Misc

Holly

In that other blog? I must have missed all the excitement. I just got back a couple hours ago and it was closed for comments.

XPC

Well I wasn't kidding. It stinks to high heaven. There were two rounds of deletions. One was 'real' and the second was just to make it look good.

I think we should...

...rename this thread to "the post that will never die".

Wow. I am impressed at your skills as a MArine. So teaching you to manipulate Bible verses is part of your training EH?:) Way to spendthe poor taxpayers' money...

Dude, I used a very famous Bible quote that people use to describe the concept or "poetic justice" - that's when bad things happen to bad people and everyone says "oh well, the fucker deserved it!" and you blew it three times.

1) You failed to recognize teh quote or the common usage of it in the western world

2) You interprested it to mean "bullying" instead of poetic justice... what's that about? Again, I have to assume you like bullies to sympathize with them when they get what they give

3) Even after I pointed out that the source of that quote is Jesus, you went on to say anyone who would use the words "sword" in the same sentence as "die" must be some kind of sick evil bastard. You can't pin that logic spasm on me, my man. Sorry!

You mean the real meaning, or the meaning that you have developed in your mind?

At least I know how to use italics! :p 

But maybe you do you get teh quotes all screwy just to throw people off, eh? clever!

Ps to Holly: Thanks for the support. A appreciate your fair mindedness despite teh fact that we don't agree with eachother on much. I'm just kidding about the deletions, though. It hasn't been happening much lately, and I already blew off enough steam about that months ago :)

KouroshS

That's not being a good sport my friend. You know enough about where I stand with certain issues by now to know that I couldn't disagree with XPC more on them but censorship is BS no matter how you paint it and selective censorship is just shameful. I (hope) I've read you well enough to know you're just kidding dude.

HollyUSA

I personally am cool with it, so long as its XPC's comments that get deleted the most:)

So, you don't recognize the

So, you don't recognize the saying eh?

Book of Matthew, verse 26:52

I guess not only was Jesus a bully, he had an "evil", "rough" and "aggressive" mentality. That's good to know! Thanks for the insight

Wow. I am impressed at your skills as a MArine. So teaching you to manipulate Bible verses is part of your training EH?:) Way to spendthe poor taxpayers' money...

 don't suppose it would make much sense for me to ask if you did a better job finding out what the term "ad hominem" means than you did researching the source of that famous quote before you characterized it as being so inhumane, eh? :p

You mean the real meaning, or the meaning that you have developed in your mind?

XPC

You are aboslutely right about comments getting deleted on a very selective basis. And it is no secret what the selection process is, is it?

SHAME ON I.COM

Well...

Since  we are continuing that thread over here now (bet JJ deletes our accounts for this!) - Ostaad, if you can prove a 3 digit IQ I'll eat my shorts and upload the vid to YouTube. I know a Bush-leaguer when I see one.

KS,

No. I am not. Why would you think that? (Many reasons of course, non of
which can be brought up here),... Seriously .
Using "swrod" and "die" however would definitely indicate a seriously
evil and rough and aggressive mentality, A real danger to the society. .

So, you don't recognize the saying eh?

Book of Matthew, verse 26:52

I guess not only was Jesus a bully, he had an "evil", "rough" and "aggressive" mentality. That's good to know! Thanks for the insight!

Oh yes i remember. I am sorry. I don't think they were even close to
being ad hominem. You can contniue to dream that it was though.

I don't suppose it would make much sense for me to ask if you did a better job finding out what the term "ad hominem" means than you did researching the source of that famous quote before you characterized it as being so inhumane, eh? :p

EPC.

 I am sorry. But I lost the priviledge of replying to your, as usual, irrelevant statements on the other thread. But i just could not bear the thought leaving you hanging there. So here it goes.

That is a Bullying Philosophy in and of itself, no matter how you try to deny it.

Are you trying to claim Jesus was a bully? Seriously?

That's an example of an aggressive statement. Just saying :p

I seem to recall a comment you made to me a couple weeks ago in which I painstakingly went through it and pointed out all the ad hominem attacks it contained *shrug*

Oh yes i remember. I am sorry. I don't think they were even close to being ad hominem. You can contniue to dream that it was though.

AIPAC is having a convention

AIPAC is having a convention at the La Costa Resort as we speak.  It's been a week long event and Mitt Romney's the key note speaker.  The title of the food, festivities and gala is foreign policy and politics.  Rabbis, key Republicans and the like are determining and mapping out the fate of the region.  I bet it's already set in motion.  I think Dan Burton will probably get his way.  Iranian facilities will get bombed.  Israel will have more funding for new settlements and the evangelical Republicans can sleep better at night knowing that the Christian prophecy has been fulfilled for the rapture to happen.

Anonymous8

Well, if we are down to arguing about what the word "blockade" means to determine whether or not a war is justified, there truly is no reason to continue the discussion :)

Have a nice weekend

[ shaking head at Craig ]

you are greatly disappointing in your blind protection for israel, even when un has declared them in violation of peace. israel was at fault in 1956. israel was the aggressor in 1967, 81, 83, 06. israel was NOT "blockaded" in '67. are you familiar with what blockade means? there was no justification. in direct contradiction to your claim, UN242 OBLIGES israel to give back the occupied territories.

every aggressor in history has had excuses. intelligent people can see right through them. partisan arguers do not. that's all.

i also will refuse to ruin my weekend.

Anonymous8

why would anyone want to debate someone who keeps saying the same thing over and over again?

I'm not trying to "engage" anyone. I called Q on his bullshit and demanded that he prove his claim. Instead, he replied with distractions and lies, like he always does. I keep re-issuing the same demands because Q has refused to back himself up. As he always does. I would have let go of this yesterday, as I think my point has been made... even Q seems to realize it. But you jumped in to help him with his misdirection effort. So I asked you to prove his claim. You also seem to want to change the topic to something you're more comfortable with. That's fine. No problem. But don't try to claim it was me who started dragging all these other issues in. I've repeatedly tried to narrow the focus back to what it originally was.

"The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations.[1] "

Yes. It establishes an organization. It does not establish a set of laws.

It is both. It is a regular treaty. Treaties have organizations, like NATO. they are binding just the same. you are mistaken.

There are many kinds of treaties. The one you just referenced, for instance, is a military alliance. I don't think anyone would claim that waht members of an alliance agree to when joining the alliance constitutes international law.

The UN charter is a statement of principals. A statement of goals. A mission statement. A membership charter. It is many things. One thing it is not is international law.

The Vieann Conventions are international law.

The Geneva Conventions are International law.

The Hague conventions are international law.

And so on. The intent of those treaties was from the start to make law.

When you violate a provision, it does not necessarily mean you will be
kicked out, just like NATO or NAFTA...

And when you violate a law are you "not necessarily a criminal"? You seem to understand the difference between various types of treaty. Are we arguing just for the sake of arguing?

...just condemned in a resolution
with action. many countries have been condemned, not just israel. in
some of these cases, there has been political support to authorize
action. in some cases, there have not been such support. certainly in
the case of the 1956 aggression by israel france and, uk, there could
not be this political support because uk and france have veto power.

See? You have played the game of going back to previous provocations to make Israel the bad guy in 1967. And you don't consider the provocations by Arab states against Israel that led to the events of 1956. This is the problem when states engage in indirect acts of aggression against other states. Everyone gets to blame the other guy for starting all the shit. So the only rational thing to do seems to me to be to look at the immediate cause of the war and determine who is at fault. In the case of the 1967 "6 day war", Nasser is clearly at fault, with Syria as a sidekick. But we could argue about this forever. Whoever was guilty of the "original sin", Israel had ample legal justification for that war.

but they did violate nontheless. not even israel disputes this. i dont'
think you understood what i was saying. UN responds to serious ACTS OF
AGGRESSION. sometimes, its just a one-off act. other times it will lead
to a war like iran/iraq. but at the time of the first aggression, the
UN doesn't call it a war, because its not clear thats what it will be.

The UN doesn't get to say what's a war or not, or when a country decides to go to war or when it doens't. The UN only gets to make a determination about whether that decision to go to war by a member state was justified (and therefore legal) or not.

...6 day war is also an act of aggression by israel. massing troops,
etc, was done by BOTH sides, but it does not make it a war.

Blockades are acts of war, By definition. Israel had justification to go to war on that basis, alone. But when Nassir ordered the UN peacekeepers out of Sinai (who were there to prevent war) and then massed his troops at the border, that made an israeli response inevitable in my opinion. The intent of the Arabs was crystal clear. But we don't need to argue about this. Israel was justified based on the blockade alone.

if the us
masses troops in texas, does that mean mexico has the right to attack?

If the US blockaded mexican ports first, then yes.

I'll say it one more time: blockades are an act of war.

that is absurd. besides, egypt was already fighting a war at the time,
and it is unlikely that it wanted another one.

Right...

there is no proof. but
that doesn't matter, we can't read minds. we can only go with clear
acts of aggression, like israels.

Blocakde = clear act of aggression. End of story, right?

same thing with invasions of lebanon
in 1981 and later.

PLO launching katyushas into Israel for months = clear act of aggression. End of story, right?

un resolution 242 ordered israel to withdraw from territories
occupied in the 1967 conflict.

The UN has no authority to do that. The UN does not have the authority to dictate the status of accupied territory during a war. It just doesn't. The status of accupied territory gets resolved between the warring parties during the process of agreeing to a peace treaty. There has been no peace treaty, and the war is ongoing. That's an example of the membership of the UN passing a resolution that isn't in compliance with the UN's own treaties on the laws of war. Is it any surprise that nobody pays attention to such worthless pieces of paper?

it also repeated that "aquisition of
territory by force is in admissable". <-- this is what israel
violated.

Anbd that is true. It is legal for Israel to occupy enemy territory indefinately during a war. That's customary - nobody returns occupied territory in teh middle of a war. It gets returned when the war is over. But... it is totally illegal to annex occupied enemy territory permanently. That's why the settlements are illegal. They always have been. I have no idea why people focus on bullshit charges against israel when the settlements issue is such a winner. Nobody I know of outside of Israel defends those settlements.

but even so israel did not comply TO THIS DAY.

Nor should they. The settlements should be torn down and the settlers should return to israel proper, but that doens't mean israel is obligated to give back occupied territory. The focus on this one needs to be narrowed down to what is actually illegal. By mixing the settlement issue with the occupation issue, it gives Israel a perfect excuse to flip everyone the bird.

you said "israel has a better record than any other country in the
midle east." i assume this was a joke right? what country has iran
invaded?

The topic was aggression, not invasion :)

Iran has been committing acts of aggression against isreal for nearly 30 years. How many acts of aggression has Israel committed against Iran?

what about lebanon, qatar, bahrain, uae, oman, yemen.

You are counting the jihadis they send to fight in wars in other countries, right? Or do they get a pass for that? :o

OK, as far as I'm concerned this discussion has outlived its usefulness. Unless you want to take it someplace else, I'll give you the last word. I promise I'll come back and read it, whether I reply or not.

ex programmer: you are repeating many flase things

without any attempt to engage. why would anyone want to debate someone who keeps saying the same thing over and over again?

You say:

"It's not a treaty. It's a membership charter."

It is both. It is a regular treaty. Treaties have organizations, like NATO. they are binding just the same. you are mistaken.

"The United Nations Charter is the treaty that forms and establishes the international organization called the United Nations.[1] "

*Wikipedia

When you violate a provision, it does not necessarily mean you will be kicked out, just like NATO or NAFTA, just condemned in a resolution with action. many countries have been condemned, not just israel. in some of these cases, there has been political support to authorize action. in some cases, there have not been such support. certainly in the case of the 1956 aggression by israel france and, uk, there could not be this political support because uk and france have veto power. but they did violate nontheless. not even israel disputes this. i dont' think you understood what i was saying. UN responds to serious ACTS OF AGGRESSION. sometimes, its just a one-off act. other times it will lead to a war like iran/iraq. but at the time of the first aggression, the UN doesn't call it a war, because its not clear thats what it will be. it did the same during iraqs invasion of kuwait. didn't say 'war'.

i don't know why people aren' trying. maybe q and others have the good sense not to ruin their own weekends.

6 day war is also an act of aggression by israel. massing troops, etc, was done by BOTH sides, but it does not make it a war. if the us masses troops in texas, does that mean mexico has the right to attack? that is absurd. besides, egypt was already fighting a war at the time, and it is unlikely that it wanted another one.there is no proof. but that doesn't matter, we can't read minds. we can only go with clear acts of aggression, like israels. same thing with invasions of lebanon in 1981 and later.

un resolution 242 ordered israel to withdraw from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. it also repeated that "aquisition of territory by force is in admissable". <-- this is what israel violated.

but even so israel did not comply TO THIS DAY.

you said "israel has a better record than any other country in the midle east." i assume this was a joke right? what country has iran invaded? what about lebanon, qatar, bahrain, uae, oman, yemen.

PS Anonymous8

I will agree with you that the use of informal militias who deny being sponsored by a state actor has led to an environment in which provocations frequently get ignored until a breaking point is reached, and then once the war starts it is "unclear" (for people who don't want things to be clear) who started it.

Another thing that exacerbates the problem is people deliberately provoking border clashes, or taking foreign nationals hostage and pretending they are actually criminal suspects.

The reasons that states engage in this kind of deplorable behavior are many, but its usually not very hard to determine who the instigator is in my opinion. 

And on this, you can agree to disagree all you like. Everyone always thinks whichever side they support is blameless when it comes to these indirect forms of state violence.

Edit: UN does't opine on "wars".

UN opined on Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. They declared that invasion to be illegal, and declared war on Iraq.

Anonymous8

i wanted to leave this alone but you wrote a lot of responses. 

A lot of responses were required.

the UN charter *IS* a treaty, signed by Israel and all other countries. this is part of international law.

It's not a treaty. It's a membership charter. Literally. Which is why it is written in such general terms. It serves as a broad statement or principles and goals.

Anyone who wants to be in the UN has to sign it to gain membership. And anyone who violates it should lose their membership. But as far as I know nobody has ever been kicked out of the UN for violating the charter. If that was to start happening 2/3 of the membership would be gone intantly. Which is perhaps why it doens't happen.

Israel HAS violated it many times.

I don't know how many times I have to say this: Q made a very specific claim that Israel repeatdely went to war illegally. I challenged him on it. He is the one who responded with a list of every resolution the UN has ever passed against Israel. You should be discussing this with him. I am still waiting for him (or you) to make a case that Israel waged war illegally (4+ times!).

Nobody is even trying. How long do I have to wait?  

the UN has called it on many of the violations, but not all because of
veto power of Israel allies. all the UNSC resolutions are binding.

I am not going to respond to this discussion of irrelevant resolutions again. That was Q's "contribution" to the discussion, not mine.

UN does't opine on "wars".

Of course it does. In fact the UN has declared war twice. And it is UN treaties that are used to prosecute people for misconduct during wars. If not the UN, then who? I'm a bit surprised you made this claim after having read the UN charter. Promotion of peace and taking collective action against aggressors is the primary purpose of the UN.

at the time they start, no one knows if
they are going to be wars.

I don't understand that sentence. When Iraq invaded Iran, nobody knew it was going to be a war?

but the original acts of aggression that
start the wars are violations of UN charter, UN condemns the aggressor
based on breaking the law.

Well, lets use the 6 day war in 1967 since that's one of the ones you listed earlier. Who was the aggressor there, in your opinion? When Nasser blockaded Israel was that an act of aggression? When he expelled UN peacekeepers from Sinai and started massing his troops on the Israeli border, was that an act of aggression?

What did the UN say about that? And did the UN then or now accuse Israel of waging war illegally in that conflict?

I don't know what the dispute is anymore. i think you are trying to
fight some enemy that you think is pro IRI and anti Israel so you can't
see the simple realities.

You don't know what the dispute is? I've reminded you several times. Q claimed Israel has repeatdely waged war illegally.

<--- me waiting for evidence.

like I said agree to disagree.

That's something people say on matters of opinion. This, isn't :P

ex programmer: there really isn't much else to say

i wanted to leave this alone but you wrote a lot of responses. 

the UN charter *IS* a treaty, signed by Israel and all other countries. this is part of international law.

Israel HAS violated it many times.

the UN has called it on many of the violations, but not all because of veto power of Israel allies. all the UNSC resolutions are binding.

UN does't usually comment on "wars", just acts of aggression. at the time they start, no one knows if they are going to be wars. but the original acts of aggression that start the wars are violations of UN charter, UN condemns the aggressor based on breaking the law.

I don't know what the dispute is anymore. i think you are trying to fight some enemy that you think is pro IRI and anti Israel so you can't see the simple realities.

like I said agree to disagree.

KouroshS

LOL. Wait a sec. Is that not a question those who do not agree with the
fact (or non-fact) that israel does  have the right to invade iran or
declare war on it, should be asking???

I don't understand the question! My baseline assumption is that the whole Q/Ostaad/ID/etc crowd believes it would be unjustified under international law for Israel to attack Iran. Maybe they could at least speak up on the matter enough to say whether that assumption is right or wrong?

If that is how you feel about
those people on this website, again, you have not understood their
intentions.

I'm pretty sure I've been around here longer than you! At least under that name :)

I think I've got the number of the Israel-bashing crowd here down pretty well. Were you around in December/January of this last year? Did you see the things they were saying? And the way they were saying them?

You are merely presenting to us what you think are facts,
Your opinion of what facts are, and consequently rejecting anything
else that someone else puts before you as their "facts".

I think I'm pretty good about differntiating between personal opinions and facts. And there can't be two conflicting versions of a fact. If that ever happens, one or both of them isn't a fact at all. By definition. 

Q stated that Israel has gone to war illegally "at least" 4 times. He said that those wares were "clearly" illegal. As far as I know the UN itself has never even accused Israel of going to war illegally. And, as somebody who has read all the relevant treaties, I'm fairly certian that I could demonstrate Israel's justification for every war it has fought using the treaty text and historical events.

So I asked him to prove that alleged "fact" that he claimed to be presenting. He has responded with irrelevancies and insults. 

That's his problem. Not mine.

You have not
realized or paid attention that  the shortcomings of the IRI has been
mentioned numerous times by the same people whomay defend certain
positions of the IRI.

Who are you talking about? I can't answer that in generalities. If you are talking about Q, I've never seen him criticize the IRI in any substantive way. Not on either foreign or domestic matters. Same with Ostaad. ID? She seems fine with the IRI's foreign policy. She seems.... sketchy... about the domestic side. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, she does seem disturbed by the crackdowns last summer. And that's about as much as I can say.

It is just that you are so hell-bent on your
version of the truth thatyou fail to really see what the other side is
saying.

I consider the "other side" to be some of the worst liars and propagandists I've ever seen on the internet... and that's really saying something, because I've been around. Is there some reason why I should *want* to hear what they have to say?

I did engage in a discussion yesterday with Bavafa. And I did review the points his was making and respond the best I could. I don't know Bavafa yet, so I don't know if he/she (sorry I don't know the gender of that name! no offense intended Bavafa) is here for genuine discussion or not.

You are yet to prove that the IRI is the agressor of any kind.

I haven't been asked to. Are you asking? :D

This does not even make sense. How do you get the impression that IRI is being a perfect angel to the rest of the world???!!!

Oh, I wasn't saying that! That's very very far indeed from my opinion! I was saying that these people like Q and etc (can I just call them the Q gang or something?) never seem to be able to find any fault with the Islamic Republic and it's conduct towards other countries. 

Speaking of that, didn't you just imply that Iran is not an aggressor - of any kind?

EPC

And I notice nobody has taken me up on my offer to show that Israel would be justified under international law in declaring war on Iran?

LOL. Wait a sec. Is that not a question those who do not agree with the fact (or non-fact) that israel does  have the right to invade iran or declare war on it, should be asking??? If that is how you feel about those people on this website, again, you have not understood their intentions. You are merely presenting to us what you think are facts, Your opinion of what facts are, and consequently rejecting anything else that someone else puts before you as their "facts". You have not realized or paid attention that  the shortcomings of the IRI has been mentioned numerous times by the same people whomay defend certain positions of the IRI. It is just that you are so hell-bent on your version of the truth thatyou fail to really see what the other side is saying.

You are yet to prove that the IRI is the agressor of any kind.

Oh, wait... the current politically correct line on this website is that teh IRI is rat bastard son of a bitch to Iranians, but is a perfect angel to everyone else in the world right?

This does not even make sense. How do you get the impression that IRI is being a perfect angel to the rest of the world???!!!

,

HollyUSA

You asked how can an Iranian support attacking the nuclear facilites, well, I wrote a blog about it a couple of days ago, "Bomb Iran." There you'll find my reasons.

And no, I don't think the IRI will respond aggressively. This is what you don't understand about bullys -- they talk and act tough, but once you smack them hard in the mouth, they're most likely going to cry foul and not much else.

Iran knows that if it retaliates in a ferocious way, the regime will be under seige, and most likely removed by Israel and American Jews (neocons). And the most important thing to the IRI is the IRI, and not Iran. Survival is their most important concern. Yes, they will make a lot of noise after Israel attacks, but at the end of the day, the mullahs will behave very much like the Syrians and Saddam Hussein after their nuclear facilities were wiped out -- and that's not much!

You think the mullahs and A-jad are different than Saddam and the Syrians, I think they're not. I think deep down the IRI is scared shitless right now -- it is presently under seige, by its own people and Israel (and its extremely powerful lobby in the USA). One false move, and the mullahs and their barbaric regime is history! And that false move would be a ferocious retaliation -- and they know this!

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 

Anonymous8

We aren't talking about the security council. We are talking about international law. That means treaties that have been ratified and signed by the member states of the UN. If it's not a treaty violation, it's not against international law. This isn't a matter of opinion :)

i don't what what '4' wars you were talking about, but I can easily
name many invasions started by israel: 1956, 1967, 1981, 1983, 2006. 

Q claimed that Israel waged illegal wars on at least 4 occassions. Key word being "illegal".

That's what I asked him to prove. As far as I know, the UN has not even accused Israel of waging war illegally. Not even once. Not even the last tiem in Gaza.  I'm waiting for somebody (Q, or you since you seem to agree with him) to back that claim up.

Ok now onto your other comments... just wante dto get the Q thing out of the way first:

by the way, does that meanyou think all resolutions against Iran are equally worthless popularity contests?

I didn't say resolutions were worthless. Binding resolutions require the member states to take action or some kind. Non-binding resolutions sometimes call upon members to take action on a voluntary basis, and sometimes they are just a method of doing some political grandstanding with no call to take any action at all. But in no case can a resolution be considered to be some kind of criminal conviction. Resolutions usually get passed when a nation behaves in a way that a majority of member states don't approve of. Think of it as a form of censure rather than a charge of criminality.

in the UN General assembly, it is a 50% vote, but that is a
representative from every country in the world. you can call this a
popularity contest, but who do you think is getting this political
consesus?

The general assembly is made up of every nation in the world. Look at the polical positions and the quality fo government in most of the world. Who do you think is getting the consensus? The US can buy and/or trade for votes on something that's really important to us, but  we can't poull that off every time a vote comes up. It would take 100% of our budget! And yes, I do believe most teh votes in the general assembly are up for sale. Hopelessly corrupt governments do not send honest representatives to the United Nations :)

you think the palestinians or the lebanese are so popular
that they can persuade most of the world to be against israel?

No. I think Israel is so unpopular that a majority of the world would vote against Israel every time they are called upon to vote, without even considering the case.

at some point, you have to let go of your guard and admit that
israel is a known aggressor in the world.

Aggressor? As compared to who? Switzerland? Geez, man. I don't even know what to say to that. I can't think of many countries with a better track record of only fighting defensively. Certainly no country in the ME has a better record. I'm trying to give seriosu answers here but some of this stuff that's being thrown out seems ridiculous on its face.

i won't try to convince you
because you because i know that sometimes with some single minded
people, it doesn't matter what the facts say.

Actually, I have noticed taht quite a bit, yes. Especially on this website. People around here seem very fond of facts taht are not facts. And I notice nobody has taken me up on my offer to show that Israel would be justified under international law in declaring war on Iran? Is that a fact that people here choose to ignore? To me it doesn't paint a pretty picture when people on an Iranian website are plenty willing to tell the most vicious of lies about israel and then pretend teh islamic Recpuublic does no wrong. Oh, wait... the current politically correct line on this website is that teh IRI is rat bastard son of a bitch to Iranians, but is a perfect angel to everyone else in the world right?

so I will just agree to disagree with you.

Ok. It's not a topic I like to discuss here anyway. As I've said before, I don't think it's appropriate for Iran to be sticking its nose into the Arab-Israeli conflict. And I don't think its appropriate for Iranians to be blamining Israel for reacting in the strongest possible terms to that. IRI is the aggressor, and Israel has a right to respond to that aggression. That is international law and no resolution can change it.

ex programmer: that's not how the process works

in the UN Security Council which have all the most serious resolutions, all it takes in ONE NEGATIVE VOTE from US, UK, France, Russia and China. at least the first 3 are good friends of Israel, but even so, Israel has been condemned by the UNSC many times for violence and aggression. US has voted for this too. that's not a popularity contest.

by the way, does that meanyou think all resolutions against Iran are equally worthless popularity contests?

in the UN General assembly, it is a 50% vote, but that is a representative from every country in the world. you can call this a popularity contest, but who do you think is getting this political consesus? you think the palestinians or the lebanese are so popular that they can persuade most of the world to be against israel?

i don't what what '4' wars you were talking about, but I can easily name many invasions started by israel: 1956, 1967, 1981, 1983, 2006.

at some point, you have to let go of your guard and admit that israel is a known aggressor in the world. i won't try to convince you because you because i know that sometimes with some single minded people, it doesn't matter what the facts say.

so I will just agree to disagree with you.

Any other country with that

Any other country with that many violations would have been invaded 100 times by now.

Seems to me some countries get to commit genocide and murder millions of people and not get a single resolution passed against them, IRANdokht. Getting a resolution passed against you in the Un just means you lost a popularity contest. Lord knows, if the system was fair the Islamic Republic would have been ejected from the UN for violating the Vienna Conventions (which are the conventions that govern international diplomacy, inlcuiding the Un itself!) back in 1979.

The UN is what it is. No more and no less. The resolutions don't mean anything. That's just a show of hands about how people feel about things. It's the treaties that matter. Treaties are law. If somebody wants to claim country_x broke international law they damn well better have some traety violations to back it up. Q didn't. And doesn't. Q needs to STFU.

PS-IRANdokht, do you want me to provide the treaty text that gives Israel justification to declare war on Iran if it wishes to? Because I will be happy to do that. And that would be slightly on topic at least. Arguing about Palestinian issues here really isn't.

PPS-

I was looking for it!

lol. Right. I've seen that list at least 100 times in the last few years, and I for one wasn't looking for it! So, either you are lying or you weren't looking very hard! What happened, you lost your copy?

Q

Very nice job with the list, thanks. Although we know there will always be the eternal 'But ...' on the subject. How does the saying go? 'Divar'e haashaa bolandeh' I think.

Anonymous8

proof is all the resolution that are passed against Israel for its
violations. you can read the list yourself. what other proof do you
want?

No, that's not proof of anything except that they were able to get enough votes to pass a resolution. It's proof of a political consensus of sorts, not of criminality. If I could lobby enough votes I could get a resolution that said the earth is flat. It wouldn't mean the earth was flat, would it?

Edit: And also, which are the 4 wars Israel fought that the UN determined were illegal?

PS to Q

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Which is just a broad statement of principals. I'm sure when you looked into the details you found that your claims of illegal wars on the part of Israel could not be supported, which is why you fell back on this. The reason I was presssing you to back up your claims yourself rather than having me do all the work is I wanted you to either admit to being wrong or to try to jump through implausible hoops with the treaty text so you'd make a fool of yourself. All my hopes, dashed! 

But... since you were kind enough to provide this one paragraph... have you ever considered applying it to the Islamic Republic and seeing if they are violating the spirit of that portion of the Un charter? Did it cross your mind? Even for a second? Because, if I was you, I'd be a bit embarrassed about copy-pasting that bit of the charter into a comment on an Iranian website and trying to apply it to some other country besides Iran. Especially that bit about threatening the territorial integrity of another nation. And the bit about threatining the political independence of any state. And the bit... well, the whole damn thing Q. Do you somehow disqualify Israel from being a sovereign state? Is that how you reconcile it, in your own mind?

ex programmer: Q is correct.

proof is all the resolution that are passed against Israel for its violations. you can read the list yourself. what other proof do you want? its the UN that makes the determination.

actually UN is much easier on Israel because of the US/UK/France veto. there would be many more resolutions if there was no veto power.

Q

Thanks for providing the long list of the UN resolutions. I was looking for it! Aren't there newer ones to add? Not that it'd make any difference... Any other country with that many violations would have been invaded 100 times by now.

I know, I should learn how search better on google and do it myself, but if you can find a more updated one please send me the list too.

Thanks! 

IRANdokht

Q

I've demanded that you prove your claims 4 times. You have not even made an effort to. I'll take that as an admission of defeat and consider the matter closed.

the charade

AN's rhetoric alone has made all the Arab countries arm themselves to the teeth (more money for the US) and all he does is yak!

What better loud but harmless boogie man would they wish for?

IRI is helping stabilize Iraq. It's working quietly against the armed radicals in the eastern borders helping US too.

Who better than them? Anyone who thinks other countries would be interested in helping a democratic movement in Iran is being naive. IRI is good for everyone except the Iranians.

This whole game of chicken played by IRI from one side, Israel and the US from the other has its purpose, but that's got nothing to do with democracy nor freedom in the region.

IRANdokht