Please do. I suspect it'll go the same way as you consideration of giving it a rest which, as we all know, didn't last one single day.
Hamas will NEVER accept peace (for flub)
- Thread starter basketcase
- Start date
Your own references proved you wrong a long time ago stop being an idiot.Prove me wrong, please.
Your own references proved you wrong a long time ago stop being an idiot.
Nope.
You're wrong, and you have provided absolutely no references to back up anything.
I guess I forgot to mention that this attempted attack by a member of Islamic Jihad took place at the same border checkpoint as the guy with the bottle (and the same checkpoint as numerous other incidents. I wonder why the guards might be a little edgy?Wow, didn't know I was responsible for posting every report of a death there.
...
Actually all the references he needs to prove his point is your posting history and the immense number of intentional non-truths you've posted.Nope.fuji said:Your own references proved you wrong a long time ago stop being an idiot.
You're wrong, and you have provided absolutely no references to back up anything.
That's because YOU actually provided all the references that show you're wrong. You systematically fail to comprehend the stuff you post here. You make some inane claim, and then post a link you call evidence of your ludicrous statement, but when we read the link you provide we find that it actually contradicts you.Nope.
You're wrong, and you have provided absolutely no references to back up anything.
That's why you are a figure of fun around here.
That's because YOU actually provided all the references that show you're wrong. You systematically fail to comprehend the stuff you post here. You make some inane claim, and then post a link you call evidence of your ludicrous statement, but when we read the link you provide we find that it actually contradicts you.
Coming from the person who's been arguing in this thread that Israel has no duty to uphold the Geneva Conventions, UN SC resolutions or most other matters of international law, I find that quite pathetic.
But go ahead, tell me how the Al Jazeera and NY Times references are all show me wrong, I could use a laugh.
Is that the only way you can fool yourself into thinking you've made a point? I have *never* said that. Never.Coming from the person who's been arguing in this thread that Israel has no duty to uphold the Geneva Conventions
I'm waiting for the binding UN SC resolution you seem to think you're talking about. Where is it?UN SC resolutions or most other matters of international law
I don't think I've SEEN your mythical NY Times reference, I have no idea what you're on about there. I was mocking your ludicrous reference to common dreams.But go ahead, tell me how the Al Jazeera and NY Times references are all show me wrong, I could use a laugh.
As for Al Jazeera I'm sure it's accurate as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough--it doesn't tell us what the source of that report is. It's significant if it's WHO or whether it's the PA. Any announcements from PA should be taken with a grain of salt obviously.
Reread your post #241.Is that the only way you can fool yourself into thinking you've made a point? I have *never* said that. Never.
In that post you argued 'It was OK for Canada, Britain, and the UK' so why should Israel have to uphold the Geneva Conventions.
Apology requested.*
*Add that to the growing list of apologies you owe me
Given that any UN SC Chapter VI or Chapter VII resolution is binding, I'll just give you three.I'm waiting for the binding UN SC resolution you seem to think you're talking about. Where is it?
#446
#487
#252
Typical, mock it without checking it out.I don't think I've SEEN your mythical NY Times reference, I have no idea what you're on about there. I was mocking your ludicrous reference to common dreams.
And here's the NY Times link, for the third time.
Time for a new prescription?
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/israeli-bloggers-question-israels-use-of-tear-gas-against-protesters/
You fail at comprehending even the most basic point. The point is that it is NOT a violation of the convention. The examples of Canada, Britain, UK were meant to demosntrate that to you--but you are too stupid to grasp the point.Reread your post #241.
In that post you argued 'It was OK for Canada, Britain, and the UK' so why should Israel have to uphold the Geneva Conventions.
I'm sorry your mother gave birth to such a stupid child.Apology requested.*
*Add that to the growing list of apologies you owe me
False. Only VII resolutions are binding, you moron.Given that any UN SC Chapter VI or Chapter VII resolution is binding
This is what you said:You fail at comprehending even the most basic point. The point is that it is NOT a violation of the convention. The examples of Canada, Britain, UK were meant to demosntrate that to you--but you are too stupid to grasp the point.
'but if Israel does the same thing to its attackers that is horrible, just horrible. '
You are plainly trying to justify Israel not upholding the Geneva Conventions.
Still waiting for that apology.
False, it may be debatable, but I'm backing the ICJ.False. Only VII resolutions are binding.
As the UN charter says “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.”
And how about resolution 1701?
Another resolution Israel doesn't have to uphold?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110110/wl_nm/us_lebanon_unLebanon's prime minister urged the U.N. chief on Sunday to increase pressure on Israel to end all violations of Lebanese borders, and to help prevent it from exploiting Lebanese oil and gas, a Lebanese official said.
In a one-hour meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a New York hotel, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri insisted on the "full implementation of U.N. Security Council resolution 1701," a member of Hariri's delegation told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
U.N. Security Council resolution 1701 halted hostilities in the Israeli-Hezbollah war in 2006 and banned all unauthorized weapons between the Litani River and the Blue Line, the U.N.-monitored border between Israel and Lebanon.
It also called on Israel to halt unauthorized flights over Lebanese territory, though the United Nations says the Jewish state regularly sends aircraft over Lebanon.
Hariri "requested the utmost pressure on Israel to cease its violations in the air, on land and at sea," the source said. "He also said Lebanon is relying on the United Nations to prevent Israeli infringement of Lebanon's exclusive economic zone, including regarding oil and gas resources."
Lebanon sent Ban a letter last week asking him to ensure that Israel's plans to drill for gas in the Mediterranean Sea do not encroach on its own offshore reserves.
Nope, you fail at comprehension. I was mocking your notion that there's one set of rules for Israel and a different set of rules for everybody else. It's my view that there is one set of rules, and that it was not a violation of the GC when Britain or the USA did it, and not a violation when Israel did either.This is what you said:
'but if Israel does the same thing to its attackers that is horrible, just horrible. '
You are plainly trying to justify Israel not upholding the Geneva Conventions.
Once again: I'm sorry that your mother gave birth to such a stupid child.Still waiting for that apology.
Israel is not in violation of 1701. Have you read the resolution?And how about resolution 1701?
1701 clearly assigned blame for the war on Hezbollah, required an immediate end to attacks by Hezbollah, and called on an end to offensive military operations by Israel. It did not limit Israel's ability to carry out defensive military operations--for example, retaliating to Hezbollah strikes by flying over Lebanese territory. This was in recognition of the fact that Israel was the victim of Hezbollah violence and was entitled to defend itself as the victimized party.
Although Israel had asked the UN SC to have 1701 made a binding resolution under chapter VII, the UN SC in the end chose to make it non binding under chapter VI.
That's 5 for 5.Israel is not in violation of 1701. Have you read the resolution?
1701 clearly assigned blame for the war on Hezbollah, required an immediate end to attacks by Hezbollah, and called on an end to offensive military operations by Israel. It did not limit Israel's ability to carry out defensive military operations--for example, retaliating to Hezbollah strikes by flying over Lebanese territory. This was in recognition of the fact that Israel was the victim of Hezbollah violence and was entitled to defend itself as the victimized party.
Although Israel had asked the UN SC to have 1701 made a binding resolution under chapter VII, the UN SC in the end chose to make it non binding under chapter VI.
From the resolution:Israel is not in violation of 1701. Have you read the resolution?
While most of it deals with Lebanon, there are sections that make demands on both parties.8. Calls for Israel and Lebanon to support a permanent ceasefire and a long- term solution based on the following principles and elements:
– full respect for the Blue Line by both parties;
– security arrangements to prevent the resumption of hostilities, including the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any
06-46503
3
armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL as authorized in paragraph 11, deployed in this area;
– full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Taif Accords, and of resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1680 (2006), that require the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that, pursuant to the Lebanese cabinet decision of 27 July 2006, there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese State;
– no foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its Government;
– no sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government;
– provision to the United Nations of all remaining maps of landmines in Lebanon in Israel’s possession;
Once again, you are wrong.
Don't you get tired of being wrong so often?
If you're just going to sit there and be a cheerleader for Fuji, can you at least put on some pompoms?That's 5 for 5.
(not that I want to see that)
(not that there's anything wrong with that)
and finally
(no homo)
Yup, but when Hezbollah fails to show "full respect for the Blue Line", for example by firing rockets across it, or when Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah in violation of "no sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government", and given that Lebanon has failed to implement the Taif Accord and achieve the "disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" (e.g., Hezbollah) you can fully expect Israel to exert its right to self defense, which it does in considerable moderation.From the resolution:
While most of it deals with Lebanon, there are sections that make demands on both parties.
In fact the resolution did not require Israel to withdraw from Lebanon until AFTER the Lebanese side implemented its provisions, and since Lebanon has never actually implemented its side of the resolution...
You sure did pick a good name--you flubbed another one.
It's obvious to the entire board that you haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about, that you make shit up, and that when you are caught out lying or found to be wrong instead of fessing up you make up even more ridiculous assertions.If you're just going to sit there and be a cheerleader for Fuji, can you at least put on some pompoms?
Perhaps the ONLY person you've convinced here of anything is yourself--and I suspect even you know, deep in your heart, that you are completely full of shit.
Yup, but when Hezbollah fails to show "full respect for the Blue Line", for example by firing rockets across it, or when Iran supplies weapons to Hezbollah in violation of "no sales or supply of arms and related material to Lebanon except as authorized by its Government", and given that Lebanon has failed to implement the Taif Accord and achieve the "disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon" (e.g., Hezbollah) you can fully expect Israel to exert its right to self defense, which it does in considerable moderation.
In fact the resolution did not require Israel to withdraw from Lebanon until AFTER the Lebanese side implemented its provisions, and since Lebanon has never actually implemented its side of the resolution...
You sure did pick a good name--you flubbed another one.
No, I think you're still failing.
Show me where in that UN resolution that it says Israel doesn't have to do anything until Lebanon does and I'll accept your argument.
The UN is calling on both sides to obey the resolution, so of course Lebanon needs to obey it, but even if they don't, that does not mean that Israel doesn't have to.
In fact, I'll quote from the resolution:
There you go, the UN calls for action in parallel.1. Calls for a full cessation of hostilities based upon, in particular, the immediate cessation by Hizbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations;
2. Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;
There are a number of points that neither side fulfilled, but that doesn't give one side the right to ignore all of them. For instance did Israel fulfill this:
5. Also reiterates its strong support, as recalled in all its previous relevant resolutions, for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, as contemplated by the Israeli-Lebanese General Armistice Agreement of 23 March 1949;
The original article quoted was in reference to Israel breaking Lebanese airspace, which it has been doing repeatedly since the last war, all in contravention of resolution 1701.
Here is the text from the resolution that you obviously didn't read:No, I think you're still failing.
Show me where in that UN resolution that it says Israel doesn't have to do anything until Lebanon does and I'll accept your argument.
"Upon full cessation of hostilities, calls upon the Government of Lebanon and UNIFIL as authorized by paragraph 11 to deploy their forces together throughout the South and calls upon the Government of Israel, as that deployment begins, to withdraw all of its forces from southern Lebanon in parallel;"
So Israel is to withdraw as Lebanon takes over the territory. Given that Lebanon has not done so, and that Hezbollah still occupies the area, and given that Hezbollah has not yet provided a "full cessation of hostilities", in direct contravention to the terms of the resolution, and given that Hezbollah has not been disarmed as required by the resolution, and given that Iran still sells arms to Hezbollah in violation of the resolution, Israel is not yet under any obligation to withdraw--although Israel did withdraw anyway.
Note too that the resolution requires a full cessation of ALL attacks by Hezbollah and Lebanon, but only a cessation of "offensive" attacks by Israel. Israel is entitled under the resolution to respond with defensive uses of military force, for example, taking out installations that are have attacked Israel is a defensive use of force.
It's a very one-sided, pro-Israel resolution because this was a resolution that Israel asked for and got through the UN SC after everyone in the world blamed Hezbollah for the attack. Israel had originally wanted it to be a Chapter VII binding resolution but Russia and others watered it down to Chapter VI.
For you to list an Israeli sponsored UN resolution directed at Hezbollah as "against Israel" is one of the funniest things I've ever seen--you truly are a propaganda clown.
