Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, you did not address my question. Who gets to control of the 2.5 stage nuclear weapons?

 

Now you know the real and only reason the US supports the Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

All I have seen is the lawful use of force against a foreign enemy. Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political ends. I have only seen the use of violence to achieve lawful and moral ends, specifically the return of private property to its lawful owners.

In the matter of the Apaches, they signed treaties which they have sued to enforce rather than overturn.

In the matter of Mexico, only sovereignty changed NOT ownership. Sovereignty and ownership are completely different things.

Why do you post nonsense?

So the Jews should just put a gun to the heads of the Palestinian leaders and force them to sign a treaty making themselves the lawful owners. Then they can kick out all the Palestinians because their leaders signed this treaty just like the Indians and Mexicans.

Who the fuck is to say what is lawful, it's just whoever has the biggest guns make the laws.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, you did not address my question. Who gets to control of the 2.5 stage nuclear weapons?

Now you know the real and only reason the US supports the Jewish tyranny over the Palestinians.

Well, actually, that was directed at Luminon. Even so, it does make a point. Nobody is going to let Hammas have control of them. They will get used, probably within weeks. That is just the way that they roll.

That being said, I don't buy the idea that that is the sole reason. We were backing them long before we knew. I am actually thinking that we back them also because our next friend in the area is Turkey and they can't really be counted on in a pinch. One more egg in the basket is a direct advantage to us. Especially one that tends to create an impression in Ankara that they need to play ball.

I have the report as well. I see that you are taking uncritically the Turkish part of the report. I am working from the findings.

1) For those who say it exonerates Israel, it specifically states it is not a legal opinion.

The Panel reviewed these reports and further information and clarifications it received in written form and through direct meetings with Points of Contact appointed by each government. In light of the information so gathered, the Panel has examined and identified the facts, circumstances and context of the incident and considered and recommended ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future. In so doing it was not acting as a Court and was not asked to adjudicate on legal liability. Its findings and recommendations are therefore not intended to attribute any legal responsibilities. Nevertheless, the Panel hopes that its report may resolve the issues surrounding the incident and bring the matter to an end.

104. We have made it clear that we consider that Israel was entitled to impose the

naval blockade. It follows that Israel was also entitled to enforce it. The manner of its

enforcement, however, raises serious issues of concern.

105. Although it has been suggested that an understanding was reached through

diplomatic channels that the flotilla would, if necessary, divert to the Egyptian port of Al-

Arish 335 any such understanding was not reflected in the port records or the responses the

Israeli Navy received from the ships of the flotilla when they were challenged. Port

Authority Records supplied by Turkey state that the intended destination of the vessels

was Gaza. 336 Material in both national reports confirms that repeated messages were

transmitted from the flotilla that they were sailing to Gaza and that the Israeli Navy had

no power to stop or order them to change course while they were in international

waters. 337

106. The first warning radioed by the Israeli Navy to the flotilla invited the vessels to

head for Ashdod port where the humanitarian supplies could be delivered. 338 The second

warning requested them to change course and not enter the blockade area. 339 Two

subsequent warnings were delivered emphasizing that “all necessary measures” would be

taken to enforce the blockade, including through the boarding of the vessels. 340

107. Material before the Panel indicates that between 10.58 p.m. and 11.58 p.m. on 30

May 2010 the Mavi Marmara changed course from a bearing of 222o to one of 185o. 341

However, there is dispute about the significance of this. The Turkish report states that

this course was directed towards a point between Al-Arish and the Suez Canal; 342 while

Israel maintains it in fact turned the vessels more directly towards Gaza. 343 Given the

distance of the vessels from shore, it is hard to draw a firm conclusion as to their

intention from their course alone. Significantly, although the Israeli Navy continued to issue warnings, no radio message was transmitted by the flotilla indicating that its course

or intended destination had been changed.

108. On the best view we can form of the matter we believe it was reasonable in the

circumstances for the Israeli Navy to conclude that the vessels of the flotilla intended to

proceed to Gaza. That is what they repeatedly said. That intention was consistent with

an intention to breach the blockade.

109. For Israel to maintain the blockade it had to be effective, so it must be enforced.

That is a clear legal requirement for a blockade.344 Such enforcement may take place on

the high seas and may be conducted by force if a vessel resists. To this point in the

analysis no difficulty arises. But the subsequent steps taken raise serious questions as to

whether the enforcement was executed appropriately in the circumstances.

How many times have we already been down this road?  The only thing we need is for the terrorists to cut it the fuck out,

 

Treaties signed under duress are not held to be lawful but rather null from moment of creation as though they had never existed. You need to learn much about internatioal law also.

In this case the Hague V and Geneva IV are the governing treaties. Israel is a signatory to both of them. The world has progressed greatly since you were last on the planet some two centuries ago. I can only suggest you catch up on the relevant events which occurred while you were away.

EXC wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Treaties signed under duress are not held to be lawful but rather null from moment of creation as though they had never existed. You need to learn much about internatioal law also.

So you agree that treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is invalid and the US southwest should be returned to Mexico? The rightful 'owners'.

How do you get that? It is a peace treaty. That means its terms continue else hostilities resume. It is not a contract as there is no outside enforcement. Retention of the Southwest by the US is a condition of not kicking Mexico's butt again.

Quote:

Why do you think ownership of land is a rational concept to begin with? It's just a way for one group of people to prosper at the expense others. A way for people to get wealth without work or any real contribution to the economy. If land use was viewed as a privledge one should pay for rather than a birthright, people wouldn't be fighting over the land.

What makes you think rational is a criteria? It is a reasonable criteria in that it keeps the peace among people. Otherwise they kill each other over ownership which is the reason Palestinians kill Jews. Jews are thieves.

You appear to be attempting to exonerate thieves by claiming thieves have greater rights. Otherwise your rant makes no sense at all as there is no rational application to this subject.

Quote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

In this case the Hague V and Geneva IV are the governing treaties. Israel is a signatory to both of them. The world has progressed greatly since you were last on the planet some two centuries ago. I can only suggest you catch up on the relevant events which occurred while you were away.

You seem to have this concept that law and ownership are some kind of sacred and mystical entities. Like they were ordained by God. The concept that has led to this conflict in the first place. Just like the right to breed is some sacred blessing from the Divine, when it's actually the root cause coming from both sides.

Nothing mystical about ownership. It is very practical. Take what is mine and I will kill you. Nothing mystical in that.

Quote:

Law is just a set rules that and army or police enforces. The Hague doesn't have an army, they have to ask countries that do to enforce their rulings. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. So the real law comes from the people that control the armies and police.

I can say my law is that your hometown is my property. Unless I have an army to enforce my law, it's meaningless.

Again you fail to addres the OP. Palestinians live under a tyrannical jewish military dictatorship REGARDLESS of ownership or your inability to grasp that concept. As in WWII the victims have an indiscriminate right to slaughter any and all members of the oppressor's society at any time and in any manner. So also do those who ally with the oppressed.

I fail to see why you support a jewish tyranny. Can you explain?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

How many times have we already been down this road?  The only thing we need is for the terrorists to cut it the fuck out,

In 1978 Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt which promised a free state of Palestine in five years. Nothing happened.

in 1993 Israel signed the Oslo Accords promising a free state of Palestine in five years. Nothing happened.

For all this time Arafat was all that stood between the occupation and a free state of Palestine. He died. Nothing happened.

After his death it was only terrorism that stood between the occupation and a free state of Palestine. The terrorism ended. Nothing happened.

Now that ALL the fake excuses are gone izziehuggers pretend things still haven't changed.

To all impartial observers there is only one thing to negotiate and that is the schedule for the total withdrawal of Israel to the 1948 border. Israel refuses to admit there were borders in 1948.

Israel does not want peace. Israel wants land. Honesty would be a novelty for izziehuggers.

If one drug dealer shoots another drug dealer and claims self defense does that mean the one claiming self defense is not a drug dealer?

I am well aware of the history between the two. But again, how the fuck you think Israel is going to give one fuck about taking land when the other side is ruled by gang minions for Allah bent on wiping Israel off the face of the planet. You think if they get a state they wont continue that attitude?

I am sick of you thinking that some of us don't know what is going on. I am not an "izzyhugger" but it seems you blindly want to be an "Allah huger" pretending the rulers of Palestine aren't off their rockers.

There is PLENTY of stink on both sides.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

...I fail to see why you support a jewish tyranny. Can you explain?

Once again, you seem to miss that whatever problems MANY HAVE with Israel, and we do, do not negate the end goal of Palestine. It is absurd to ask me to support a society that allows theocratic nutcases to rule them who are bent on taking out the one western style country in the region.

You want to paint all Israelis as having the same politics. Unlike you I know not all Palestinians are religious nuts. I would suggest the secular among them get control over Palestine and demand a non-violent approach to the wrongful land grab Israel commits.

Until Palestine proclaims itself secular and loses it's attitude of wiping Israel off the map, they wont get any sympathy from me, even if I DO have sympathy for those who are the secular among them.

So stop just bitching at Israel and demand that those in Palestine lose their tribal Allah bullshit violent tactics

One major difference between them that you don't seem to realise is that not all Palestinians are suicide bombing terrorist scum. But ALL of Israel is military. There are actually some, believe it or not, Palestinian civillians who never pick up a weapon and aim it at Israel. The reverse is not true.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Vastet wrote:

The US is effectively delusional in this case. It knows it can't stop Palestine from being recognised as a state, but it's going to give its all to prevent it anyway. It's long overdue in my book. You will never have peace as long as there is an occupation going on. But you can't be a scum of the Earth occupier if the location you're trying to occupy is a recognised state. Welcome to the Hague, Israel and Palestine. I think we'll be seeing a parade of people from both nations answering to all sorts of fun stuff in war crimes tribunals soon. Finally.

When it comes to diplomatic recognition of reality it is difficult to say the US is ever leading the way. Bolshevik Russia was not recognized until 1933, mainland China not until 1982 (1?, Nixon anyway.) But it was the first to recognize Israel and we have the original text with the word "jewish" struck from the statement showing not even the US recognizes it as a jewish state.

Given the repeated excesses in favor of Israel the many conspiracy theories attempting to explain it are quite understandable although the fundamentally bible-thumping nature of the US probably explains it all. It is all just another damning consequence of theism.

What the ........You are not making your argument to Christians here, and I find it condescending that you would think the atheists here who side with Israel are blindly buying into what you think theism is peddling. To me it is the lesser of the two evils.

IF Palestine were to proclaim secularism and pluralism PUBLICLY and denounce violence they would leave Israel with no leg to stand on.

Of course I am going to side with Israel, not because I agree with everything they do, but because they reflect vastly more of what the west reflects. But that does not mean I am blind to their stupid claim to the same divine right to that land Muslims claim. Nor does it mean I agree with their land grabs.

Seriously, you have your head on backwards if you think this is all one sided.

The only thing I understand is that you blindly side with the Palestinians as if they have never threatened Israel and by "virtue of the oppressed" that makes them moral by default. No, what you have in reality is two bat shit insane parties who claim moral superiority.  I don't find land grabs moral AND I don't think blowing up buses moral. So you have two immoral pricks claiming to be moral.

If I could send both sides to their own planet I'd let them blow each other up.

It's stupid, the US is bascially saying they oppose a formation of two states, because they want a two state solution.

Because good American Christians want the Jews just as dead as the Muslims without getting their hands dirty?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

How do you get that? It is a peace treaty. That means its terms continue else hostilities resume. It is not a contract as there is no outside enforcement. Retention of the Southwest by the US is a condition of not kicking Mexico's butt again.

A peace treaty signed under duress, which you said invalidates it.

What happened in 1848 between the US and Mexico is substantially what happend in 1967 with Israel.

Abraham Lincoln said the war was illegal, the US army occupied Mexico City and told them to sign the treaty. Israel keeping the 67 borders is a condition of no one kicking it's butt.

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

I fail to see why you support a jewish tyranny. Can you explain?

I don't. The Jews are pretty much doing to the Palestines what was done to them by the Nazis(without the gas chambers). The Jews need change just like the Palestinians for there to be peace.

The root cause of the conflict is this irrational belief that people have rights granted by their god just for being born. Demonizing the Jews while ignoring all the irrational shit of Islam and the Palesinians. If the Arabs killed all the Jews, there would only be peace for a little while, then they'd start killing each other.

 I took one Ethics class, when you analyze arguements and situations, it's always a questions of tradeoffs and the value you assign to various outcomes. 

 I don't believe humans are capable of any real sacrifice. We analyze situations both consciously and unconsciously and decide based on 'what's in it for me'. What you call 'advanced' behavior is really  a strategy of delayed satisfaction or cooperation with a group. We don't have freewill to be anything [but] ego-centric hedonists, but we can put on the act of being empathetic and feel good about it.

 But our biological imperative is to survive and reproduce. 'Fitting in' is only a useful strategy in this context.

 People believe what they want to believe to make themselves feel good. That's why music and prayer are so important in religion. Music makes people feel they should believe. Prayer makes them feel they are being empathic toward those they pray for.

Rationality can't rule the day because humans are basically junkies for some combination of drugs like music and empathy. If you had less oxytocin in you brain, you might see things as I do.

 Sharing with rational people. The Palestinians are telling women to have 12 children for God and country. The Palestinians need to be told to live by rational rules if they really want peace and prosperity.

 People are thieves because thiervery works. They have a biological imperative to attain things needed for survival. It a competitive world due to population pressures. Unless we address this problem directly, people will keep on stealing because this is what works.

 

Yes you can influence people with magnetic and electric fields:

http://www.suffolktmsandbehavioraltreatmentcenter.com/

Neurotransmitter chemicals as well influence people, that's why cocaine is so expensive.

So your method of choice to 'influence' people is with music and propaganda(al la religion and politicians). It's primitive technology for mood control, soon to be obsoleted. Why not study neuroscience?

The gorilla is the fact that a state of Palestine can and presumably will take Israel before the ICJ, the International Court of Justice, for war crimes related to the occupation. Elvis has entered the building! Israelis have no defense. They are guilty as charged.

Don't get too cocky. The only reason there won't be as big or bigger a line of Palestinians heading to the Hague as Israelis is because the Israelis are that much better at killing their enemies.

Noony, why so many threads about the same subject?

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Because good American Christians want the Jews just as dead as the Muslims without getting their hands dirty?

Sic Semper Tyranis as they say in Virginia.

If they do not want to be dead stop working so hard to merit death as foreign tyrants.

BTW: I know the shell game so you can keep trying to play it all you want. I was expecting the shell game response to religious declarations by Palestinian political leaders to be a quote from some unknown Imam in Yemen as CAMERA is always doing. I don't let that happen.

Similarly when the discussion is ONLY and solely the recognition of Palestine shoddy attempts to respond as though it were about the existence of Israel and the destruction of only jewish Israelis won't happen on my watch either.

It comes as a surprise to most people to learn Czechoslovakia was wiped off the map back in 2004 because so few people have noticed. More people noticed when Yugoslavia was wiped off the map. Back in 1948 Palestine was wiped off the map by Jews no less.

So what is all this hysteria about wiping Israel off the map? Is it because Palestinian motives are more sinister than Jewish motives? If so upon what evidence? Jewish motives are about as sinister as you can get. Turn about it always fair play. Or is it another example of Jews only caring about injustice when it happens to them?

Not trying to play any shell game. The fact is that the Christians would like to see people who don't think that Jesus is the son of God dead. That includes the Muslims and the Jews. It's about time that both groups in the middle east realized who their true enemy is.

The fact that you'd like the Jews to be under Islamic tyranny is no better than wanting the Muslims to be under Jewish tyranny. Damn shame you can't see that.

jcgadfly wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Because good American Christians want the Jews just as dead as the Muslims without getting their hands dirty?

Sic Semper Tyranis as they say in Virginia.

If they do not want to be dead stop working so hard to merit death as foreign tyrants.

BTW: I know the shell game so you can keep trying to play it all you want. I was expecting the shell game response to religious declarations by Palestinian political leaders to be a quote from some unknown Imam in Yemen as CAMERA is always doing. I don't let that happen.

Similarly when the discussion is ONLY and solely the recognition of Palestine shoddy attempts to respond as though it were about the existence of Israel and the destruction of only jewish Israelis won't happen on my watch either.

It comes as a surprise to most people to learn Czechoslovakia was wiped off the map back in 2004 because so few people have noticed. More people noticed when Yugoslavia was wiped off the map. Back in 1948 Palestine was wiped off the map by Jews no less.

So what is all this hysteria about wiping Israel off the map? Is it because Palestinian motives are more sinister than Jewish motives? If so upon what evidence? Jewish motives are about as sinister as you can get. Turn about it always fair play. Or is it another example of Jews only caring about injustice when it happens to them?

Not trying to play any shell game. The fact is that the Christians would like to see people who don't think that Jesus is the son of God dead. That includes the Muslims and the Jews. It's about time that both groups in the middle east realized who their true enemy is.

When I first began posting to RR I caused a modest dust-up by considering all religions and their members equally stupid while the regulars were merely anti-christian. I have carefully maintained neutrality in that regard. That the easiest way to demolish both Christianity and Islam is to demolish Judaism is simply the way it is.

So I really do not care about religions trying to, wanting to, or having bad attitudes towards each other. No hands are clean. Acts in the NT recounts the jewish attempt to exterminate the Christians with St. Paul starting out as an Eichman.

For the record Christian churches have always advocated conversion of the Jew. If there had been a policy of extermination they would have gone the way of the Druids and Albegensians. That is still Christian policy today which is why Israel, Saudi and other middle eastern countries have criminalized Christian conversion efforts.

Quote:

The fact that you'd like the Jews to be under Islamic tyranny is no better than wanting the Muslims to be under Jewish tyranny. Damn shame you can't see that.

I have no idea how your mind works. From all I can see from that statement is that it does not work at all. But perhaps I am just dense.

Please explain how advocating the ends of tyrannical jewish dictatorship over the Palestinians converts to "jews" living under an Islamic tyranny.

I remember George Wallace saying things like that. He had to keep the Blacks (Nubians in israeli slang) otherwise they would rule the world and rape our white women. Is that where you are coming from?

I look forward to your explanation.