Spion
I hear ya
Oh, but now the old woman was beaten and it turns out she's pretty handy with a baseball bat! Remarkable! Nice one, Rachnochio
Settlers filmed beating Palestinians with baseball bats
- Thread starter Spion
- Start date
Spion
I hear ya
Arguably any that strap themselves into an F-16, Apache or Merkava.
The total jewish death toll in war since 1948 is about 22,000. That many Arabs died in the Lebanon war alone, never mind all the rest of the conflicts.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
This was my favourite.
I mean, as if being secular automatically means that you don't let your own faith and agenda get in the way of balance.
As far as stating that the Israelis should take some of the blame, I beg to differ. In all my time reading your posts you seem incapable of just such a condemnation. In fact if you did I think you would be seen as much more constructive a member than you are. You come across with the attitude that no matter what 'evidence' we find (your inverted commas), you will find some way to turn it around so that the Israelis aren't really to blame, indeed you see them as victims while they beat the living daylights out of yet another unfortunate.
Oh and the history thing? Well we all come from Africa anyway. The actions of NOW matter, not history which is way gone. Heck people misinterpret the present!! Stop living in the past and start making a difference now, instead of hiding behind all those books!
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Help to who? They'll be fighting until the end of the world... Sad but true, and nothing short of an alien invasion will unite them.
Spaion: "Who said the Jews attacking those Arabs were religious.": You did. I thought you have been there??? If you had you would know that non-religious Jews NEVER get involved in that nonsense. the NOLY Israeli-Jews ever geting involved in "WB" violence are ultra-orthadox, almost always so called "Modern Orthadox" of the YESHA council and Gush Emuneem. In fact Spion, from my first day until my last day in the IDF (Feb. 12th 1983 to June 30th 2007) there was never a non-charedi attacking a single Arab in the so called "WB," or in Gaza for that matter.
Could it concievably happen since I left, sure. The odds though are astronomical. Then factor in it being filmed at just the right moment but not when he is coming from the "Settlement" or going back to it. Suuuuuure.
"Alot of 'Settlers' are not religious.": Absolutely. I myself make this point quite often. However, they are confined to the Ariel Bloc and the E. Jerusalem and Metro Consolidation Blocs, not the "Settlement" you are referring to.
"Police would not have arrested them if they were not really 'Settlers'.": More ignorance. Check our laws.
"Detective Ben Ami from 6000 miles away.": Hahahah. No, just Capt Ben Ami, a NACHlawi. I aim for accuracy.
"The old Arab woman is handy with a baseball bat.": Not only is having a bseball bat supcious being as how we only got baseball in ISrael (not in the "WB") last year...and how not even Jews from America play it there, let alone a rural "WB" arab woman who has one foot in the grave.
As for her being handy with anything dangerous, I could be nasty and say I do not doubt that but the truth is that if a man is going to try and assault her you can imagine she would not be able to fight him opff so easily, look no worse for the wear, have it taped at just the oppoortune moment while still omitting film of him leaving or going to the 'Settlement,' and have it be by a non-religious Jew supposedly living in that "Settlement."
You must know that if any other Israeli reads this they will urinate on themselves reading what you state. It is one of the funnier things I have seen if not that it is destroying Israeli-Jewish lives. Accusing innocent people is not cute.
"Spion, when asked how many Jews strap on Bomb Belts replied that they could be said to be doing so when using Merkavas, F16s, and Apaches.": I suggest you read Rules of War and International Law in general and get back to me.
"The total Jewish death count from all wars since 1948 does not equal the total number of Arab dead in the 2006 Lebanon War.": You make no sense whatsoever. YOu need to do some math. Look at two graphs. One should be populations for every war , and the other should be number of Israelis killed in each war. Then compare the numbers. You will find that percentage wise we have taken the worst of it.
If you research the situation you will also find that in each and every war the war was iniated by Arabs. While Israel might fire the first shot say in 67, or in Lebanon in Op Galilee it does so proactively. If more Lebanese died in 2006 it is because they allowed Hezbollah to not only exist in contrvention of not only their own laws but International Law as well, but thrive and grow stronger with each year.
Then allowed them to fire rockets into Israel every day for 6 months. While they had no say over the 6/12/06 Hez operation that killed 8 IDF and kidnapped 2 others before torturing them to death as well, it took place because of the populations' previous acceptance.
Israel did not aim for a single non-combatant in that war. It is impossible not to kill some though, when Hezbollah and their AMAL puppydogs hide behind women and children. Of course you would not be angry with them, only with the army of a lawful and sovereign nation who seeks to protect its own citizens.
You might also want tot ake the following into consideration: more than 40% of the Israeli non-combtants who died in those shellings and in that 2006 War, at the hands of Lebanese terrorists, were Israeli-Arabs. Hmmmm...
PK: "Here you go, 'Settler' Nazis.": Um PK? You might want to do soemthing about your accuracy. First, you posted a photo of Qassams. Qassams are only used in Gaza. There are no "Settlers" in Gaza or in Israel Proper. The only people dying from Qassams are people residing within Israel Proper as well as Gazans themselves since more land within Gaza then make it out.
This also discounts the fact that inncoent Gazans are killed when Israel seeks to neutralise Qassams and their handlers so that they do more harm to their own demographic than anybody else.
Also, comparing Jews to Nazis is never apt, or cute. It is a distinct sign of ignorance.
I do agree though with your last post about an alien invasion. That is exactly what it will take.
Could it concievably happen since I left, sure. The odds though are astronomical. Then factor in it being filmed at just the right moment but not when he is coming from the "Settlement" or going back to it. Suuuuuure.
"Alot of 'Settlers' are not religious.": Absolutely. I myself make this point quite often. However, they are confined to the Ariel Bloc and the E. Jerusalem and Metro Consolidation Blocs, not the "Settlement" you are referring to.
"Police would not have arrested them if they were not really 'Settlers'.": More ignorance. Check our laws.
"Detective Ben Ami from 6000 miles away.": Hahahah. No, just Capt Ben Ami, a NACHlawi. I aim for accuracy.
"The old Arab woman is handy with a baseball bat.": Not only is having a bseball bat supcious being as how we only got baseball in ISrael (not in the "WB") last year...and how not even Jews from America play it there, let alone a rural "WB" arab woman who has one foot in the grave.
As for her being handy with anything dangerous, I could be nasty and say I do not doubt that but the truth is that if a man is going to try and assault her you can imagine she would not be able to fight him opff so easily, look no worse for the wear, have it taped at just the oppoortune moment while still omitting film of him leaving or going to the 'Settlement,' and have it be by a non-religious Jew supposedly living in that "Settlement."
You must know that if any other Israeli reads this they will urinate on themselves reading what you state. It is one of the funnier things I have seen if not that it is destroying Israeli-Jewish lives. Accusing innocent people is not cute.
"Spion, when asked how many Jews strap on Bomb Belts replied that they could be said to be doing so when using Merkavas, F16s, and Apaches.": I suggest you read Rules of War and International Law in general and get back to me.
"The total Jewish death count from all wars since 1948 does not equal the total number of Arab dead in the 2006 Lebanon War.": You make no sense whatsoever. YOu need to do some math. Look at two graphs. One should be populations for every war , and the other should be number of Israelis killed in each war. Then compare the numbers. You will find that percentage wise we have taken the worst of it.
If you research the situation you will also find that in each and every war the war was iniated by Arabs. While Israel might fire the first shot say in 67, or in Lebanon in Op Galilee it does so proactively. If more Lebanese died in 2006 it is because they allowed Hezbollah to not only exist in contrvention of not only their own laws but International Law as well, but thrive and grow stronger with each year.
Then allowed them to fire rockets into Israel every day for 6 months. While they had no say over the 6/12/06 Hez operation that killed 8 IDF and kidnapped 2 others before torturing them to death as well, it took place because of the populations' previous acceptance.
Israel did not aim for a single non-combatant in that war. It is impossible not to kill some though, when Hezbollah and their AMAL puppydogs hide behind women and children. Of course you would not be angry with them, only with the army of a lawful and sovereign nation who seeks to protect its own citizens.
You might also want tot ake the following into consideration: more than 40% of the Israeli non-combtants who died in those shellings and in that 2006 War, at the hands of Lebanese terrorists, were Israeli-Arabs. Hmmmm...
PK: "Here you go, 'Settler' Nazis.": Um PK? You might want to do soemthing about your accuracy. First, you posted a photo of Qassams. Qassams are only used in Gaza. There are no "Settlers" in Gaza or in Israel Proper. The only people dying from Qassams are people residing within Israel Proper as well as Gazans themselves since more land within Gaza then make it out.
This also discounts the fact that inncoent Gazans are killed when Israel seeks to neutralise Qassams and their handlers so that they do more harm to their own demographic than anybody else.
Also, comparing Jews to Nazis is never apt, or cute. It is a distinct sign of ignorance.
I do agree though with your last post about an alien invasion. That is exactly what it will take.
G: "Being secular does not mean that your own faith does not interfere with your perception or objectivity.":It could but that is not the point. You keep maintaining that I am religious, I am not. It is a matetr of simple accuracy.
"G thinks it impossible that Rachamim would ever condemn Israel.": I suggest you pay more attention in this forum. There is a thread up now where I say as much and said it here as well. So what then is so hard to belive? You make no sense.
That you find it difficult to reconcile just because I do not buy into your stock attacks is kind of ridiculous.
"If Rachamim DId condemn more he would be a more constructive member here.": Riiiight. I mean, it is not like we have anyone here condemning Israel in every thread. Got it, thanks for the tip. So many people defending Israel ACCURATELY (or anyway for that matter) that I am being redundant.
"No matter what evidence is found Rachamim will argue against it.": If it is soemthing borderline retarded like thsi thread, you are damn right. Anyone with half a brain should. All the more so when it is their homeland.
If you want to argue that more of the Israeli budget should be spent trying to make up in disparities between different Israeli demographics, I am all for it.
If you want to argue for ways to allow more Israeli minorities to serve in the Civil Service, I am all for it.
If on the other hand you argue that an 85 year old "Palestinian" woman living on a farm has a baseball bat with which she beat up an Israeli-Jewish "Settler" who is not only not religious, living in rural "WB," but also that she got him on film during this attack but somehow neglected to record his leaving or returning to the "Settlement," yeah I cry foul. It is ridiculous for anyone who has beeen there, or even knows alot about there.
"Inverted commas are symtomatic of this.: What does THAT mean? You make no sense again.
They can be used to differentiate as in the word "Settler," or to point out a word that is not universally accepted like "WB," or with a word that makes no sense despite its wide acceptance as in "Palestinian." What does it have to do with my condemning Israel?
"Oh, and that history thing? (sic) We all come from Africa anyway.": And? So now we should not live in nations? Again, not making sense. I should also state that what you just stated is mere theory . When we originated as humans continets did not exist in the same form. in addition, ever hear of Peking Man? Either way it makes no sense bringing it up.
"Rachamim should make a difference now, not wasting time with history and hiding behind books.": You do know that I spent 24 years in my nation's army, right? How much more action do you wish I take? You are not making much sense.
"G thinks it impossible that Rachamim would ever condemn Israel.": I suggest you pay more attention in this forum. There is a thread up now where I say as much and said it here as well. So what then is so hard to belive? You make no sense.
That you find it difficult to reconcile just because I do not buy into your stock attacks is kind of ridiculous.
"If Rachamim DId condemn more he would be a more constructive member here.": Riiiight. I mean, it is not like we have anyone here condemning Israel in every thread. Got it, thanks for the tip. So many people defending Israel ACCURATELY (or anyway for that matter) that I am being redundant.
"No matter what evidence is found Rachamim will argue against it.": If it is soemthing borderline retarded like thsi thread, you are damn right. Anyone with half a brain should. All the more so when it is their homeland.
If you want to argue that more of the Israeli budget should be spent trying to make up in disparities between different Israeli demographics, I am all for it.
If you want to argue for ways to allow more Israeli minorities to serve in the Civil Service, I am all for it.
If on the other hand you argue that an 85 year old "Palestinian" woman living on a farm has a baseball bat with which she beat up an Israeli-Jewish "Settler" who is not only not religious, living in rural "WB," but also that she got him on film during this attack but somehow neglected to record his leaving or returning to the "Settlement," yeah I cry foul. It is ridiculous for anyone who has beeen there, or even knows alot about there.
"Inverted commas are symtomatic of this.: What does THAT mean? You make no sense again.
They can be used to differentiate as in the word "Settler," or to point out a word that is not universally accepted like "WB," or with a word that makes no sense despite its wide acceptance as in "Palestinian." What does it have to do with my condemning Israel?
"Oh, and that history thing? (sic) We all come from Africa anyway.": And? So now we should not live in nations? Again, not making sense. I should also state that what you just stated is mere theory . When we originated as humans continets did not exist in the same form. in addition, ever hear of Peking Man? Either way it makes no sense bringing it up.
"Rachamim should make a difference now, not wasting time with history and hiding behind books.": You do know that I spent 24 years in my nation's army, right? How much more action do you wish I take? You are not making much sense.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Sure it is, just like evolution...
You are more reasonable than most on here, though that could easily be damning with faint praise
Living in nations is natural, yet to allow one's membership of a nation to cloud one's judgment is another thing altogether. I would never sit there and state that Tony Blair was right to go into Iraq just because I'm English. His and Bush's decision has created a more dangerous world, and thus I condemn based on human principle, over and above such trivialities as being English.
G: "Just like evolution.": To clarify, you mean in terms of people existing as nations? If so, sure, that is cultural evolution. Hunter -Gatherer, Pastoral, Settled, Clan and Tribal, City State, Nationhood, Political Bloc. that about sums it up in a nutshell so to speak with a whole lot of gradations that take place within each stage.
"Damning with faint praise.":Haha. Yeah, between that and the other poster who told me I was getting close to being hugged it is a regular "love In." Nayway, it is all good as they say in America.
"Living within a nation can cloud one's judgement." Absolutely. As humans we always posess an inherent bias in the best of times. There are tools that we can use to try and compensate to a large degree but the bias will always have a modicum (at the very least) of influence on one's opinion.
At the same time, on the other side of the coin, that subjective experience CAN be an incredibly valuable tool. Nothing trumps first hand expereince with a conscious and aware person.
"Iraq.": First, the war was about petrol and that was never really a secret. It was simply a case of "2 birds with 1 stone." Gain a foothold in a valuable region, gain access to a valuable stock of an absolutely vital commodity, and at the same time gain an opportunity to completely neutralise a dangerous meglomaniac who imperiled the entire world.
I love Westerns who concentrate on the "WMD" brouhaha. Here was a man who not only came an inch away from going nuclear, and who had not only brutally tortured and exterminated literally many tens of thousands of his own citizens, but who employed chemical weapons on his own citizenry.
Given this track record why would anyone EVER doubt the possibility of such a danger having existed? Because Inspectors, US Intel and Military not having found physical evidence of a smoking gun all the pieces were in fact found except actual stocks of WMD and we already know that he had both the Program but the had produced them in totality.
I was only in school at the time but I distinctly remember how the world pis#ed on us after we took it upon ourselves to neutralise the OSIRAK complex. Had OSIRAK joined the OSIRIS complex operationally this whole conversation would be moot. Israel would have been made extinct, as well as a good number of other nations in the region.
America's deployment there in both Gulf Wars (In Israel we call the Iran-Iraq War the 1st Gulf War, aside from the 2 later American led actions) was strictly purient but also hoped to achieve other less selfish objectives so as to negate the perception of their foreign having implemented foreign intervention for the sake of securing America's own interests.
While the French were busy wetting themselves and Peaceniks banged their heads against the wall (as usual), America secured a very quick and very, very efficient victory in Iraq (in the current war). When the Chinese-American NCO assisted Iraqis in toppling a gigantic statue of Saddam in Baghdad America basked in the adulation and glory given freely.
When the deployment entered its Insurrection Stage World Opinion went south. I think former PM Blair made the right choice in deploying with the US. Your economy is no different than that of America in regards to its pathetic reliance on fossil based fuels.
If the UK's access to this commodity was endangered, much less cut off, you would be amazed how precarious your nation's existence would become. So, Blair was only using good common sense and following his mandate which was to serve and protect (although I am not suggesting he took a vow with those words like American leaders do) his entire citizenry. Were he to gamble with the very future of the UK he would have have not only been remiss, he would have perhaps the person who had done more than anyone in history to destroy the English People and their fellow UK citizens.
Blair did the right thing.
"Damning with faint praise.":Haha. Yeah, between that and the other poster who told me I was getting close to being hugged it is a regular "love In." Nayway, it is all good as they say in America.
"Living within a nation can cloud one's judgement." Absolutely. As humans we always posess an inherent bias in the best of times. There are tools that we can use to try and compensate to a large degree but the bias will always have a modicum (at the very least) of influence on one's opinion.
At the same time, on the other side of the coin, that subjective experience CAN be an incredibly valuable tool. Nothing trumps first hand expereince with a conscious and aware person.
"Iraq.": First, the war was about petrol and that was never really a secret. It was simply a case of "2 birds with 1 stone." Gain a foothold in a valuable region, gain access to a valuable stock of an absolutely vital commodity, and at the same time gain an opportunity to completely neutralise a dangerous meglomaniac who imperiled the entire world.
I love Westerns who concentrate on the "WMD" brouhaha. Here was a man who not only came an inch away from going nuclear, and who had not only brutally tortured and exterminated literally many tens of thousands of his own citizens, but who employed chemical weapons on his own citizenry.
Given this track record why would anyone EVER doubt the possibility of such a danger having existed? Because Inspectors, US Intel and Military not having found physical evidence of a smoking gun all the pieces were in fact found except actual stocks of WMD and we already know that he had both the Program but the had produced them in totality.
I was only in school at the time but I distinctly remember how the world pis#ed on us after we took it upon ourselves to neutralise the OSIRAK complex. Had OSIRAK joined the OSIRIS complex operationally this whole conversation would be moot. Israel would have been made extinct, as well as a good number of other nations in the region.
America's deployment there in both Gulf Wars (In Israel we call the Iran-Iraq War the 1st Gulf War, aside from the 2 later American led actions) was strictly purient but also hoped to achieve other less selfish objectives so as to negate the perception of their foreign having implemented foreign intervention for the sake of securing America's own interests.
While the French were busy wetting themselves and Peaceniks banged their heads against the wall (as usual), America secured a very quick and very, very efficient victory in Iraq (in the current war). When the Chinese-American NCO assisted Iraqis in toppling a gigantic statue of Saddam in Baghdad America basked in the adulation and glory given freely.
When the deployment entered its Insurrection Stage World Opinion went south. I think former PM Blair made the right choice in deploying with the US. Your economy is no different than that of America in regards to its pathetic reliance on fossil based fuels.
If the UK's access to this commodity was endangered, much less cut off, you would be amazed how precarious your nation's existence would become. So, Blair was only using good common sense and following his mandate which was to serve and protect (although I am not suggesting he took a vow with those words like American leaders do) his entire citizenry. Were he to gamble with the very future of the UK he would have have not only been remiss, he would have perhaps the person who had done more than anyone in history to destroy the English People and their fellow UK citizens.
Blair did the right thing.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
So you think the US led invasion of Iraq was success? LOL!!! You really are a fantasist.
The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue was attended by tens, not hundreds or even thousands of Iraqis.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Sorry, just to get this straight, you think that the invasion of a sovereign land without a UN resolution in order to effect regime change is a reasonable action?
The 'might is right' argument?
And you think this is a good precedent?
Excuse me while I beg to differ, much as there are many dictatorships which I would rather were (better) democracies, I don't think I have the right to tell others how to run their lives just because I have might on my side.
And furthermore that attitude historically leads to war.
The 'might is right' argument?
And you think this is a good precedent?
Excuse me while I beg to differ, much as there are many dictatorships which I would rather were (better) democracies, I don't think I have the right to tell others how to run their lives just because I have might on my side.
And furthermore that attitude historically leads to war.
Nino: "So, Rachamim thinks that the current American presence in Iraq has been a success?": I think that in light of there not having existed a viable alternative, it was the only real option.
I think that Western economies absolutely need to have ALOT of petrol or they will very quickly cycle down. I think that Saddam disobeyed International Law over and over and over. I think he really did not care what anyone thought or did. I KNOW that he tried to go nuclear over a 23 year period. I KNOW he had an extensive NBC Program and had employed stock against Kurdi citizens of Iraq! I KNOW that he slughtered entire clans of Swamp Shia in the south, especially in Anbar. I KNOW that he trampled over entire demographics within his country, raped, murdered his own son in law, and so on.
I think that given the stocks in his own country, as well as his very real intention to do whatever possible to interrupt Western access (except the French of course) to other nations' petrol reserves made him an extreme liability. When that liability was bolstered by the clear humanitarian objectives it was a no-brainer.
IF you disagree, try doing away with anything related to petrol in your life. it is impossible.
"Not thousands, not hundreds, but mere 10s of Iraqis helped topple the Saddam statue in the famous and iconic event that immediately followed Saddam's ouster.": So what? Where did I say otherwise? Does it matter if only one crippled 99 year old was there? It was entirely symbolic and that is what icons consist of. Noone who viewed it will ever forget it in my mind.
It is kind of symptomatic of the whole outlook on this dynamic. When we bombed his nuclear ambitions back into the stone age the world was aghast and screaming at the top of their little whining lungs for our exile from the International Community.When Dr. Gerald Bull was neutralised (NOT SAYING Israel had anything to do with his neutrlisation) , thus neutralising the Rail Gun, peole called for International Sanctions and muttered angril, "Tsk, tsk!" When the Saddamiser was dropping chemical weapons on his own city people just went "Tsk, tsk," in a more subdued fashion. When entire clans of Swamp Shia were exterminated, "A more quiet "Tsk,tsk." While FOREIGN Muslims have been terrorising innocent Iraqis from all ethnicities, not even a "Tsk. tsk" is being heard.
I think you and every other person complaining should think alot more about what you are saying.
I think that Western economies absolutely need to have ALOT of petrol or they will very quickly cycle down. I think that Saddam disobeyed International Law over and over and over. I think he really did not care what anyone thought or did. I KNOW that he tried to go nuclear over a 23 year period. I KNOW he had an extensive NBC Program and had employed stock against Kurdi citizens of Iraq! I KNOW that he slughtered entire clans of Swamp Shia in the south, especially in Anbar. I KNOW that he trampled over entire demographics within his country, raped, murdered his own son in law, and so on.
I think that given the stocks in his own country, as well as his very real intention to do whatever possible to interrupt Western access (except the French of course) to other nations' petrol reserves made him an extreme liability. When that liability was bolstered by the clear humanitarian objectives it was a no-brainer.
IF you disagree, try doing away with anything related to petrol in your life. it is impossible.
"Not thousands, not hundreds, but mere 10s of Iraqis helped topple the Saddam statue in the famous and iconic event that immediately followed Saddam's ouster.": So what? Where did I say otherwise? Does it matter if only one crippled 99 year old was there? It was entirely symbolic and that is what icons consist of. Noone who viewed it will ever forget it in my mind.
It is kind of symptomatic of the whole outlook on this dynamic. When we bombed his nuclear ambitions back into the stone age the world was aghast and screaming at the top of their little whining lungs for our exile from the International Community.When Dr. Gerald Bull was neutralised (NOT SAYING Israel had anything to do with his neutrlisation) , thus neutralising the Rail Gun, peole called for International Sanctions and muttered angril, "Tsk, tsk!" When the Saddamiser was dropping chemical weapons on his own city people just went "Tsk, tsk," in a more subdued fashion. When entire clans of Swamp Shia were exterminated, "A more quiet "Tsk,tsk." While FOREIGN Muslims have been terrorising innocent Iraqis from all ethnicities, not even a "Tsk. tsk" is being heard.
I think you and every other person complaining should think alot more about what you are saying.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Oh really? This wouldn't be international law as laid out by the UN is it Rach?
G: "G wants to understand, is Rachamim saying it is ok to 'invade another country without any Resolutions'?": In using the word "Resolution," you are indeed referring to UN Resolutions, right? Not using it as in , "RESOLVING a crisis," right?
Assuming I am correct, you are indeed referring to UN Resolutions, I will kindly ask you to research the UN Charter, its history, and International Law in general as it relates to your idea.
The UN does not offer Resolutions that effect poffencive deployment. They do sometimes deploy International Forces under the UN auspice and Flag to help stabilise (at least in theory anyway) certain hotspots that run the risk (or have already done so) of creating climates that allow for inordinante suffering by non-combatants.
The UN would never offer a Resolution calling for the US to intervene militariliy unless that intervention was under the UN Flag and part of a wider Peace Keeping mission.
Iraq had already been subject to a fair share of both Gen Ass. and Sec. Council Resolutions prior to Bush's current deployment. Saddam did not give one iota whether or not his peons suffered and indeed only they suffered. He went on eating caviar and importing Escorts. It it did not effect him in any noticeable way.
The UN is greatly at fault though. It had passed Sanctions on Iraq and boycotted its petrol except in cases where the foreign capital was utilised in a Humanitarian manner as in buying food for the poorest of his people, meds,etc. Ironically, it was France and Germany who whined the loudest and France and Germany wereof course the 2 nations who profited most from black market petrol from Iraq as well as manipulation of the Petrol Voucher System.
It was blatant theivery and in the end it completely negated the purpose of Sanctions and Boycotts. There was no choice but to confront Saddam militarily. Did America lie? OF COURSE. Show me a nation that is 100% honest and I will show you a very naieve person believing it.
"Moight is Right argument.": I do not know where you would have got that idea. Does it sound like I am saying that? If so, how?
"Is it a good precedent?": Depends what you think is the precedent. You have not said so. You have simply suggested that you are against it. Let me know what you see as the precedent and I will tell you what I think.
"There are many democracies but G does not believe he has the right to tell those natiuons how to live.": Indeed I agree 100%. Unless a nation directly effects my nation, I could not care less. But there is the key, you see? Iraq was the lynchpin for Mid-East petrol, the lion's share of petrol in the world. Iraq itself was not crucial although certainly a bonus. It was the instability Saddam sold like Girl Scout Cookies. Go back and review the world's Finance Markets from the early days the dynamic.
Go back and see how patient everyone was as Germany and France continuously undermined all peaceful efforts.
"Attitude leads to war.": Of course it already has. After all, America is still in Iraq. Thing is, sometimes you have to go to war. Part of the responsibility nation's shoulder as members of the International Community, as well as being prudent about their obligations for their own citizenry.
Assuming I am correct, you are indeed referring to UN Resolutions, I will kindly ask you to research the UN Charter, its history, and International Law in general as it relates to your idea.
The UN does not offer Resolutions that effect poffencive deployment. They do sometimes deploy International Forces under the UN auspice and Flag to help stabilise (at least in theory anyway) certain hotspots that run the risk (or have already done so) of creating climates that allow for inordinante suffering by non-combatants.
The UN would never offer a Resolution calling for the US to intervene militariliy unless that intervention was under the UN Flag and part of a wider Peace Keeping mission.
Iraq had already been subject to a fair share of both Gen Ass. and Sec. Council Resolutions prior to Bush's current deployment. Saddam did not give one iota whether or not his peons suffered and indeed only they suffered. He went on eating caviar and importing Escorts. It it did not effect him in any noticeable way.
The UN is greatly at fault though. It had passed Sanctions on Iraq and boycotted its petrol except in cases where the foreign capital was utilised in a Humanitarian manner as in buying food for the poorest of his people, meds,etc. Ironically, it was France and Germany who whined the loudest and France and Germany wereof course the 2 nations who profited most from black market petrol from Iraq as well as manipulation of the Petrol Voucher System.
It was blatant theivery and in the end it completely negated the purpose of Sanctions and Boycotts. There was no choice but to confront Saddam militarily. Did America lie? OF COURSE. Show me a nation that is 100% honest and I will show you a very naieve person believing it.
"Moight is Right argument.": I do not know where you would have got that idea. Does it sound like I am saying that? If so, how?
"Is it a good precedent?": Depends what you think is the precedent. You have not said so. You have simply suggested that you are against it. Let me know what you see as the precedent and I will tell you what I think.
"There are many democracies but G does not believe he has the right to tell those natiuons how to live.": Indeed I agree 100%. Unless a nation directly effects my nation, I could not care less. But there is the key, you see? Iraq was the lynchpin for Mid-East petrol, the lion's share of petrol in the world. Iraq itself was not crucial although certainly a bonus. It was the instability Saddam sold like Girl Scout Cookies. Go back and review the world's Finance Markets from the early days the dynamic.
Go back and see how patient everyone was as Germany and France continuously undermined all peaceful efforts.
"Attitude leads to war.": Of course it already has. After all, America is still in Iraq. Thing is, sometimes you have to go to war. Part of the responsibility nation's shoulder as members of the International Community, as well as being prudent about their obligations for their own citizenry.
While the UN CAN be helpful in working towards solutions within International Law, it does not define it nor is it an arbiter of it. The UN is not a court. The Security Council can, within the framework of Internal Law, legally try and effect change but it is neither the only show in town, nor is that its scope and responsibility.
Basically, it is merely a forum for airing grievances and propaganda. Not a whole lot gets accomplished by the organisation and each year less and less gets done.
Basically, it is merely a forum for airing grievances and propaganda. Not a whole lot gets accomplished by the organisation and each year less and less gets done.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
But lets make it clear here-when you talk about Hussein breaking international law you are talking about the UN?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
You do seem keen to justify violence on the behalf of the righteous USA, yet seem against violence on behalf of groups which you disagree with. If you were simply to state that violence should not be used then fine. Yet you are happy that Iraq was invaded while there are many other countries which have methodically ignored the UN.
As GD states you do seem to have selective hearing when talking about international law. For example Israel apparently can ignore international law if it feels like it, and yet Iraq isn't accorded the same sovereign rights. Many countries mistreat their populations, some argue the same about Israel, yet to use this as an excuse to invade is setting a precedent that means that anyone can invade anyone else whenever they feel like it.
There are so many countries which the West could invade with this pretense, which is why any invasion needs to have the support of the UN as it did with Bosnia for example.
It might be slightly counter intuitive to have this attitude in the face of the actions of Saddam and others, and yet with a mutual aim of a more peaceful world one cannot come to any other conclusion. Violence begets violence, simple as.
I might add that the permanent security council of the UN is a flawed system, and so doesn't help. I would much rather have any country geographically bordering to have the veto, rather than the permanent members, tho that might be off topic.
As GD states you do seem to have selective hearing when talking about international law. For example Israel apparently can ignore international law if it feels like it, and yet Iraq isn't accorded the same sovereign rights. Many countries mistreat their populations, some argue the same about Israel, yet to use this as an excuse to invade is setting a precedent that means that anyone can invade anyone else whenever they feel like it.
There are so many countries which the West could invade with this pretense, which is why any invasion needs to have the support of the UN as it did with Bosnia for example.
It might be slightly counter intuitive to have this attitude in the face of the actions of Saddam and others, and yet with a mutual aim of a more peaceful world one cannot come to any other conclusion. Violence begets violence, simple as.
I might add that the permanent security council of the UN is a flawed system, and so doesn't help. I would much rather have any country geographically bordering to have the veto, rather than the permanent members, tho that might be off topic.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Christ, another fucking essay! I posed a simple straightforward question for which I did not request a reply in essay form.
This post is regurgitated propaganda from 2001/2.
If this invasion was so successful (thanks for derailing the thread btw), why is there no date set for withdrawal?
This is Freeper bollocks.
Gradnma: "Let us be clear here: When mentioning Saddam broke international Law, Rachamim is saying that because of the UN brouhaha?": No, not at all. I am saying that because he dropped chemical weapons on his own people. I say that because he invaded Kuwait. I am saying that because while being a signatory of the Non-Pro he came a hairsbreadth away from going nuclear. I say that because he tried to construct armaments that had no legitamate defencive value. I say that because he fired a few handfuls of SCUDs at Israel. I am saying that...Is it clear yet?
The UN is NOT an arbiter of International Law. How many times should I repeat that? It is simply a forum to air grievances and about as valuable in that regard, as a newspaper. In terms of its many AID and other Humanitarian projects, its corruption and ineptness renders it more of a hindrance than a helpful entity.
It COULD be much more than it is but it remains to be seen whether or not human nature will ever allow it to develop along those more positive lines.
G: "Rachamim seems keen to justify violence by the USA.": I hate America. Maybe that is as of yet still unclear to you. However, in this particular case America is entirely correct in its objective. Saddam's clear violation's of International LAw and his inhumanity allowed voracious bullies like the US to take it upon themselves to appropriate more natural resources.
Pretty cut and dry.
America, like YOUR nation, requires petrol. It cannot exist without it. This is a fact. Petrol goes into just about everything associated with Western life. From plastics to electricity, it is vital. Saddam's actions imperiled the world supply. Instability in Iraq is a lynchpin to the whole deck/house of cards coming down in a sprawled heap.
Saddam's crimes against his own people and the world in general allowed for America, et al to take that huge step that it did.
"Yet Rachamim seems to be against violence by groups whose objectives he disagrees with.": I will make it clearer for you. I hate terrorism. I have defined the word for you more than once but will do so again; Terrorism is the use of violence both physical and otherwise, undertaken to achieve goals of a political nature, and against non-combatants - on purpose. Aside form the run-on sentence the definition I just gave you is right and exact.
I believe wholly in the operational philosophy of the IDF. One of the first things you are given affter the basic stuff is a booklet that describes a philospohy summed up as "Purity of Arms." Israel says it in the army's English name, "Israel DEFENCE Forces."
Defence can be proactive, as in the 1967 War, or as in the Operation Peace for Galilee War, AKA First Lebanon War. It is still defence. It is not violence for the sake of violence.
My feelings about another army or nation's objectives is inconsequential unless it concerns my nation and army. Above and beyond that dynamic are 2 things: I) International Law, and II) Rules of War (a subsidiary of International Law).
As long as an entity observes both of those things, I could not care less. The problem thouigh, is that of the 27 domestic Arab groups (plus PA), not a single one observes either one.
Iraq was not invaded "because it ignored the UN." Iraq DID ignore the UN but that is a concurrent dynamic that helped to rationalise the action more widely. It was not the raison d'etre or causus belli. I have already explained a couple of times, including here, just why it happened. Many people within the UN hierarchy (and lower) wanted Iraq to disobey since it enriched them eprsonally and in terms of objectives.
The UN is NOT an arbiter of International Law. How many times should I repeat that? It is simply a forum to air grievances and about as valuable in that regard, as a newspaper. In terms of its many AID and other Humanitarian projects, its corruption and ineptness renders it more of a hindrance than a helpful entity.
It COULD be much more than it is but it remains to be seen whether or not human nature will ever allow it to develop along those more positive lines.
G: "Rachamim seems keen to justify violence by the USA.": I hate America. Maybe that is as of yet still unclear to you. However, in this particular case America is entirely correct in its objective. Saddam's clear violation's of International LAw and his inhumanity allowed voracious bullies like the US to take it upon themselves to appropriate more natural resources.
Pretty cut and dry.
America, like YOUR nation, requires petrol. It cannot exist without it. This is a fact. Petrol goes into just about everything associated with Western life. From plastics to electricity, it is vital. Saddam's actions imperiled the world supply. Instability in Iraq is a lynchpin to the whole deck/house of cards coming down in a sprawled heap.
Saddam's crimes against his own people and the world in general allowed for America, et al to take that huge step that it did.
"Yet Rachamim seems to be against violence by groups whose objectives he disagrees with.": I will make it clearer for you. I hate terrorism. I have defined the word for you more than once but will do so again; Terrorism is the use of violence both physical and otherwise, undertaken to achieve goals of a political nature, and against non-combatants - on purpose. Aside form the run-on sentence the definition I just gave you is right and exact.
I believe wholly in the operational philosophy of the IDF. One of the first things you are given affter the basic stuff is a booklet that describes a philospohy summed up as "Purity of Arms." Israel says it in the army's English name, "Israel DEFENCE Forces."
Defence can be proactive, as in the 1967 War, or as in the Operation Peace for Galilee War, AKA First Lebanon War. It is still defence. It is not violence for the sake of violence.
My feelings about another army or nation's objectives is inconsequential unless it concerns my nation and army. Above and beyond that dynamic are 2 things: I) International Law, and II) Rules of War (a subsidiary of International Law).
As long as an entity observes both of those things, I could not care less. The problem thouigh, is that of the 27 domestic Arab groups (plus PA), not a single one observes either one.
Iraq was not invaded "because it ignored the UN." Iraq DID ignore the UN but that is a concurrent dynamic that helped to rationalise the action more widely. It was not the raison d'etre or causus belli. I have already explained a couple of times, including here, just why it happened. Many people within the UN hierarchy (and lower) wanted Iraq to disobey since it enriched them eprsonally and in terms of objectives.
CONTINUED...
G:"Rachamim seems to be selective when discussing International Law. For example, Israel ignores it...": Where? Where is the charge? Indictment? Trial? Conviction? Just because some disconnected internet personality believes it to be so is not enough to believe in the claim. the real concepot of International Law works with actual investigations, charges, trials, and convictions where applicable. Israel has never even been charged.
The most to have happened is that a BRIEF was submitted that claimed the Security Barrier was in violation of International Law. What happened? NOTHING. So much for the Brief.
If you want to dfiscuss specific ideas as to those violations, I am glad to do os. However, opinion is not important unless it is a judicial opinion and here to fore none exists. Some of the best lega lminds in the world by the way have argued long and hard that Israeal has never violated anything top do with International Law so you can interpret it as you wish. However, in the end, it comes down to the Court of Law, not Public Opinion.
"Many counties mistreat their poipulations. Some say Israel does so..." not many use poison gas on an entire city, do they? Aside from Saddam, and his neighbour Syria, who has done so? THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
Israel does not msitreat its own citizens. ALL ISRAELIS have equal legal, human, and civil rights. In fact, minorities have more rights than Israeli Jews so the contention is pretty silly.
If you were to argue Israel mistreats "Palestinians," that is soemthing different. I do not agree with that one either but they are not ISraeli so please differentiate between Israel's own people and those administered by Israel. The two are distinctly different.
If you wish to discuss Israeli treatment of "Palestinians," you will ahve to be specific since I can not offer a blanket statement for all the propaganda floating around.
"To use mistreatment of their own population as a precedent for invasion is dangerous...": Uh, not it is not. Who in the world would not wish for outside help when their own leader was murdering their own people? I cannot think of a single person. In any event, that is not why the invasion happened, as I said. It is merely a conveient rationale, albeit one that justifies legally.
"One need look to Bosnia to see just why UN agreement is needed for a deployment.": Utter nonsense. By the time the UN managed to get it together EVERY SINGLE ethnicity there had been subjected to horrible atrocities by other ethnicities. Had NATO managed ot enter the fray much earlier this could have been avoided.
What did the UN do about Rwanda? Congo? Liberia? Darfur? Chad? Indonesia? Philippines? Cambodia? Laos? Mynammar? I can offer alot mroe but it is pretty clear that your idea is wrong.
"Violence begets violence.": If one aspires to clear pacificsm that is admirable. If one chooses to allow someone to kick the living shi^ out of them, to allow their 4 year old daughter to be raped, their wife to be made a literal slave, and sons murdered, they are reprehensible.
People have a responsibility to protect their loved ones. Ergo, if you but this, why limit this love to immediate kin? Should not one love all his relatives? The family unit was the basis for triabl culture, tribal culture the basis for territorial domain, and so on. Militiarism is only a good thing when used defencively. To not believe in self defence is not only counter intuitive, it is asinine. What right does a person have to subject people who depend on him to abject terror and brutality?
Violence is a tool. It is a valuable tool that should only be used defencively, albeit sometimes in a proactive manner but clearly defined as self defencive.
G:"Rachamim seems to be selective when discussing International Law. For example, Israel ignores it...": Where? Where is the charge? Indictment? Trial? Conviction? Just because some disconnected internet personality believes it to be so is not enough to believe in the claim. the real concepot of International Law works with actual investigations, charges, trials, and convictions where applicable. Israel has never even been charged.
The most to have happened is that a BRIEF was submitted that claimed the Security Barrier was in violation of International Law. What happened? NOTHING. So much for the Brief.
If you want to dfiscuss specific ideas as to those violations, I am glad to do os. However, opinion is not important unless it is a judicial opinion and here to fore none exists. Some of the best lega lminds in the world by the way have argued long and hard that Israeal has never violated anything top do with International Law so you can interpret it as you wish. However, in the end, it comes down to the Court of Law, not Public Opinion.
"Many counties mistreat their poipulations. Some say Israel does so..." not many use poison gas on an entire city, do they? Aside from Saddam, and his neighbour Syria, who has done so? THEIR OWN PEOPLE.
Israel does not msitreat its own citizens. ALL ISRAELIS have equal legal, human, and civil rights. In fact, minorities have more rights than Israeli Jews so the contention is pretty silly.
If you were to argue Israel mistreats "Palestinians," that is soemthing different. I do not agree with that one either but they are not ISraeli so please differentiate between Israel's own people and those administered by Israel. The two are distinctly different.
If you wish to discuss Israeli treatment of "Palestinians," you will ahve to be specific since I can not offer a blanket statement for all the propaganda floating around.
"To use mistreatment of their own population as a precedent for invasion is dangerous...": Uh, not it is not. Who in the world would not wish for outside help when their own leader was murdering their own people? I cannot think of a single person. In any event, that is not why the invasion happened, as I said. It is merely a conveient rationale, albeit one that justifies legally.
"One need look to Bosnia to see just why UN agreement is needed for a deployment.": Utter nonsense. By the time the UN managed to get it together EVERY SINGLE ethnicity there had been subjected to horrible atrocities by other ethnicities. Had NATO managed ot enter the fray much earlier this could have been avoided.
What did the UN do about Rwanda? Congo? Liberia? Darfur? Chad? Indonesia? Philippines? Cambodia? Laos? Mynammar? I can offer alot mroe but it is pretty clear that your idea is wrong.
"Violence begets violence.": If one aspires to clear pacificsm that is admirable. If one chooses to allow someone to kick the living shi^ out of them, to allow their 4 year old daughter to be raped, their wife to be made a literal slave, and sons murdered, they are reprehensible.
People have a responsibility to protect their loved ones. Ergo, if you but this, why limit this love to immediate kin? Should not one love all his relatives? The family unit was the basis for triabl culture, tribal culture the basis for territorial domain, and so on. Militiarism is only a good thing when used defencively. To not believe in self defence is not only counter intuitive, it is asinine. What right does a person have to subject people who depend on him to abject terror and brutality?
Violence is a tool. It is a valuable tool that should only be used defencively, albeit sometimes in a proactive manner but clearly defined as self defencive.
CONTINUED...
G: "The UN Security Council is a flawed concept.": I agree, TOTALLY.
"G would rather have a nation bordering a nation on the stage than to have a Security Council Permanant Member have a veto...": NO, not me. However, I think bordering nations should be allowed a bigger say in the dynamic. I personally wish the UN would dissolve post haste. It is a waste of time, money, and effort.
In this day and age NGOs pick up most of Humanitarian AID and similar concerns. The UN is flawed from top to botom and while flaws should not consign things to the rubbish heap epr se, the UN is so thoroughly riddled with coruption as to make it unsalavageable at this late juncture.
Nino: Aside from the usual insults..."If the deployment in Iraq is so damn successful, why no date set for Withdrawal?": first, the Iraqi Govt. just announced last week a demand for such a timetable so please keep current. Secondly, the US correctly believes that setting a timetable is extremely counter productive in light of gains made in recent months (violence is at is lowest point in 4 years although Baquba Province is heating up again and looks ot be ready for a Surge).
As the Iraqi Govt. has demanded a timetable, it looks as if they will get one sooner rather than later. Stability in a multi ethnic fictional nation (fictional in the political sense in that Iraq was a modern invention of the criminal Brits, be proud, who handed off the synthetic monarchy to a branch of the Hashemi clan (AKA Hashemites as Brits refer to them). Hashemi are a caln in the Quraysh Tribe, native to Mecca in what is now Arabia. Ergo, the country was taped together from disparate parts and only a tyrannical despot like Saddam was ever going to keep them banded together.
Erase the non-democratic checks and balances and you have anarchy personafied. For America to have allowed this to happen and then walk away quickly as the nation implodes is at best, compounding an error. At worst it is an International Crime.
In the end, as I said, it is up to the Iraqis if peace is still not imminent and since they asked...
" 'Saddamiser' is Freeper bollocks.": Pardon but I have no idea what "Freeper"
means.
G: "The UN Security Council is a flawed concept.": I agree, TOTALLY.
"G would rather have a nation bordering a nation on the stage than to have a Security Council Permanant Member have a veto...": NO, not me. However, I think bordering nations should be allowed a bigger say in the dynamic. I personally wish the UN would dissolve post haste. It is a waste of time, money, and effort.
In this day and age NGOs pick up most of Humanitarian AID and similar concerns. The UN is flawed from top to botom and while flaws should not consign things to the rubbish heap epr se, the UN is so thoroughly riddled with coruption as to make it unsalavageable at this late juncture.
Nino: Aside from the usual insults..."If the deployment in Iraq is so damn successful, why no date set for Withdrawal?": first, the Iraqi Govt. just announced last week a demand for such a timetable so please keep current. Secondly, the US correctly believes that setting a timetable is extremely counter productive in light of gains made in recent months (violence is at is lowest point in 4 years although Baquba Province is heating up again and looks ot be ready for a Surge).
As the Iraqi Govt. has demanded a timetable, it looks as if they will get one sooner rather than later. Stability in a multi ethnic fictional nation (fictional in the political sense in that Iraq was a modern invention of the criminal Brits, be proud, who handed off the synthetic monarchy to a branch of the Hashemi clan (AKA Hashemites as Brits refer to them). Hashemi are a caln in the Quraysh Tribe, native to Mecca in what is now Arabia. Ergo, the country was taped together from disparate parts and only a tyrannical despot like Saddam was ever going to keep them banded together.
Erase the non-democratic checks and balances and you have anarchy personafied. For America to have allowed this to happen and then walk away quickly as the nation implodes is at best, compounding an error. At worst it is an International Crime.
In the end, as I said, it is up to the Iraqis if peace is still not imminent and since they asked...
" 'Saddamiser' is Freeper bollocks.": Pardon but I have no idea what "Freeper"
means.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Attachments
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Summary:
countries who break the international law we impose on them only have themselves to blame if we beat them up and take their resources.
What makes you think that the market for oil will fail if we don't beat these bad countries up?
We buy their oil, why would they mess that up?
I agree totally with your definition. If only Israel would stop illegal settlements it might mean a bit more.
Sadly the definition of 'Israel' is basically whatever land they can get away with.
illegal settlements?
And illegal settlements again, which are in contravention of Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, and which also seem to conveniently appropriate Palestinian property.
Sure it gave them an excuse. They had no strong friends so let's beat them up!!!
Sure the ruling:
Interesting judgment seeing as the act itself states that:
And the Palestinians seem to feel that this part of the law is not being observed. And Even you seem to accept that (b) is not observed by the IDF, and TBH you also justify (a) and (c) as well.
See even the law goes on about treating the Palestinians well. Funnily enough the illegal settlements just bring Israel to lordship over yet more people, and just washing the blood off their hands while taking their land and livelihood would seem a bit inhuman.
By the way the International Court of Justice on 9/7/2004 confirmed the status of the West Bank and Gaza as 'occupied'...
Convenient that you refuse to accord the Palestinians equal status with Israelis within one land. After all they were both born of the same land and so are brothers.
You can say that coz Palestinians, don't count of course
So you insist, yet they are both born in the same land, and the Israelis act like it's theirs, and then build walls around it to ensure it stays theirs; and then refuse to acknowledge the people on the land they just illegally occupied; strange!
Your lack of compromise on this point will perpetuate the conflict way beyond need.
So you'd be fine with a superior force invading Israel so long as it found a number of people who are of the same land, who feel that they are being abused by their 'leader'?
Like I say, dodgy precedent.
Sure the UN acting with agreement of all bordering countries would be better. This is an argument for a stronger UN.
I think your close contact with war has scarred you as to the merits of peace through compromise.
If only those inconvenient illegal settlement were not so evident.
And attack is the best form of defence? Funny how war is justified so easily.
It is an inconvenient body for the warlike nations to accept certainly.
I live for the day Israel accepts the need for peace, when compromise is embraced and the Palestinians are brought into a unified territory with a unified name. A modern unified nation. Fifty years ish...
G: "Summary: Those nations who violate International Law only have themselves to blame if 'we' beat them up and take their reseources.": Yeah, basically. That ishow the world works.
IT actually should work like this: Nations who violate International Law REPEATEDLY should be broght to trial at the Hague,etc. Then, have the court impose just punishment. IF a nation imperils not only its own people but the entire Western World it is only natural and common sense that they would place themselves on the choopping block.
This is human nature. The violation only made it possible.
"What makes Rachamim think that thesecounties would imperil the petrol supply. They would still need to sell it after all.": When a nation s greatly destabilised it is not going to maintain output let alone export. Iraq happens to be the lynchpin to regional stabiliy given bth its location and society.
"IF only Israel stoppd illegal 'Settlements'.":"Settlements" began in the mid 1970s. Terroris againt Israel began in 1948. Against Jews there in 1920. "Settlements" have nothing at all to do with it. Look at Gaza.
"Sadly, the definition of 'Israel' is whatever land it can get away with.": Right Thisis why Israel ceded Sinai to Egypt. This is why Israel ceded Gaza to "Palestinians," along with 4 so caled "WB" districts. Ths is why Israel is cedeing the rest of the "WB" post haste. The comment makes no sense.
"Illegal 'Settlements' are violations of International Law.": Not at all. Tell me where? Geneva 1949? Guess again. They are illegal IF a nation previously existed. Theonly nation to exist there was...THE JEWISH NATION.
"Geneva and 'Settlements.": Ahhh, if only I had waited just a bit more, you made this pioint. Anyway, read above. You are wrong. As faras appropriated property, wrong again. Please reiew the 49 Armistice, the review Lausanne Concilliation Negotiatons 1949, and finally general history of that region going back 50000 years. You will find your argument shredded.
"Ruling concerning 'occpied territory'.": OK, again, General Assembly Resolutions have nothing to do with Law. Not International, nor regional. NOTHING AT ALL. They exist simply as opinion pieces, i.e. PROPAGANDA.
"Qustionary Ajudicaton.": There is no such thing. Please review the ssue and desist from gathering opinions from propagndafonts. If you usethat term people will laugh. "Advisory Ajudication"? IT IS A FUC%%NG BRIEF! A BRIEF, BRIEF, BRIEF. Clear yet? Briefs are nothing but OPNIONS and NON-AJUDICATIONAL. Ajudication is the term dusedto describe the legal verdict in a case not a non-trial opinion with no leagal bearing.
Furthermore, even if a court were to ever rule this, and t has not, not even brought it to bear mnd you, the Barrier would not fgure into it. I is not a border, as that soure suggests. It is a security too a device. Boders are not even being discussed, much less unilaterally declared.
"A,B,C, etc.": Not one thing listed happens at Israel's hand. ALL happen with both PA and HAMAS. Hmmm...
"By the way, the International Cout affirmed that Gaza and the so called 'WB" are 'occupied'.": NO, IT DID NOT. BRIEF,BRIEF,BRIEF. Please do us both a favour, but especally yourself, research what a Brief means and what it constitutes legaly. Thanks in advance.
IT actually should work like this: Nations who violate International Law REPEATEDLY should be broght to trial at the Hague,etc. Then, have the court impose just punishment. IF a nation imperils not only its own people but the entire Western World it is only natural and common sense that they would place themselves on the choopping block.
This is human nature. The violation only made it possible.
"What makes Rachamim think that thesecounties would imperil the petrol supply. They would still need to sell it after all.": When a nation s greatly destabilised it is not going to maintain output let alone export. Iraq happens to be the lynchpin to regional stabiliy given bth its location and society.
"IF only Israel stoppd illegal 'Settlements'.":"Settlements" began in the mid 1970s. Terroris againt Israel began in 1948. Against Jews there in 1920. "Settlements" have nothing at all to do with it. Look at Gaza.
"Sadly, the definition of 'Israel' is whatever land it can get away with.": Right Thisis why Israel ceded Sinai to Egypt. This is why Israel ceded Gaza to "Palestinians," along with 4 so caled "WB" districts. Ths is why Israel is cedeing the rest of the "WB" post haste. The comment makes no sense.
"Illegal 'Settlements' are violations of International Law.": Not at all. Tell me where? Geneva 1949? Guess again. They are illegal IF a nation previously existed. Theonly nation to exist there was...THE JEWISH NATION.
"Geneva and 'Settlements.": Ahhh, if only I had waited just a bit more, you made this pioint. Anyway, read above. You are wrong. As faras appropriated property, wrong again. Please reiew the 49 Armistice, the review Lausanne Concilliation Negotiatons 1949, and finally general history of that region going back 50000 years. You will find your argument shredded.
"Ruling concerning 'occpied territory'.": OK, again, General Assembly Resolutions have nothing to do with Law. Not International, nor regional. NOTHING AT ALL. They exist simply as opinion pieces, i.e. PROPAGANDA.
"Qustionary Ajudicaton.": There is no such thing. Please review the ssue and desist from gathering opinions from propagndafonts. If you usethat term people will laugh. "Advisory Ajudication"? IT IS A FUC%%NG BRIEF! A BRIEF, BRIEF, BRIEF. Clear yet? Briefs are nothing but OPNIONS and NON-AJUDICATIONAL. Ajudication is the term dusedto describe the legal verdict in a case not a non-trial opinion with no leagal bearing.
Furthermore, even if a court were to ever rule this, and t has not, not even brought it to bear mnd you, the Barrier would not fgure into it. I is not a border, as that soure suggests. It is a security too a device. Boders are not even being discussed, much less unilaterally declared.
"A,B,C, etc.": Not one thing listed happens at Israel's hand. ALL happen with both PA and HAMAS. Hmmm...
"By the way, the International Cout affirmed that Gaza and the so called 'WB" are 'occupied'.": NO, IT DID NOT. BRIEF,BRIEF,BRIEF. Please do us both a favour, but especally yourself, research what a Brief means and what it constitutes legaly. Thanks in advance.
G: "Conveinent that Rachamm does not afford 'Palestinians' equal rights with Israelis within a single land.": What? Almost 20% of ISRAELI CITIZENS are Arab. Please research. "Palestinian" is the term used by Arabs who live in Gaza and the so called "WB." Are you suggesting Israel annex Gaza and "WB?"
"Rachamim can be flippant because 'Palestinians' do not count.": They count to "Palestinians." Why should they count to citizens of another nation, above and beyond their obvious status as humans? They do not want annexation, we do not want to annex them. Why do foreigners like you care then?
They prefer to determine their own futures. Well they should. I hope it happens FAST.
"Jews and 'Palestinians' were born in the same land'.": If you mean those alive today , some of both were born in the British Mandate, yes, and include Jordanians as well. For tha matter, Egypt and Iraq. IS it then that you call for a nation comprised of Egypt, Gaza, Israel, "WB," Jordan, and Iraq? You are not making sense.
"Would Rachamim accept it if a foreign but superior force entered and invaded Irael because Israel was maltreating people there?": Ahhh, but that is NOT what happened with Iraq, was it? IF Israel EVER employs posion gas on its own citizens I will hold the door open for the force. I will even invite them. It will never happen. You think you can offer a scenario while ignoring all relevant context. Wrong.
"G thinks that Rachamim's close contact to war has scarred Rachamim wth regards to peace via compromise.": If anything it has done the opposite. At the same time, you must have a partner with which to negotiate with. Israel lacks that. You need to appreciate that fact. It is not England, never was, G-D willing never will be.
"The day Israel accepts the need for peace."I dare say we accepted it that day in 1919 when we agreed to coexist peacefully with a much larger Arab State to be called...."Palestine." Sadly, Arabs refused and have ever since.
"Rachamim can be flippant because 'Palestinians' do not count.": They count to "Palestinians." Why should they count to citizens of another nation, above and beyond their obvious status as humans? They do not want annexation, we do not want to annex them. Why do foreigners like you care then?
They prefer to determine their own futures. Well they should. I hope it happens FAST.
"Jews and 'Palestinians' were born in the same land'.": If you mean those alive today , some of both were born in the British Mandate, yes, and include Jordanians as well. For tha matter, Egypt and Iraq. IS it then that you call for a nation comprised of Egypt, Gaza, Israel, "WB," Jordan, and Iraq? You are not making sense.
"Would Rachamim accept it if a foreign but superior force entered and invaded Irael because Israel was maltreating people there?": Ahhh, but that is NOT what happened with Iraq, was it? IF Israel EVER employs posion gas on its own citizens I will hold the door open for the force. I will even invite them. It will never happen. You think you can offer a scenario while ignoring all relevant context. Wrong.
"G thinks that Rachamim's close contact to war has scarred Rachamim wth regards to peace via compromise.": If anything it has done the opposite. At the same time, you must have a partner with which to negotiate with. Israel lacks that. You need to appreciate that fact. It is not England, never was, G-D willing never will be.
"The day Israel accepts the need for peace."I dare say we accepted it that day in 1919 when we agreed to coexist peacefully with a much larger Arab State to be called...."Palestine." Sadly, Arabs refused and have ever since.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
If only I weren't
Only poison gas qualifies?
A fact which in your mind gives you the right to oppress them, yet if the roles had been reversed you would have made the same choices as they did.
You are so selective with international law. One could state that there is no international law, and that might is right as you imply with the 'that's how the world works' speech, yet when convenient to yourself you go into international law quite happily coz it's convenient to you. Yet when others do the same the other way round you simply state that they're not making sense, when actually it is a logic you choose to ignore.
Your lack of compromise is your downfall. At the end of the day everyone has the right to freedom in their country of birth. You have chosen to take over the whole country, and just isolating the WB and Gaza, turning them into simply large holding pens for people to die in, doesn't fool anyone but yourselves.
Your lack of compromise is keeping this conflict going. I recognise that the same charge can be levelled at the Palestinians, yet settlements continue and ignoring official 'briefs' just shows the world your true colours. Good words but actions speak louder, and Israel is not interested in the compromise needed to end this conflict yet.
Implicitly therefore I can state for sure that Israel WANTS to be at war with the Palestinians, or else they would take the steps needed to stop it. Maybe they are not ready to take on the compromise needed for a modern nation. Still as I say, fifty years ish and there will be a one-state solution which is the only real solution. Fifty years of fighting this truth until finally the people have enough with the warmongers and vote in someone prepared to compromise.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Oh? Are you sure you've never been on freerepublic.com?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Amen
G: "Only posion gas qualifies?": It was an analogy. I am sure there is no need for me to explain what an analogy is.
"Since Arabs have ALWAYS refused statehood and self determination, Rachamim believes that this is an excuse to oppress them.": Quite a leap in logic. How does one have anything to do with the other? Furthermore, how does Israel opporress Arabs? You have it a tad bit backwards.
"If Israel was in the same situation as the 'Palestinians,' Rachamim would feel much the same as 'Palestinians'.": Nope, not at all. I would not insist that I or my People had a right to the land of another People. All the more so if the Jews had 25 other nations!!! Some of which did not even allow Arabs to step foot in them!
"With Rachamim one could state that 'Might is Right' and that there is no International Law.": You are forgetting the central theme...America, et al only invaded Iraq AFTER Iraq REPEATEDLY violated International Law. America, et al did NOT break International Law in doing so!
Might is Right? Nope. Saddam thought so though and paid the price. He invaded Kuwait and tried to annex it. He denied self determination to the Kurdi in Iraq and even used chemical weapons against them. He exterminated many villages on Shia in the south of Iraq. America would have been foolish if it did not take advantage of the opportunity presented by Saddam.
"Israel has chosen to take over the whole country.": You need to study regional history, at the very least. When did the "country" of "Palestine" EVER exist? Care to take a guess?
What did the British Mandate of 'Palestine' consist of? Gaza, so called "WB," Israel Proper, AND (Trans) JORDAN. Israel did not annex Gaza. In fact, it completely left Gaza almost 3 years ago! It also left 4 "WB" Districts and plans to leave almost all of the rest as soon as the PA is ready. IT NEVER HELD Jordan which by the way was illegaly created by the UK. So, what are you talking about?
"Everyone has a right to freedom in their country of birth.": Yeah, and? Israel allowed "Palestinians" born in Israel Proper to return 3 times, the last of which was a 20 year period. Those that refused were offered cash and Israel paid out a very substantial sum. What else could Israel do?
Now the related subject: Of the nearly 1 million Jewish Refugees from Arab Nations, how many were allowed to return? How many were paid for the nearly 100 billion US Dollars in 1948 value that they lost? Those Jews by the way predated ALL Arabs in everyone of those so called "Arab Nations."
On the other hand, "Palestinians" did not exist as a People until 1948. Hmmm...If you want to be factual, when did Southern Syrians begin THEIR existence? See, when you examine actual facts your position falls apart.
"Isolating Gaza and the so called 'WB'.": No, not at all. They are not part of Israel, by their own choice. Since they are not part of Israel, they are supposed to exist with borders between them and Israel.This is extremely simple and basic. What then do you find so difficult to understand?
As soon as they can possibly manage they will have their statehood and then your entire position will have been moot. As always, they control everything. All they have to do is stop the nonsense, the rockets, the mortars, the bombings, the gunfire, the kidnapping, and they shall have what they claim to desire.
"Settlements continue...": Uh, no they do NOT. The only construction taking place is construction for Natural Expansion and this is entirely permissable under existing agreements. Natural Expansion is a term used to describe additional room for newborn children and the like. It has nothing to do with new "Settlers," etc.
"Ignoring 'official Briefs (sic)'.": What "official Briefs?" There is no such thing. There is one, single Brief and a Brief is nothing more than a NON-BINDING opinion. No offence but you need to really research this and related issues. The whole point is entirely non-sensical.
You can "implicitly" state that Israel wants to be at war with "Palestinians?" Let me hip you to a couple of actual facts. IF Israel wanted to, it could annihilate "Palestinians." It is not their fighting prowess that keeps us at bay so what in the world are you talking about?
Who made Israel agree to arm the PA Police? To arm and help train the PA Infantry? To allow them to deploy in areas not under the Oslo Agreemnt (Oslo II specifically)? Who made Israel cede Gaza? To leave them a 1 billion US hothouse industry? To leave them an IDF Infantry base on the "WB" about 10 minutes by auto from Jerusalem? To give almost a 100 million US a year in free medical and dental care to needy "Palestinians?" To allow "Palestinian" terrorists to get university educations free of charge from Israeli universities? To allow all manner of foreign filth into the so called "WB" to "monitor" Checkpoints? To give "terrorists" conjugal visits? You have no idea whatsoever what you are saying.
Israel agreed in 1919 to exist next to an Arab Nation populated by the people you now call "Palestinians." THEY REFUSED. THEY REFUSED EVERY SINGLE DEAL SINCE 1919...EXCEPT OSLO I AND II and they broke both almost entirely! Ross Plan offered them everything they claim to want. Where is Peace? You blame Israel? Put politely, you have no idea what you are saying.
"In 50 odd years there will be a 1 State Solution.": If you say so. Pretty funny since neither side would ever accept it. Not Arabs, not Israelis, including Israeli-Arabs by the way. Perhaps you might just research attitudes on the issue? Aside from the PFLP and DFLP noone is even singing that song (oh, I better not forget the ICP among Israelis which has all of 800 members). both DFLP and PFLP are incredibly marginalised and operate without any support from "Palestinians" whatsoever. It will never happen and thank G-D for that.
They will, if they mature enough, have their 26th (maybe also 27th if Gaza refuses to merge) Arab Nation. Israel will remain the only Jewish Nation. Ideologues and Propagandsists will still be talking out their ear (put politely) about a 1 State Solution. Hey, at leasy Khadaffi thinks like you. Thank G-D for small comforts I suppose.
"Since Arabs have ALWAYS refused statehood and self determination, Rachamim believes that this is an excuse to oppress them.": Quite a leap in logic. How does one have anything to do with the other? Furthermore, how does Israel opporress Arabs? You have it a tad bit backwards.
"If Israel was in the same situation as the 'Palestinians,' Rachamim would feel much the same as 'Palestinians'.": Nope, not at all. I would not insist that I or my People had a right to the land of another People. All the more so if the Jews had 25 other nations!!! Some of which did not even allow Arabs to step foot in them!
"With Rachamim one could state that 'Might is Right' and that there is no International Law.": You are forgetting the central theme...America, et al only invaded Iraq AFTER Iraq REPEATEDLY violated International Law. America, et al did NOT break International Law in doing so!
Might is Right? Nope. Saddam thought so though and paid the price. He invaded Kuwait and tried to annex it. He denied self determination to the Kurdi in Iraq and even used chemical weapons against them. He exterminated many villages on Shia in the south of Iraq. America would have been foolish if it did not take advantage of the opportunity presented by Saddam.
"Israel has chosen to take over the whole country.": You need to study regional history, at the very least. When did the "country" of "Palestine" EVER exist? Care to take a guess?
What did the British Mandate of 'Palestine' consist of? Gaza, so called "WB," Israel Proper, AND (Trans) JORDAN. Israel did not annex Gaza. In fact, it completely left Gaza almost 3 years ago! It also left 4 "WB" Districts and plans to leave almost all of the rest as soon as the PA is ready. IT NEVER HELD Jordan which by the way was illegaly created by the UK. So, what are you talking about?
"Everyone has a right to freedom in their country of birth.": Yeah, and? Israel allowed "Palestinians" born in Israel Proper to return 3 times, the last of which was a 20 year period. Those that refused were offered cash and Israel paid out a very substantial sum. What else could Israel do?
Now the related subject: Of the nearly 1 million Jewish Refugees from Arab Nations, how many were allowed to return? How many were paid for the nearly 100 billion US Dollars in 1948 value that they lost? Those Jews by the way predated ALL Arabs in everyone of those so called "Arab Nations."
On the other hand, "Palestinians" did not exist as a People until 1948. Hmmm...If you want to be factual, when did Southern Syrians begin THEIR existence? See, when you examine actual facts your position falls apart.
"Isolating Gaza and the so called 'WB'.": No, not at all. They are not part of Israel, by their own choice. Since they are not part of Israel, they are supposed to exist with borders between them and Israel.This is extremely simple and basic. What then do you find so difficult to understand?
As soon as they can possibly manage they will have their statehood and then your entire position will have been moot. As always, they control everything. All they have to do is stop the nonsense, the rockets, the mortars, the bombings, the gunfire, the kidnapping, and they shall have what they claim to desire.
"Settlements continue...": Uh, no they do NOT. The only construction taking place is construction for Natural Expansion and this is entirely permissable under existing agreements. Natural Expansion is a term used to describe additional room for newborn children and the like. It has nothing to do with new "Settlers," etc.
"Ignoring 'official Briefs (sic)'.": What "official Briefs?" There is no such thing. There is one, single Brief and a Brief is nothing more than a NON-BINDING opinion. No offence but you need to really research this and related issues. The whole point is entirely non-sensical.
You can "implicitly" state that Israel wants to be at war with "Palestinians?" Let me hip you to a couple of actual facts. IF Israel wanted to, it could annihilate "Palestinians." It is not their fighting prowess that keeps us at bay so what in the world are you talking about?
Who made Israel agree to arm the PA Police? To arm and help train the PA Infantry? To allow them to deploy in areas not under the Oslo Agreemnt (Oslo II specifically)? Who made Israel cede Gaza? To leave them a 1 billion US hothouse industry? To leave them an IDF Infantry base on the "WB" about 10 minutes by auto from Jerusalem? To give almost a 100 million US a year in free medical and dental care to needy "Palestinians?" To allow "Palestinian" terrorists to get university educations free of charge from Israeli universities? To allow all manner of foreign filth into the so called "WB" to "monitor" Checkpoints? To give "terrorists" conjugal visits? You have no idea whatsoever what you are saying.
Israel agreed in 1919 to exist next to an Arab Nation populated by the people you now call "Palestinians." THEY REFUSED. THEY REFUSED EVERY SINGLE DEAL SINCE 1919...EXCEPT OSLO I AND II and they broke both almost entirely! Ross Plan offered them everything they claim to want. Where is Peace? You blame Israel? Put politely, you have no idea what you are saying.
"In 50 odd years there will be a 1 State Solution.": If you say so. Pretty funny since neither side would ever accept it. Not Arabs, not Israelis, including Israeli-Arabs by the way. Perhaps you might just research attitudes on the issue? Aside from the PFLP and DFLP noone is even singing that song (oh, I better not forget the ICP among Israelis which has all of 800 members). both DFLP and PFLP are incredibly marginalised and operate without any support from "Palestinians" whatsoever. It will never happen and thank G-D for that.
They will, if they mature enough, have their 26th (maybe also 27th if Gaza refuses to merge) Arab Nation. Israel will remain the only Jewish Nation. Ideologues and Propagandsists will still be talking out their ear (put politely) about a 1 State Solution. Hey, at leasy Khadaffi thinks like you. Thank G-D for small comforts I suppose.
Similar threads
- Poll
