGRATS on those BEAUTIFUL rags you have on.

Or so you BELIEVE.

OK, I'll try one more time:

Qassams fired from Gaza into Israel are a war crime, but they do not rise to the level of an "armed conflict", and because of that Israel has never been entitled to invoke Article 51 of the Charter.

REGARDLESS of its lack of entitlement to do so, Israel **did** respond to those qassams by launching Operation Cast Lead, and that attack was indisputably an "armed conflict" launched by Israel against Gaza.

It is also indisputable that Operation Cast Lead had a definite "start" and "end", and that end came about because Israel (not Hamas, but Israel) ended it with a ceasefire.

BECAUSE Israel declared that ceasefire then Israel can not possibly claim that it is still engaged in an "armed conflict" with Hamas otherwise (as I have already pointed out) declaring such a ceasefire becomes utterly meaningless.

AND SO if there is no "armed conflict" then Israel has no "right" to blockade anyone, precisely because the "right to blockade" only applies to an "armed conflict".

Or, in short: The blockade imposed by Israel after the 2006 election of Hamas was illegal, and is still illegal today, and the ONLY period when it had any legality was during the month-long "armed conflict" that was called Operation Cast Lead.

Get it now, CK????

To Norman who speaks with crooked tongue: this is a UN map of Palestinian owned land (Jewish/Christian/Muslim etc Palestinians) and public usafruct land. Usafruct means land that was theirs to use and enjoy. The "Israelis" even drink from a well which does not belong to them.
http://almostnot.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/palestine-1945/

To Genie: To treat public land under the rules of usufruct means that you can enjoy the fruits of that land, but you can not fundamentally alter it. Article 55 of the Hague Regs prohibits any occupying power from treating public land ("state land") in any other way than that of a usufructory. Israel's claim that it is entitled to establish Israel-only "settlements" wherever it declares West Bank territory to be "state land" is, indisputably, a violation of Article 55 of the Hague Regs and is therefore completely and utterly illegal.

johnboy keeps REPEATING that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict.

But he can ONLY offer a PATHETIC and LAME reason - it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4).

FACT - "it" has NOT been ACCEPTED as the DEFINITIVE interpretation.

FACT - "it" is NOT formalised in ANY of the INTERNATIONAL conventions.

FACT - "it" is NOT the official CONSENSUS of ALL countries and as such, there is NO formal AGREEMENT that ADOPTS the interpretation of "it".

But it does NOT stop him from REPEATING ad nauseam that THIS is IRREFUTABLE and BINDING proof.

Just like a SNAKE OIL peddler, johnboy is MERELY passing off OPINION - a ONE LINER at that - as FACT.

CK Tan insists that the firing of bottle-rockets in the general direction of Sderot is an "armed conflict".

No, CK, it is a "cross-border artillery barrage", and a spectacularly ineffective one at that.

Illegal, yes.
War crime, yes.
Armed conflict, no.

Operation Cast Lead was an armed conflict - yep, sure was - but Cast Lead had a definite beginning and a defined end, and when it ended so did the "armed conflict".

Otherwise, CK, you have to explain to me exactly what you think a "ceasefire" actually **is**.

Because it is indisputable that Ehud Olmert called off Cast Lead by calling a "ceasefire".

He had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said made that announcement, did he???????

How wonderfully zionist of him.
Oh, yeah, and you too..........

johnboy LIES. To COVER UP another of his LIES.

I NEVER insist that "firing of bottle-rockets..is an "armed conflict"."

I simply INSIST that johnboy "reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict." (sic)

And what did johnboy do?

He THROWS out EVERYTHING but STILL is UNABLE to PROVIDE any absolute PROOF that his CLAIM is the DEFINITIVE interpretation (apart from his PATHETIC one-liner "it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4)".)

Calling me a Zionist is NOT an INSULT, johnboy - it is an HONOUR.

Nor does it help to DISTRACT me from YOUR LIES.

So THANKS for PROVING, yet once again, that you are a SNAKE OIL peddler trying to PASS off personal/PLAGIARISED OPINIONS as FACTS.

P.S I sincerely APOLOGISE to the other SNAKE OIL peddlers for LUMPING them together WITH johnboy.

This is getting tedious: CK Tan continues to insist that I "prove a negative".

Q: Does a barrage of qassams amount to an "armed conflict"?
A: No.

Q: How do we know that?
A: We know that because there have been far, far, far heavier cross-border barrages, and NONE of them have amounted to either side claiming that an "armed conflict" has just taken place.

Q: Can you give some examples?
A: Yeah, I can: Pakistan and India often fire artillery at each other. So do North and South Korea. And, indeed, Israel and Syria frequently exchanged artillery in the 19 years prior to the Six Day War.

None of them amounted to an "armed conflict".

The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was an "armed conflict", sure.

The Korean War of 1950-52 was an "armed conflict", no question.

The Six Day Way of 1967 was an "armed conflict", no doubt about it.

THOSE are what "armed conflicts" are meant to be all about, not dinky little cross-border argy-bargy with bottle-rockets, and the reasons WHY that is so is (for the last time) to be found in Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter.

Why. Don't. You. Go. And. Read. It?

johnboy LIES. To COVER UP another of his LIES.

I NEVER insist that "firing of bottle-rockets..is an "armed conflict"."

I simply INSIST that johnboy "reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict." (sic)

And what did johnboy do?

He THROWS out EVERYTHING but STILL is UNABLE to PROVIDE any absolute PROOF that his CLAIM is the DEFINITIVE interpretation (apart from his PATHETIC one-liner "it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4)".)

Calling me a Zionist is NOT an INSULT, johnboy - it is an HONOUR.

Nor does it help to DISTRACT me from YOUR LIES.

So THANKS for PROVING, yet once AGAIN, that you are a SNAKE OIL peddler trying to PASS off personal/PLAGIARISED OPINIONS as FACTS.

P.S I sincerely APOLOGISE to the other SNAKE OIL peddlers for LUMPING them together WITH johnboy.

Is there an echo in here.. echo in here.. echo in here.. ?

CK Tan asks for my "sources".

My "sources" are the demonstrable fact that cross-border artillery barrages are not called "armed conflicts" by anyone except CK Tan and his fellow zionist apologists.

My "evidence" to back up my assertion that cross-border artillery barrages are not "armed conflicts" is the list of cross-border artillery barrages that have taken place since the end of ww2, none of which have been called an "armed conflict".

Only this one is. And only by the legion of zionist apologists who want to claim that up is down, black is white, attack is defence, and Israel is always, always, always right.

People like you, CK.

johnboy LIES. To COVER UP another of his LIES.

I NEVER insist that "firing of bottle-rockets..is an "armed conflict"."

I simply INSIST that johnboy "reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state is NOT armed conflict." (sic)

And what did johnboy do?

He THROWS out EVERYTHING but STILL is UNABLE to PROVIDE any absolute PROOF that his CLAIM is the DEFINITIVE interpretation (apart from his PATHETIC one-liner "it does not fit the criteria of Article 2(4)".)

Calling me a Zionist is NOT an INSULT, johnboy - it is an HONOUR.

Nor does it help to OBSCURE the FACT that you LOVE to make up THINGS that are FALSE.

So THANKS for PROVING, yet once again, that you are a SNAKE OIL peddler trying to PASS off personal/PLAGIARISED OPINIONS as FACTS.

P.S I sincerely APOLOGISE to the other SNAKE OIL peddlers for LUMPING them together WITH johnboy.

CK Tan is no longer even pretending that he is debating, merely contenting himself with a good impersonation of a demented parrot.

So, I'll try one more time.....

If the firing of artillery across a border is an "armed conflict" then (and this is a no-brainer, I would have thought) I should be able to point to OTHER cross-border artillery barrages and show that they were also regarded as "armed conflicts".

I can not, because every time I point to other cross-border artillery barrages (and there have been many) I find that they were NOT regarded as "armed conflicts".

Or, in short: the evidence supports my theory.

I therefore suggest that IF the evidence supports the theory THEN we accept the theory.

CK, of course, wants to follow this dictum:
If the facts don't fit the theory, then so much the worse for the facts.

But you have never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, have you, CK?

It certainly looks like you aren't going to change spots now......

First, I apologise to SoccerDad for my last multi-posts.

But I am GLAD cos they BRING out the "best" of RAVING maniac.

From ALL the OBFUSCATIONS in his NUMEROUS posts to his aforementioned LIE, johnboy has FINALLY decided that his SNAKE OIL can be DISTILLED into this EARTH SHATTERING revelation - it is HIS THEORY (or so HE says it is HIS; PAST encounter REVEALS he PLAGIARISES similar arguments and SIMILAR examples)

A theory that "PROVES" that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict.

A theory that is supported by CHERRY PICKED and UNSUBSTANTIATED references despite his BOAST that "(none on) the list of cross-border artillery barrages that have taken place since the end of ww2..have been called an "armed conflict". (Hmmm, is it really THAT difficult to UNDERSTAND what "reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS..." means, johnboy?)

And then he CONNECTS his THEORY and his VAGUE examples with a "I therefore suggest that IF the evidence supports the theory THEN we accept the theory. (his EMPHASIS)".

Case closed.

Well, NOT quite.

Note the "we accept the theory".

"we"????

Gee, WHO else has UNANIMOUSLY agree johnboy's CONCLUSION - that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict - as being DEFINITIVE and has ENSHRINED or ADOPTED it? ANY authoritative MILITARY or LEGAL body? Or INTERNATIONAL convention? Or HUMANITARIAN organisation?

Or the PATHETIC emperor who BELIEVES he has NEW CLOTHES on and decides to remove ALL doubts by uninhibitedly OPENING his mouth UMPTEEN times?

CK Tan appears not to notice a slight, ahem, problem with his thesis.

It is this: in moderm int'l law the concept of "armed conflict" has replaced the pre-1945 concept of "war", which is why int'l law no longer talks about "declarations of war" nor a formal "state of war".

Both are dead-letter concepts, because both have been rendered moot by Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Article 51 is where his "retort" to my previous post falls down, because that article says that while you CAN defend yourself against an armed attack you MUST report that resort to arms to the UNSC, and you can ONLY continue until the UNSC decides what to do to restore the peace.

Get it, CK?
No, of course you don't.

If a cross-border artillery barrage is an "armed conflict" then the UNSC is the venue where that argument has to be put, and it is the UNSC who has to agree ro that proposition.

Now, I know of no other cross-border artillery barrage where the parties have rushed to New York and informed the UNSC that they are now defending themselves in an "cross-border artillery barrage armed conflict".

Why don't you have a look instead, and let me know what you find out.

johnboy NAILED me. Or so he DESPERATELY wants to BELIEVE.

His ever-changing BULLSHIT has now EVOLVED from his LAME & STILL yet UNPROVEN claim - that ROCKET ATTACKS against a SOVEREIGN state are NOT armed conflict - into a SMOKE SCREEN of technical PROCEDURAL requirements.

Which is his PATHETIC but usual MODUS OPERANDI to DIVERT attention that NO international institution - NOT A SINGLE ONE - involved in ARMED CONFLICTS has ever ENSHRINED the opinionated FARCE that johnboy is HYSTERICALLY trying to PASS OFF as a FACT (cos HE says it is...sigh).

And COVERS up that his SELECTIVE examples fall way SHORT of answering my "reveal ALL your sources that CLEARLY and unequivocally DISMISS..."

Yap, SNAKE OIL peddlers have such SLIMY reputations and for GOOD solid reasons.

Again, I profusely APOLOGISE to other snake oil peddlers for DEMEANING them further by describing the PSEUDO legal one-trick pony as one.