Shame on you for progressing such fallacies.

A shanda fur die goy.

 

No, you aren't sure about your claim of civilian deaths?

And the less/fewer thing is just something that drives me batty.

And yes. The israelis kill more per year than any other "member state".

 

What if the owner was born in Israel?

And the honest answer.....The money goes where?

To jews? Who cares? To Israelis? Total boycott.

 

But batty has nothing to do with the actual debate. Facts are facts beyond less/fewer. Unless you mean to derail the conversation over such of course..

I would bet anything that China has killed more Falun Gong than Israel has Palestinians. Then there is Tibet. And I am not even bringing up political prisoners. As for Russia, did you forget about Chechenya?

 

At some point decisions need to be made and the back and forth of debate come to an end. Obama seems to think the debate itself if the final product and that the answers will just naturally evolve as a result of consensus. Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made and sometimes, unfortunately, those decisions don't always end up playing out the way they were intended. This is the result of inexperience and not knowing how to make decisions and leading.

When Obama is weak, who can the region rely upon??

Iranian Military Mastermind Leading Battle to Recapture Tikrit From ISIS

https://www.newsweek.com/iranian-military-mastermind-leading-battle-recapture-tikrit-isis-311516

A notorious Iranian commander is spearheading the Iraqi offensive on the ISIS-held city of Tikrit, providing tactical expertise and a key link to Tehran for supplies to the Iraqi militias advancing on the terror group's territory.
This week, a combination of 30,000 Iraqi security forces, Sunni and Shia militiamen launched a campaign to retake the Sunni-majority city, the hometown of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, from the terror group after it swept through northern Iraq last summer. Iraqi security forces, backed by the majority-Shia Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU), are advancing on the city from three directions, north, east and south, where the main entry points into and out of the city lie.
Major General Qasem Soleimani, the shadowy former leader of the elite Quds Force, the special operations arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC), is directly overseeing the eastern offensive on Tikrit. The Iranian general has been pictured on the outskirts of the city in photos shared widely on social media.

 

I thought we were talking about Israel, when did you switch the topic to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations. We really need a dancing banana smiley....

Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?

Perhaps you could tell me where I said that it excused their actions. What I am saying is that if you care nothing about the actions of one party doing something and decry the other party doing the exact same thing, then it is not the action that you are condemning, so it must be something else.

If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.

 

I would bet anything that China has killed more Falun Gong than Israel has Palestinians. Then there is Tibet. And I am not even bringing up political prisoners. As for Russia, did you forget about Chechenya?

Again, the "They did it too" defence.

 

Again, the "They did it too" defence.

It isn't really a "they do it too" moment as the Russians and Chinese don't have neighbors launching rockets into population centers or denying their right to exist.

 

Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?

Not at all. I am also not denying that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, or Germany.

Are we a Pariah as well?

Better yet, since that is the claim and you are defending it - how about you give me a list of all of the countries that you consider to be pariahs.

If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.

What is THIS thread about? I could have sworn it was about a speech.

And quick question - who brought up illegal actions? Hint: Wasn't me.

BTW - what is WP?

 

Are you denying that Israel has bombed and invaded Lebanon, assassinated various people that they don't like, bombed civilians in Gaza, including using WP?

If there was a thread about the illegal actions of Russia and China I might join in, but this isn't that thread. You, for your own reason, raised Russia and China in this thread and appeared to condemn them. It reads rather like a child's "They did it too" defence.

Funny how it never is "that thread." It's always "this thread."

 

:beer:

Funny how it never is "that thread." It's always "this thread."

 

Not at all. I am also not denying that the US invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, or Germany.

Are we a Pariah as well?

Better yet, since that is the claim and you are defending it - how about you give me a list of all of the countries that you consider to be pariahs.

What is THIS thread about? I could have sworn it was about a speech.

And quick question - who brought up illegal actions? Hint: Wasn't me.

BTW - what is WP?

White Phosphorus. Used by Israel in bombardment of Gaza. Banned by the UN in built up areas or on civilians.

 

About that speech, here's a particularly good analysis of it. I must confess I've neither read the speech nor watched it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/obama-israel-netanyahu-speech-iran-nuclear-agreement/

I deplore the political context of the speech, the motives of the GOP on one side, and Netanyahu's crass (or simply clueless?) willingness to be Boehner's dance partner. Ultimately it sets back the Israeli position rather than advances it. On the other hand, unless we read Netanyahu as nothing more than a cynical creature seeking re-election, one can argue that he was doing what any country's leader would do if he/she were convinced that a nation bent on its destruction was on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, i.e. whatever he could.

 

About that speech, here's a particularly good analysis of it. I must confess I've neither read the speech nor watched it.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/03/obama-israel-netanyahu-speech-iran-nuclear-agreement/

I deplore the political context of the speech, the motives of the GOP on one side, and Netanyahu's crass (or simply clueless?) willingness to be Boehner's dance partner. Ultimately it sets back the Israeli position rather than advances it. On the other hand, unless we read Netanyahu as nothing more than a cynical creature seeking re-election, one can argue that he was doing what any country's leader would do if he/she were convinced that a nation bent on its destruction was on the cusp of acquiring the means to do so, i.e. whatever he could.

Indeed. It's a pity that the thread became somewhat derailed.

 

White Phosphorus. Used by Israel in bombardment of Gaza. Banned by the UN in built up areas or on civilians.

Thank you. Could you please point me to the UN resolutions banning this use?

 

Thank you. Could you please point me to the UN resolutions banning this use?

Look it up; I'm sure you're capable. In any case, I didn't say that UN Resolutions banned its use. However, if you think the use of WP against civilians is acceptable then I have nothing more to say.

Try this as a starter:
"On 25 March 2009, United States based human rights organization Human Rights Watch published a 71-page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.[SUP][56][/SUP]

White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza - many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire - but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks. [SUP][56][/SUP]
​

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...s/uknews/1503446/Tim-Collins-trained-troops-to-fight-with-white-phosphorus.html

Although I thought we were going to to talk about the speech.

 

Look it up; I'm sure you're capable. In any case, I didn't say that UN Resolutions banned its use. However, if you think the use of WP against civilians is acceptable then I have nothing more to say.

You said it was illegal, did you not?

Try this as a starter:
"On 25 March 2009, United States based human rights organization Human Rights Watch published a 71-page report titled Rain of Fire, Israel's Unlawful Use of White Phosphorus in Gaza and said that Israel's usage of the weapon was illegal.[SUP][56][/SUP]

White phosphorus munitions did not kill the most civilians in Gaza - many more died from missiles, bombs, heavy artillery, tank shells, and small arms fire - but their use in densely populated neighborhoods, including downtown Gaza City, violated international humanitarian law (the laws of war), which requires taking all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and prohibits indiscriminate attacks. [SUP][56][/SUP]
​

That is great. what specific law did it break?

 

Chouan, what's your recipe for dealing with Iran's nuclear program? Let's pretend you were Obama for the day. More sanctions? Less? Do we attempt a grand bargain, perhaps to contain ISISI?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...s/uknews/1503446/Tim-Collins-trained-troops-to-fight-with-white-phosphorus.html

Although I thought we were going to to talk about the speech.

Where is the fun in that, lol.

It was an overtly political and one sided speech, but that really is not the point.

The point is that some people claim it was an affront to the President to allow someone he does not agree with to address Congress, which is controlled by a party other than the President's own.

Some think that the righteous indignation is funny.

Others feel that the leader of Israel apparently has not right to speak because his country has a lot of UN violations, but they don't want to talk about any other country's violations to put things in context.

One likes to by things from Jewish shops, but not if the money goes to Israel.

 

Where is the fun in that, lol.

It was an overtly political and one sided speech, but that really is not the point.

The point is that some people claim it was an affront to the President to allow someone he does not agree with to address Congress, which is controlled by a party other than the President's own.

Some think that the righteous indignation is funny.

Others feel that the leader of Israel apparently has not right to speak because his country has a lot of UN violations, but they don't want to talk about any other country's violations to put things in context.

One likes to by things from Jewish shops, but not if the money goes to Israel.

Happy Purim, everyone.

 

This one's nice. From yesterday.

 

I'll bite.

What, exactly, did the Democrats in Congress expect Netanyahu to say? He said what he's been saying for several years. Complaining about his comments had about the same effect as my complaining about all this got-dam snow we've gotten this winter.

OTOH, what did Netanyahu expect the Democrats to say in response?

Neither the Congressional Democrats nor Netanyahu had any reason to expect to hear anything other than what they did. Neither side has a right to be offended. JMHO.

 

Chouan, what's your recipe for dealing with Iran's nuclear program? Let's pretend you were Obama for the day. More sanctions? Less? Do we attempt a grand bargain, perhaps to contain ISISI?

My opinion, no more.
More sanctions will make the situation worse, and push Iran into a more drastic response. I'm inclined to think that further sanctions could only be political, in the sense of trying to bring about "regime change", to break the Iranian government. We've already seen how successful that has been in Iraq!
A firm timetable, as it were, of regulation and inspection, with clearly laid down consequences if conditions are broken, so that all parties know where they are. Perhaps a reduction in sanctions might have the effect of Iran's government becoming more understanding of the West's view. Certainly an agreement vis a vis ISIS/ISIL, which is a far bigger threat the the Middle East than Iran. Agreements with Iran might mean that Iran's attempts to gain power in the region through Shiite militias might be curtailed, and Iranian support for Hamas and Hezbollah could be reduced. The US and Iran are already operating against ISIS/ISIL together, wouldn't it be better for "World Peace" if Iran and the US were seen to be cooperating?

 

And to you.