Bkk Brian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 (edited) 3 minutes ago, stevenl said: I think the consulate was part of the embassy compound. If correct that makes the difference irrelevant. It was next door to the Embassy. Embassy was untouched, a precision strike Iran and Syria's governments condemned the attack, which destroyed a building next door to the Iranian embassy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68708923 Edited April 14 by Bkk Brian 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post transam Posted April 14 Popular Post Share Posted April 14 Just now, AreYouGerman said: This is an picture of an US embassy compound. Please, anybody, point to the annex building which would be okay to attack without the US retaliating. What for........?... 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloquent pilgrim Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 18 minutes ago, expat_4_life said: hey responded to the attack on their Embassy in Syria Their Embassy in Syria was not attacked ...... you write a long and meaningless post, and get an important fundamental completely wrong 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Brickleberry Posted April 14 Popular Post Share Posted April 14 5 minutes ago, stevenl said: I think the consulate was part of the embassy compound. If correct that makes the difference irrelevant. There is no difference between a consulate, embassy or annex. An annex is a building that is part of the embassy/consulate. Legally, they are inviolable. https://pathtoforeignservice.com/consulate-vs-embassy-a-comparison/ Quote An embassy or consulate is not considered the territory of the mission country. This is a common misconception. Instead, embassies and consulates are located on foreign soil and remain under the host country’s sovereignty. However, they enjoy certain protections, privileges, and immunities under international law, as established by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) for embassies and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) for consulates. These protections typically include the following: Inviolability: The premises of embassies and consulates can only be entered or searched by the host country’s authorities with the permission of the head of the mission. This ensures the safety and security of diplomatic personnel and their work. Diplomatic immunity: Diplomatic agents enjoy immunity from arrest, detention, and prosecution under the host country’s laws. Consular officers have a more limited form of immunity related to their official duties. Exemption from taxes: Diplomatic and consular missions and their staff are usually exempt from certain taxes in the host country. While embassies and consulates benefit from these protections, they remain under the jurisdiction of the host country and are not considered foreign territory or extraterritorial areas. 2 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, transam said: What for........?... I don't know why these NPCs are trying to tell us that the building right beside the embassy wasn't part of the embassy compound and thus, part of the embassy. Seems they got so indoctrinated by their media that they always put Israel first instead of putting their own country first. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 6 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: It was next door to the Embassy. Embassy was untouched, a precision strike Iran and Syria's governments condemned the attack, which destroyed a building next door to the Iranian embassy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68708923 Was it part of the embassy compound or not. According to many media outlets it was, you seem to be avoiding the issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Just now, stevenl said: Was it part of the embassy compound or not. According to many media outlets it was, you seem to be avoiding the issue. Read the article, I don't care if it was or not....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elkski Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Just jumped to page 9. But wondered why the headline didnt say "Israel risks starting ww3 by bombing embassy. " Happy to see this side of the facts are being discussed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickleberry Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 9 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: It was next door to the Embassy. Embassy was untouched, a precision strike Iran and Syria's governments condemned the attack, which destroyed a building next door to the Iranian embassy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68708923 I already showed you the US state department website and pasted the proof where it says an 'annex' is just a building on the embassy complex. All buildings in an embassy or consulate complex are protected under international law, and are inviolable even to the host country. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/middleeast/iran-response-israel-damascus-consulate-attack-intl-hnk/index.html Quote Iran has vowed to retaliate after it accused Israel of bombing its embassy complex in Syria on Monday, in a deadly escalation of regional tensions over the war in Gaza that once again appeared to raise the risk of a wider Middle Eastern conflict. The airstrike destroyed the consulate building in the capital Damascus, killing at least seven officials including Mohammed Reza Zahedi, a top commander in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), and senior commander Mohammad Hadi Haji Rahimi, according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: Read the article, I don't care if it was or not....... Okay, there you go. Another NPC unmasked himself. It's not about facts for it. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said: Read the article, I don't care if it was or not....... That's what I thought, you don't care. International law does care, but the law won't have any consequences for Israel. But other consequences are very visible now. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said: I already showed you the US state department website and pasted the proof where it says an 'annex' is just a building on the embassy complex. All buildings in an embassy or consulate complex are protected under international law, and are inviolable even to the host country. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/02/middleeast/iran-response-israel-damascus-consulate-attack-intl-hnk/index.html And? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Neeranam Posted April 14 Popular Post Share Posted April 14 Netanyahu has been wanting to invade Iran for a long time. He has to be ousted. have given Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, what he’s always craved – a mandate and justification for openly attacking Iran https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/14/iran-drone-attack-israel-crisis-benjamin-netanyahu-tehran 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummin Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 While you guys argue about minor definitions, nobody talk about the double standards in this world. It makes Putins offensive propaganda in Russia more convincing, create tighter bonds among China, India, Russia, and many countries in Middle east, Africa, South America who have tasted colonization and political threats and intervention. Talking about slow suicide 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 Just now, stevenl said: That's what I thought, you don't care. International law does care, but the law won't have any consequences for Israel. But other consequences are very visible now. What is the difference in International Law if it is a Embassy or Consulate? I have no idea. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said: And? Same answer to a post that can be made to all your posts here and everyone else's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, stevenl said: That's what I thought, you don't care. International law does care, but the law won't have any consequences for Israel. But other consequences are very visible now. Iran would have responded anyway , whether the attack was on a consulate or on someone's home . Its the Iranian deaths that matter to Iran, not the location of the deaths 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Hummin said: While you guys argue about minor definitions, nobody talk about the double standards in this world. It's not a minor definition though. See what happened with all the myths about WW2. People still claim Germany started it even though we know who declared war on who. So, if there is a WW3 now (which it kinda is already) we should at least accept the fact that they started it again... I mean Israel started it this time. Edited April 14 by AreYouGerman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said: What is the difference in International Law if it is a Embassy or Consulate? I have no idea. None, see earlier posts about the difference in law. My post was about the bombing, not the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloquent pilgrim Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 4 minutes ago, Neeranam said: Netanyahu has been wanting to invade Iran for a long time. He has to be ousted. have given Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, what he’s always craved – a mandate and justification for openly attacking Iran https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/14/iran-drone-attack-israel-crisis-benjamin-netanyahu-tehran I told you all; it’s either the Guardian, the BBC, or Al Jazeera; he has been fully indoctrinated. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brickleberry Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said: What is the difference in International Law if it is a Embassy or Consulate? I have no idea. For Israel, the only difference worth caring about is America's veto. There is no difference under international law regarding the inviolability of embassies or consulates, but there are differences in staff privileges. Consulate heads do not enjoy immunity from prosecution, whereas an ambassador has full immunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 1 minute ago, Brickleberry said: For Israel, the only difference worth caring about is America's veto. There is no difference under international law regarding the inviolability of embassies or consulates, but there are differences in staff privileges. Consulate heads do not enjoy immunity from prosecution, whereas an ambassador has full immunity. 2 minutes ago, stevenl said: None, see earlier posts about the difference in law. My post was about the bombing, not the distinction. Cool no difference, glad's that's out of the way then, can we now get back on topic 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 3 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: It's not a minor definition though. See what happened with all the myths about WW2. People still claim Germany started it even though we know who declared war on who. So, if there is a WW3 now (which it kinda is already) we should at least accept the fact that they started it again... I mean Israel started it this time. Are you saying that Jews started World War 2 ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank83628 Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 32 minutes ago, transam said: Nope, but, you could start your own thread, Franky, for folk like you.............. i get enough entertainment from these to bother starting my own. how was your sonkran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiejohn Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 (edited) 25 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: This is a picture of an US embassy. Please, anybody, point to the annex building which would be okay to attack without the US retaliating. Where is the consulate annexe? I do not have access to Israeli intelligence data! Edited April 14 by scottiejohn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummin Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 14 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: It's not a minor definition though. See what happened with all the myths about WW2. People still claim Germany started it even though we know who declared war on who. So, if there is a WW3 now (which it kinda is already) we should at least accept the fact that they started it again... I mean Israel started it this time. It was a mess back then, and now we are about the same again, Hitler Invaded Polen, giving France and Britain no choice. Same if Israel, Taiwan, or any Nato countries being invaded, we will declare war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Eloquent pilgrim Posted April 14 Popular Post Share Posted April 14 25 minutes ago, WDSmart said: "geno·cide [ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd] noun the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group:" - Online Oxford Language Dictionary If that doesn't describe the Israeli's actions for the past 70 years in the whole of Palestine, and especially since Oct 7 in Gaza, I don't know what does. What a remarkable achievement; you finally looked up the meaning of the word, and then immediately proceeded to misuse it again … a hopeless case indeed. 1 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 2 minutes ago, Hummin said: Hitler Invaded Polen, giving France and Britain no choice. Same if Israel, Taiwan, or any Nato countries being invaded, we will declare war. Yeah, Hitler invaded Poland because occupying the German city Danzig and half of Prussia was out of question and then France invaded Germany. People now say Crimea shouldn't stay Russian. Well, sounds very similar to 'Danzig shouldn't stay Polish'. The US wants wars on 3 fronts now but can only fight one. Let's see what it is. My bet is 'Die for Israel'. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lungbing Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 8 hours ago, Goat said: You forgot the USA, who have been active in more wars, and killed more "enemy" in more countries than all those you listed above, have the most weapons and sell the most weapons. If war breaks out I will enlist to fight for Thailand. Take on the Burmese again. We have a few scores to settle. But would probably lose again. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 14 Share Posted April 14 8 hours ago, JackGats said: Difficult. Israelis now no longer allowed to fly over Saudi Arabia (or Irak) I think. They would need to use missiles. I've read the Iranians had scattered their "nuclear facilities", especially whichever nuclear warheads they may already have produced. So no easy option apart from armageddon. Why would they need to fly over Saudi or Iraq? Over Jordan would be the direct route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now