Wade addresses Kobe disrespect: “Kobe is Top 3”
- Thread starter Torrential
- Start date
Belize King
I got concepts of a plan.
You’re making sense.I said their careers are similar, not the same.
Kareem has two FMVPS, same as Kobe
Kareem couldn't win titles when he was in his prime in the 70s like kobe.
He was the best player for a decade, like Kobe
Both have a high number of Top 5 MVP votes.
Both played with other Top 10 players of all time.
Kobe might have more all defense selections
But only one gets discredited
I’m sorry. I’ve never dived into the raw numbers.
I guess I’m a Coli Brehs through and through.
Torrential
LWO
Free Gaza nikka
SHOULD THE CITY OF AL-ABEED IN GAZA BE FREE TOO??
GAZA WILL BE FREE WHEN ITS NOT RAN BY TERRORISTS WHO ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH KILLIN JEWS THAN BUILDING A NATION FOR THEIR PEOPLE
I'm starting to feel bad for them manGotta be the weirdest fanbase in the whole of sports. Wade saying Pau deserved FMVP was him hating, Klutch propaganda and him being a fakkit. Wade saying Kobe is in his Top 3 is apparently gospel though.
They been going out sad this week
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
This is literally what you said
“THERE ARE NO "SETTLERS" IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA”
You arent slick son.
Ion care what excuse you make. International law is clear
Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal under international law. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations.[1][2][3][4][5] In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers.
The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justiceand the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories.[a]Legality of Israeli settlements - WikipediaNumerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions 446 in 1979, 478 in 1980,[6][7][8] and 2334 in 2016.[9][10][11]In 2014, 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions declared the settlements illegal,[12] as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Israel disputes the illegality of its settlements, claiming that Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, that the territory is not occupied since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior,[13][14] and that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not de jure apply.[15][16] However, all of Israel's arguments have been refuted by the ICJ's 2024 ruling.[17] Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly ruled that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[18]
The establishment of settlements has been described by some legal experts as a war crime according to the Rome Statute (to which Israel is not a party), and is currently under investigation as part of the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine.
Legality of Israeli settlements - Wikipedia
Your Naziesque and fascist excuse for Ethnic cleansijg don’t work on me. And just because Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews is NOT an excuse
Jordan
Bron
Magic
Kareem
Russell/Wilt
Bron
Magic
Kareem
Russell/Wilt
This is literally what you said
“THERE ARE NO "SETTLERS" IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA”
You arent slick son.
Ion care what excuse you make. International law is clear
Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal under international law. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations.[1][2][3][4][5] In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers.
The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justiceand the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories.[a]Legality of Israeli settlements - WikipediaNumerous UN resolutions and prevailing international opinion hold that Israeli settlements are a violation of international law, including UN Security Council resolutions 446 in 1979, 478 in 1980,[6][7][8] and 2334 in 2016.[9][10][11]In 2014, 126 Representatives at the reconvened Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions declared the settlements illegal,[12] as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Israel disputes the illegality of its settlements, claiming that Israeli citizens were neither deported nor transferred to the territories, that the territory is not occupied since there had been no internationally recognized legal sovereign prior,[13][14] and that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not de jure apply.[15][16] However, all of Israel's arguments have been refuted by the ICJ's 2024 ruling.[17] Furthermore, the Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly ruled that Israel's presence in the West Bank is in violation of international law.[18]
The establishment of settlements has been described by some legal experts as a war crime according to the Rome Statute (to which Israel is not a party), and is currently under investigation as part of the International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine.
Legality of Israeli settlements - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Your Naziesque and fascist excuse for Ethnic cleansijg don’t work on me. And just because Arabs ethnically cleansed the Jews is NOT an excuse
NOBODY GIVES A FUCC BOUT THE UN
UN HAS IRAN HEADING THE HUMAN RIGHT COUNCIL LMAO
THEY ALL HATE US... WE KNOW
U WANT JEWS ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FROM WEST BANK
WELL WE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED OURSELVES FROM GAZA IN 2005 HOPING TO ACHIEVE PEACE.. N LOOK WHAT HAPPENED
NEVER AGAIN
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
Look at your true Nazi fascist colors showing.
The US said the same damn thing
US steps up sanctions against Israeli settlers and ‘outposts’ in occupied West Bank
Targeting ‘outposts’ suggests Biden administration prepared to take some action to confront blatant land grab
www.theguardian.com
shyts ILLEGAL AND AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. You have a perfectly fine land in Israel recognized by the international community.
Who the fukk do you think you are? You think you make the rules scumbag?
Lol these guys really dont know anything
Torrential
LWO
Projection . Bron Stans in shambles . Yall having a rough week.I'm starting to feel bad for them man
They been going out sad this week
- Colin Cowherd calls out that LeBron will never catch Jordan
- Dwyane Wade affirms Kobe Bryant is top 3 all time
- Jeff Teague claims LeBron took PEDs
- Lakers front office doesn’t care about LeBron they’re focused on making this Luka’s team
- No trade to Dallas gonna happen no more cheap rings to fake celebrate
Look at your true Nazi fascist colors showing.
The US said the same damn thing
US steps up sanctions against Israeli settlers and ‘outposts’ in occupied West Bank
Targeting ‘outposts’ suggests Biden administration prepared to take some action to confront blatant land grab
shyts ILLEGAL AND AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW. You have a perfectly fine land in Israel recognized by the international community.
Who the fukk do you think you are? You think you make the rules scumbag?
ARE U RETARDED?
WHO OCCUPIED "THE WEST BANK" PRE-1967??????
JORDAN DUMBASS
AND THE ARAB NATIONS DECIDED TO START A WAR WIT US..
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?? DURING THE WAR, WE ADVANCED INTO THEIR CONTROLLED TERRITORIES..
U LOSE A WAR, U LOSE LAND... THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE.. U CANT HANDLE IT? DONT START A WAR!!
AFTER THE 6 DAY WAR, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SECURITY AROUND ISRAEL .. WEST BANK AND GAZA WERE NOT SOVEREIGN NATIONS, SO IT WAS EASY FOR ARAB NATIONS TO ATTACK ISRAEL THROUGH THEM...
U SAW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE ISRAEL WITHDREW THEIR "SETTLEMENTS" IN GAZA..... NOT SAFE IN ANY CAPACITY. IF THESE WERE NORMAL NATIONS WHO WANT PEACE AND WERE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH, SURE. BUT AS U KNOW, THEYRE NOT...
Mister Terrific
It’s in the name
What the fukk does that matter you Nazi settler scumbag?
Just because you win a war doesn’t mean you can occupy territory indefinitely. That is literally not how international law works
What is the legal basis for the claim that military occupation must be temporary in nature?
Military occupation does not confer sovereignty upon the occupying power. Consequently, such occupation must necessarily be brought to an end. The legal regulation of military occupation by international humanitarian law (IHL) is premised on the understanding that such occupation constitutes a factual situation arising during or after armed conflict, which must be regulated in order to protect the civilian population of the occupied territory and to constrain the administration of the occupying power. The very rationale of this legal framework lies in the principle that military authority over foreign territory does not translate into sovereign authority, and that unilateral annexation is prohibited. Therefore, military occupation is envisaged as a transitory regime, pending the conclusion of a peace settlement capable of resolving the underlying dispute. The temporariness of military occupation is thus embedded within the normative structure of the regime governing it under IHL.
Is ‘prolonged occupation’ still ‘military occupation’ governed by IHL?
Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (HR), annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, provides that a territory is considered occupied ‘when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.’ In such circumstances, the relevant provisions governing military occupation become...
www.ejiltalk.org
Israeli soldiers are literally being attacked trying to prevent settlers from harming Palestinians
Israeli settlers attack Palestinians and IDF military vehicles in West Bank
Israeli settlers have attacked a military base in the occupied West Bank, setting fires, vandalizing vehicles and clashing with soldiers.
www.pbs.org
They even killed an American
That’s like saying the Nazi ethnic cleansing of Poland and state theft of Polish property was legal because they won the war. Or that the US beat the Iraq government so we can start moving Americans in and taking Iraqi land:
You realize how deranged you sound? Of course you don’t because you’re a religious fascist extremist .
Be a fukking man and admit that you think Jews should have the West Bank because your fake God said you should have it. And be a fukking man and pick up a weapon and move to the West Bank your self so that a old man defending his property can put a hole in your chest and in your dying breath you can finally grow some IQ points and realize your God is made up and your Nazism in for nothing.
What the fukk does that matter you Nazi settler scumbag?
Just because you win a war doesn’t mean you can occupy territory indefinitely. That is literally not how international law works
What is the legal basis for the claim that military occupation must be temporary in nature?
Military occupation does not confer sovereignty upon the occupying power. Consequently, such occupation must necessarily be brought to an end. The legal regulation of military occupation by international humanitarian law (IHL) is premised on the understanding that such occupation constitutes a factual situation arising during or after armed conflict, which must be regulated in order to protect the civilian population of the occupied territory and to constrain the administration of the occupying power. The very rationale of this legal framework lies in the principle that military authority over foreign territory does not translate into sovereign authority, and that unilateral annexation is prohibited. Therefore, military occupation is envisaged as a transitory regime, pending the conclusion of a peace settlement capable of resolving the underlying dispute. The temporariness of military occupation is thus embedded within the normative structure of the regime governing it under IHL.
Is ‘prolonged occupation’ still ‘military occupation’ governed by IHL?
Article 42 of the Hague Regulations (HR), annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV, provides that a territory is considered occupied ‘when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.’ In such circumstances, the relevant provisions governing military occupation become...www.ejiltalk.org
Israeli soldiers are literally being attacked trying to prevent settlers from harming Palestinians
Israeli settlers attack Palestinians and IDF military vehicles in West Bank
Israeli settlers have attacked a military base in the occupied West Bank, setting fires, vandalizing vehicles and clashing with soldiers.
They even killed an American
That’s like saying the Nazi ethnic cleansing of Poland and state theft of Polish property was legal because they won the war. Or that the US beat the Iraq government so we can start moving Americans in and taking Iraqi land:
You realize how deranged you sound? Of course you don’t because you’re a religious fascist extremist .
Be a fukking man and admit that you think Jews should have the West Bank because your fake God said you should have it. And be a fukking man and pick up a weapon and move to the West Bank your self so that a old man defending his property can put a hole in your chest and in your dying breath you can finally grow some IQ points and realize your God is made up and your Nazism in for nothing.
YOU ARGUE SIMPLY BECAUSE U LOVE TO ARGUE
U NEED MENTAL ASSISTANCE
Countries have often lost land after losing wars—especially major ones. Whether a country started the war or not has sometimes influenced how post-war settlements were justified politically, but legality is more complicated. Here's a breakdown:
Historical Examples of Losing Land After War
- Germany (World Wars I & II)
- WWI: Lost Alsace-Lorraine to France, and large eastern territories to the newly independent Poland.
- WWII: Lost even more territory—East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania—to Poland and the USSR.
- Ottoman Empire (WWI)
- Lost massive territories in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Palestine) which became mandates under British and French control.
- Japan (WWII)
- Lost Korea, Taiwan, and Pacific islands it had occupied.
- Austria-Hungary (WWI)
- The empire dissolved, leading to the creation of new nations like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia.
NOW THEY WANA SAY ITS "ILLEGAL" WHEN IT NEVER HAS BEEN UP UNTIL NOW..
IM ALL FOR NEGOTIATING FOR PEACE AND GIVING LAND BACK IF THERE IS A GENUINE WILL TO CO-EXIST BY THE OTHER SIDE
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ISNT
LITERALLY EVERY ARAB COUNTRY IN THE LEVANT NOWADAYS IS AN "OCCUPIED SETTLEMENT"
BUT JEWS DO IT IN THEIR ANCESTRAL HOMELAND AND ITS A PROBLEM
LOL OK