1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

England just violated international law

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Adam Howard, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    Ever since the end of World War 2, no embassy has ever been breached by a hosting country in a state of peace (non war time). It has always been universally understand by international law, that all embassies are on foreign soil and to invade one is to declare a state of war.

    Today at 9:21 PM Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday, August 15, 2012; The United Kingdom has violated international law, as well as the standing laws of The European Alliance, by forcefully breaking to The Ecuador's Embassy. Officially by international standard, declaring war on a 3rd World Country.

    A0YbE5JCUAAcIo1.jpg

    Source: SociallyUncensored.eu and Anonymous
     
  2. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

  3. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    This has not been confirmed by anyone as far as I can tell.
     
    SneakyDave likes this.
  4. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    This is a violation of international law, standing European alliance laws, and the war time act of Geneva. It was streamed live for everyone to see.
     
  5. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    Yet it has not been confirmed by anyone but you and Anonymous.
     
    SneakyDave likes this.
  6. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    Watch it live and see it for yourself... Stop depending on the main stream media. If you can't believe your own eyes... Who can you trust?

    http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupynewsnetwork
     
  7. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    Why do I need to watch it live right now instead of waiting for someone to comment officially on what is going on? I certainly can't trust Anonymous or a live stream at night with absolutely no facts in it. Is this what news is going to turn into? 24/7 diarrhea of unconfirmed information?

    It is already being suggested that they have only entered peacefully to public areas of the Embassy.
     
    BlackJacket likes this.
  8. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    Peacefully ?!?!? :eek:

    They kicked the side door in. o_O

    You want to know why not the main stream media.... You really want a reason? ..... Cause you think they entered peacefully with an invite. :cautious:

    If they told you they all had a cup of English tea too, would you have believed that as well?!? :confused:
     
  9. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    I'm just telling you what I am reading, which is obviously all you are doing here. Neither of us know for 100% certainty what is going on now.

    Feel free to walk around with a tin foil hat if you wish. Me waiting 24 hours for official information flowing rather than getting upset at what might be happening right now somewhere thousands of miles away isn't going to change a damn thing tonight.
     
  10. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    I don't need to read it... I watch part of it LIVE for my own eyes and ears to experience as it unfolded. Several videos from outside and one video from inside (inside the embassy).

    If seeing is believing and that is "tin foil hat" .... Can I get one in extra large? I've got big head. lol :p

    As this will set a presidency for the future .... I would think this affects... oh... everyone who may ever travel internationally and need to reach an embassy.

    But I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
     
  11. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    That's fine. Can you confirm that s1(3)(b) of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 has not been authorized then? Since you seem to know so much about this and the legality of it, proclaiming the UK in violation of International Law?
     
  12. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 should only be used in cases similar to the 1984 Libyan murder. What we have now is a single man seeking a political asylum based upon political reasoning, which would be protected.
     
  13. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    Except its use was not written into law and is up for interpretation by the UK. *should* is the key word and in legal terms is up for interpretation.

    A better title and thread would be a discussion on what is going on right now where people can post information. Not a declaration of fact based on a video stream only you witnessed. Just saying. I don't understand the urgency to declare something like this other than self promotion.
     
  14. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    I would really recommend reading up the agreements to joining The European Alliance and what laws you agree to that supersede.... Maybe worth a good educational read.

    Self promotion? If I was The BBC and quoted myself as the news source.....No difference.... oh never mind... Believe as you wish.
     
  15. craigiri

    craigiri Well-Known Member

    It's looking bad, that's for sure:
    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Britain-warns-Ecuador-over-Assange-asylum-3788637.php

    Folks who stick their necks out too far...usually end up with their heads chopped off. This is true whether the action is "good" or "bad". You can't cross the military-industrial complexes of the USA and UK without paying a dear price.

    Look at our own Dr. Kevorkian in this country...another guy trying to make people see reality. He got sent to jail.

    It doesn't take a tin foil hat to see that change in the modern world happens slowly. The Beast is not going to go down easily.
     
    Adam Howard likes this.
  16. Adam Howard

    Adam Howard Well-Known Member

    The Ecuadoran government: such an action would be considered a "hostile and intolerable act" as well as a violation of its sovereignty.
     
  17. BamaStangGuy

    BamaStangGuy Well-Known Member

    Still waiting for the part where International Law has been violated.
     
    Liam23 likes this.
  18. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    Adam Howard likes this.
  19. captainslater

    captainslater Well-Known Member

  20. Lucas

    Lucas Well-Known Member

    No offense BamaStangGuy, but if you're going to go all your live by waiting for an "official information" as to what you think is real (Fox, CNN, w/e) you will just end up watching what they want you to see. There is much more to everything than official information. My thought on these have been opened up by what you can see on Mexico happening right now. On all those serious issues which I'm not going to talk about (unless someone wants me to), the biggest involved companies are the two national tv broadcasters and HSBC, a few US politicians and more (There are sources too).

    Just my personal opinion.
     
    Adam Howard and Forsaken like this.

Share This Page