I would like to argue something pretty important to me.

[manker]

Sarcasm doesn't really suit you.

Now if that's your argument, that the war couldn't have been about oil because you're paying more to fill your petrol tank. It's pretty shallow.

Do I need to point out why?

Now, I'm not saying that the war was purely for oil but it's undeniably a huge factor in the US' foreign policy. To deny this is particularly short sighted.

Riiiight...and it has translated lower gas prices.

We have better relations with Kuwait ffs.

Better relations with Kuwait ... but better with other oil producing regions? Nope.

It's not about the the cost of petrol to citizens, your government doesn't care about that. It's about control.

The water is only up to my ankles.

That's just babbling.

[Busyman]

Oil companies profits are up, if thats what you mean.

Didnt think it was for the consumers benefit, did you?

Their profits were there before. Oil costs more period.

As far as consumer benefit, I'm full aware of Bushcronyism.

[RioDeLeo]

You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.

What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.

And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.

And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?

EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

[Snee]

You haven't backed up your claims about that zionist crap one iota, for one thing.

What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.

All right, you posted this: http://cactus48.com/truth.html
According this link the zionist movement were out to steal the arabs' land from the get-go, and you continued by saying that Israel was a zionist state, not a jewish state.

I called you on the credibility of the same link (I used sarcasm so you might not have understood it), as I've further critized the bulk of your links in this thread.

Is there anyone, apart from these radicals you seem so fond of, that distinguishes between judaeism and zionism and makes the same claims of the zionists, who are apparently running the place (given that it is, according to you, a zionist state) planning to do what you say?

In short, is there any actual proof, or is it all like that?

And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.

Right, so you justified claiming that all settlers are thieves, and you explained why you think they don't deserve keeping their land even if they've done nothing wrong, and you explained what you have against israelis in general.

oic

And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?

They obviously didn't, given that many of the current settlers own their land according to Israeli law.

EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

I generalize?

There's a good argument


You expect the Israel and israelis to follow international law, and you demonize them, but their enemies, whose rights you are happy defending are represented, and in part governed by choice, by a former terrorist organization.

You don't see a problem with that?

If international law can recognize the authority of these people, given their past sins, why should Israel pay for theirs?



You seem well happy bashing the Israelis. But in this conflict bashing either side is easy enough, but what about defending the opposition instead?

What makes the PLO any better, or more deserving to be protected by international laws than israel?

[RioDeLeo]

Boy, this is getting tedious!

What Zionist crap? If you have a particular point to raise, do so, generalising shows a lack of honesty.

All right, you posted this: http://cactus48.com/truth.html
According this link the zionist movement were out to steal the arabs' land from the get-go, and you continued by saying that Israel was a zionist state, not a jewish state.

I called you on the credibility of the same link (I used sarcasm so you might not have understood it), as I've further critized the bulk of your links in this thread.

Is there anyone, apart from these radicals you seem so fond of, that distinguishes between judaeism and zionism and makes the same claims of the zionists, who are apparently running the place (given that it is, according to you, a zionist state) planning to do what you say?

In short, is there any actual proof, or is it all like that?

What the fuck are you babbling on about? Have YOU done any research? Can YOU state something different? All you do is argue with no other input.

And you've failed to answer the rest of it too, lynx and rat had to do that.

l have answered it, you just refuse to accept it.

Right, so you justified claiming that all settlers are thieves, and you explained why you think they don't deserve keeping their land even if they've done nothing wrong, and you explained what you have against israelis in general.

Yes, and what was l supposed to do? l gave my opinion, you gave yours, (which you later claimed you were probably wrong!), what's your problem?

And, for the settlers that didn't steal anything from anyone, the analogy is definitely valid International law is only your law, if your state recognizes it, ffs.

As Israel were members of the UN from 1949, isn't it fair to assume that they recognised it?

They obviously didn't, given that many of the current settlers own their land according to Israeli law.

So they were members of the UN but didn't recognise it ... is that your opinion?

EDit: and finally WRT the last quote, given who's got power in Palestine and what they've done in breach of all kinds of laws, why should Israel be expected to be any better wrt international laws?

Again, you generalise, what point are you arguing?

I generalize?

There's a good argument


You expect the Israel and israelis to follow international law, and you demonize them, but their enemies, whose rights you are happy defending are represented, and in part governed by choice, by a former terrorist organization.

Both sides have links to terrorism, not just the Palestinians, look at some of the members, past and present, of the Israeli government.

You don't see a problem with that?

If international law can recognize the authority of these people, given their past sins, why should Israel pay for theirs?

Ask the UN.

You seem well happy bashing the Israelis. But in this conflict bashing either side is easy enough, but what about defending the opposition instead?

WTF?

What makes the PLO any better, or more deserving to be protected by international laws than israel?

Who said they were? When you run out of ideas, bring other matters up as if l have defended them, very cute. l don't defend things l haven't claimed.

[JPaul]

I have absolutely no idea.

Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

[Snee]

What the fuck are you babbling on about? Have YOU done any research? Can YOU state something different? All you do is argue with no other input.

Oh excuse me, do you think I'd have asked you that if I hadn't done some research?
the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of this zionist idiocy of yours.

Feck, it's nigh on impossible for it to be true, as you yourself later stated that the Israeli government had only a smaller percentage of religious party members.

The settler agenda, and the settlers are right wing religious, as rat later stated. Some of them are the ones actively perpetuating what even remotely sounds like this zionist agenda of your description with any enthusiasm, today

If anyone subscribes to that zionist business at all the way you put it, that would be them.
Yet I can find no official statements saying that they are just zionist, not jewish (or that they subscribe to zionism as anything apart from religion), and that the agenda, the way you describe it exists. They do want a homeland, but that doesn't mean that Israel is out to rob the arabs of their land, or that an element that desires this runs the government. By all accounts the settlers, a minority, are just a small part of the Israeli population.

One Israeli link link I found even said that the goals of zionism had been attained with the founding of Israel, which, I don't think I have to remind you happened before 1967.

And I quite liked this:

So*called "non*Zionist" Jews are pleased that Israel exists from a practical standpoint-as a haven for oppressed Jews and as a land imbued with holiness well*suited for Torah study. But they don't generally assign religious significance to the formation of the modern state, and often decry aspects of its secular culture.

source

You don't have to be a zionist to be israeli.

There is no truth or real research behind what you posted, and having said that, I seriously doubt the rest of your argument was built on any solid research.

Yes, and what was l supposed to do? l gave my opinion, you gave yours, (which you later claimed you were probably wrong!), what's your problem?

Oh no, I never claimed I'd changed my mind about the fact that every settler isn't a thief or that they don't deserve to be treated with the same respect as any palestinian.

You never recognized any of that, though, and I suppose you aren't going to. This of course ties in beautifully with the fact that you are anti-israeli as rat' says, not pro-justice, or pro-palestinian.

So they were members of the UN but didn't recognise it ... is that your opinion?

Well, for someone who complains about people twisting words, you sure are doing a remarkable job of trying the same.

I'm saying that the Israeli government made it legal for settlers to own land in defiance to UN resolutions, which aren't synonymous with laws, btw.

A United Nations resolution (or UN resolution) is a decision of a United Nations (UN) bodies. Any UN body can issue resolutions. However, in practice, most resolutions are issued by the Security Council or the General Assembly.

The legal status of UN resolutions has often been a matter of intense debate:

Most experts appear to consider most General Assembly resolutions to be non-binding (Articles 10 and 14 of the UN Charter refer to General Assembly "recommendations"),
However, the status of Security Council resolutions is more ambiguous. In particular, it is not clear if all Security Council resolutions are binding are only those adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ("Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression"). Under Article 25 of the Charter, UN member states are obligated to carry out "decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter" but it is unclear what kinds of resolutions are covered by the term "decisions".

source

Now, under that one charter they would be bound (but it still isn't law, international or otherwise) obviously, unless you chose to treat it as another recommendation, in defiance with the UN charter today, not necessarily in, say 1979.

It would appear that former Israeli government chose to not recognize the absolute authority of any resolutions made by the UN. Israel, in those days, couldn't have as it is legal for israeli individuals to own land on occupied territory.

Obviously, in your world, individuals don't matter, not if they are israeli anyway, so you have answered my question on whether it's fair to them, by saying that they don't have any rights. Or that they are all thieves anyway, and thus, again, have no rights.

I suppose that's the best answer I'll be getting out of you, regarding whether it's fair to them.

My bad.

Both sides have links to terrorism, not just the Palestinians, look at some of the members, past and present, of the Israeli government.

Yes, both sides have a history of crime then (the israelis may or may not have terrorist ties, but at least they didn't elect a terrorist organization), but shouldn't they both, then pay for what they've done.

Israelis lose their homes, and Israel compensates Palestine for lost water, what are PLO doing to pay for what they've done?

(Other than agreeing to not blow any more people up, of course.)

Both sides have been wronged, but in the world according to you, one side seems so much less worthy of lenience or redemption.

Ask the UN.

That means you aren't answering my question, doesn't it?

The UN, who has allowed the opposition to elect outspoken terrorists as their leaders, are forcing Israel to put their land in the hands of the oppostion. Somehow, something seems to be missing here.

Also, while we are at it, since we don't care about individuals now, who is Israel going to give back their land to?

One would presume, as we are looking at the big picture here, that Israel should, going by the resolution of 1979, give back the land to the countries they took it from, and as it is, the state of Palestine didn't exist at the time, which would force Israel to give it back to Jordan, or something. That's what the resolution says, isn't it?

WTF?...Who said they were? When you run out of ideas, bring other matters up as if l have defended them, very cute. l don't defend things l haven't claimed.

Oh come on, you can't even manage some small measure of a reason as to why PLO is worthy of the redemption it has been given, why should Israel recognize its authority, or be forced to pay heed to their rights, when the israeli people, as criminals according to you, have no rights to retain their property, stolen or not.


Like I said, you don't care about Palestine or fairness, you just don't like Israel.

[tralalala]

Israel shot the first gun and the last in the 6 day war.

Exactly.

Im not saying whether it was right or wrong.

Im saying Israel started the fighting, which is at odds with what you'd previously posted.
Israel had started the fighting ot of no other choice..

Israel was threatening to bomb Iran just a couple of month ago.. didnt you hear?
No actually, that I didn't hear. What I did hear and do hear pretty often is that Iran are testing thier "Shihab 3" rockets, and warn that if Israel does anything, they would be willing to attack with WMD stuff.....
They frequently bombed Lebanon, Syria and Jordan in the 80's and into the 90's.
That was always mutual. The Lebanese side, which were actually Hizballah from Syria had been attacking us for ages, even nowadays. They were the ones who kidnapped Ron Arad, they were the ones that kidnapped most of the Israeli armymen who are missing. And how could Israel have attacked Jordan in the 90's if there was a peace teaty signed in 1994..?

So, I have made the point that Israel does not attack anyone without a very good reason, otherwise there would have been peace and quiet here for a long time, and from a long time ago..

[RioDeLeo]

Yes, you have demonstrated that many times.

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.

[manker]

That's two, are you going for the hat-trick.

Keep trolling and l'll keep posting it, it's your call.

You could try being witty, rather than repetitive, in response to this perceived 'trolling'.

That would be novel.