Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "since you absolutely refuse to discuss why the probable anti-Semitism towards Jews of some of the leaders of such organizations has any real world implications."
But you refuse to discuss anything BUT whether they are "anti-Semitic"? How is this a "Debate" thread? It is only another propaganda vehicle. It might have some relevance if you would discuss how and why these particular groups have become so popular in the Muslim world, but you insist that that is "off topic".
So rave on I guess; since you ...[text shortened]... ust keep screaming "XYZ are Anti-Semites!" that is certainly a useful way to "debate".
"probable anti-Semitism towards Jews of some of the leaders of such organizations "
You refuse to accept the fact that not just "some leaders" are anti-Semitic but their Jihadist ideologies as such.
The Hamas Charter and all the evidence I posted lately clearly shows this. How can we discuss anything regarding this subject if you insist on denying the obvious ?
No matter how much material I provide, you keep on denying the facts.
If I make a claim without providing the evidence you react as if you were stung by a bee, demanding I show the evidence by providing the relevant links .... and if I do show the evidence even before you had the change to ask for it, you dismiss my fact finding mission by labelling it with all kinds of derogatory comments. You can't have it both ways Marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause I don't care whether every single person in every single organization you don't like is anti-Semitic or not, Ivanhoe. That is besides the point. The point is what is to be done NOW. And this is something you never want to discuss except to try to incite hatred and war.
marauder: "since you absolutely refuse to discuss why the probable anti-Semitism towards Jews of some of the leaders of such organizations has any real world implications."
"probable anti-Semitism towards Jews of some of the leaders of such organizations "
You refuse to accept the fact that not just "some leaders" are anti-Semitic but the ...[text shortened]... labelling it with all kinds of derogatory comments. You can't have it both ways Marauder.
Originally posted by no1marauderMarauder: "Because I don't care whether every single person in every single organization you don't like is anti-Semitic or not, Ivanhoe."
Because I don't care whether every single person in every single organization you don't like is anti-Semitic or not, Ivanhoe. That is besides the point. The point is what is to be done NOW. And this is something you never want to discuss except to try to incite hatred and war.
You're babbling .... again one of your annoying Straw Men.
Marauder: "The point is what is to be done NOW. And this is something you never want to discuss ... "
"you never want to discuss" .... again a straw Man or should I call it a flat out lie ..... All right, what has to be done now ? For instance how would you implement UNSC resolution 1559 which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah ?
Let's see if you are prepared to discuss this issue. I'll open a new thread on this subject.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeYes.
Did the Lebanese government considered the resolution illegal ?
In this context the resolution 1559 issued by the security council on 3/9/2004 with all its ambiguity and contradictions, is considered an unconventional precedent in the history of international relations, constituting an interference in the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.
http://www.lebarmy.gov.lb/article.asp?cat=6&ln=en
Originally posted by kmax87Maybe you should examine the merits of the Lebanese position, which is based on the provisions of the UN Charter.
So no wonder people say the UN is a farce. If one party considers a resolution to be illegal and yet then cries foul when other parties also have a selective approach to what they will conform to..c'mon!
Originally posted by no1marauderThe only merits that I can see is a government that does not have the mandate to control the organised militias in its midst.
Maybe you should examine the merits of the Lebanese position, which is based on the provisions of the UN Charter.
Did Northern Ireland and the experience of the
IRA morphing into Sinn Fein not teach anybody anything as to the point when the establishment of acivil society would finally start negotiating?
Only at the point of a total ceasefire and the cessation of all paramilitary activity and of a public renouncement and disavowal of violence by its political wing and a program of monitored disarmament by the militias, did peace come to Ireland.
Why would anyone think that the 'roadmap' to peace would be tolerated in any other format?
Originally posted by kmax87Your ignorance of the situation in Lebanon is lamentable. There is no civil war in Lebanon anymore; there is an elected government which contains many different political viewpoints. They have an aggressive neighbor that insists upon occupying some of their territory and reserves the right to attack them whenever it pleases. They regard Hezbollah as a national resistance movement against Israel aggression. Perhaps you should read the relevant parts of the link I provided (it's from the Lebanese army).
The only merits that I can see is a government that does not have the mandate to control the organised militias in its midst.
Did Northern Ireland and the experience of the
IRA morphing into Sinn Fein not teach anybody anything as to the point when the establishment of acivil society would finally start negotiating?
Only at the point of a total ceasef ...[text shortened]...
Why would anyone think that the 'roadmap' to peace would be tolerated in any other format?
Originally posted by no1marauderA national resistance movement dedicated to act outside of all civilised bounds. Thats not a resistance thats a national disgrace.
Your ignorance of the situation in Lebanon is lamentable. There is no civil war in Lebanon anymore; there is an elected government which contains many different political viewpoints. They have an aggressive neighbor that insists upon occupying some of their territory and reserves the right to attack them whenever it pleases. They regard Hezbollah as a n ...[text shortened]... erhaps you should read the relevant parts of the link I provided (it's from the Lebanese army).
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87Obviously you haven't bothered to look into the facts. Hezbollah has conducted their operations since 2000 with far more consideration towards the rules of warfare than Israel ever has.
A national resistance movement dedicated to act outside of all civilised bounds. Thats not a resistance thats a national disgrace.
EDIT: I posted this three weeks ago:
I found an Israeli government site listing incidents on its northern border regarding Hezbollah since the Israeli withdrawal in 2000: http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/exeres/9EE216D7-82EF-4274-B80D-6BBD1803E8A7,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published
No Israeli civilians had been killed there since 2003 when a 16 year old was killed by sharpnel by an anti-aircraft gun (which sounds accidental). There was one horrific incident in 2002 where 6 Israelis were killed though at least one was a military officer in an infiltration attempt. There have been no other fatal incidents involving Israeli civilians and Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. Not one Israeli civilian was killed by a Hezbollah rocket in that time.
Where was this "terrorist" threat that was killing innocent civilians?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo what was nazrallah's objective when rockets were fired and soldiers killed and captured at this most recent declaration of hostilities. Pique?
Obviously you haven't bothered to look into the facts. Hezbollah has conducted their operations since 2000 with far more consideration towards the rules of warfare than Israel ever has.
EDIT: I posted this three weeks ago:
I found an Israeli government site listing incidents on its northern border regarding Hezbollah since the Israeli withdrawal in ...[text shortened]... ocket in that time.
Where was this "terrorist" threat that was killing innocent civilians?
Originally posted by no1marauderI didnt see any dying down of anti Israeli rhetoric though. Should authorities be impressed that when a former murderer feels that he has been rehabilitated enough and should have his demands to be integrated back into society heard and when those authorities refuse the request saying they need a display of self control that shows a true change of heart , so then to prove the worthiness of the claim the ex murderer goes and kills another person to affirm to the authorities that he will not give up his right to claim for a full integration back into that society and if his demands are not met heads will roll.
Where was this "terrorist" threat that was killing innocent civilians?
Keh!? Excuse me! You expect fair minded people of any persuasion to be held to ransom by this sort of logic?