Turkey Identifies 174 Israeli Soldiers Implicated in Mavis Marmara Massacre
- Thread starter gryfin
- Start date
You're being silly. The US has got involved in lots of wars that were NOT defensive wars. This one was. They botched it. But they WERE legitimately attacked on 9/11.Must be, when the US Department of Defense is leading it.
Yes, after NATO had many meetings on the topic and collectively decided that they would do that. It wasn't something that they were obliged to do. They deliberated on the issue and decided to do it.No, not individual Nato members; Nato went to Libya.
Are you opposed to countries deliberating, and collectively agreeing to an action plan?
You lickspittle lack of character is on full display here. I don't like doing this to you, but you insist on wearing that "Kick Me" sign.Yes, the Palmer report, the report commissioned by the UN Security Council, which concluded the blockade was legal.
You are wrong again. The Security Council did not commission this, they have nothing to do with it. Nor have they voted on it. You just fabricated these assertions as we would expect from a weak-willed sycophant.
The truth is this, taken directly from the report:
"The Secretary-General established the Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident on 2 August 2010."
You are a pathetic clown, Gryfin. The Secretary General established the panel on the request of the President of the Security Council, per S/PRST/2010/9:
But as you are so keen to point out, yes, the report is the official report of the entire UN, having been requested by UN SC, and implemented by UN SG.
The UN Secretary General explicitly referenced S/PRST/2010/9 when creating the panel and so does the report.Security Council said:The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
But as you are so keen to point out, yes, the report is the official report of the entire UN, having been requested by UN SC, and implemented by UN SG.
Thanks for the admission. The panel was in fact created by the Secretary General. Not the Security Council.You are a pathetic clown, Gryfin. The Secretary General established the panel on the request of the President of the Security Council, per S/PRST/2010/9:
The UN Secretary General explicitly referenced S/PRST/2010/9 when creating the panel and so does the report.
But as you are so keen to point out, yes, the report is the official report of the entire UN, having been requested by UN SC, and implemented by UN SG.
Now, let's put to rest the next myth - that this has been voted on and accepted by the Security Council. Provide the link to the vote results.
And with that, we'll be able to put this lie to bed.
Thanks again lickspittle. You have confirmed there was never any vote by the Security Council on this report. Nor has the General Assembly ever voted on or expressed any support for it.It bothers you deeply that the UN report repudiated your view, huh? Gryfin? At any rate, much as they don't like it, Turkey has read the report. They know the blockade's legal. They're looking for a way out.
Now we know all of your claims were fabrications. The Palmer/Uribe report never made any kind of legal determination about the blockade. The report clearly stated it could not. Also, it was not commissioned by the Security Council at all, but was created by the Secretary General.
According to your past posts, if the report was not voted on by the Security Council, it has no value.
But, talking out of both sides of your mouth is a prerequisite for your job as a lickspittle
What was that your favorate word in ESL?Thanks again lickspittle
I agree it's not legally binding. Nothing short of a UN SC resolution would be binding. It was, however, produced by the UN at the request of the UN Security Council (S/PRST/2010/9). It was a process that took great pains to be impartial and unbiased--unlike the Arab League/UNHRC report--and it was chaired by two of the most highly respected global statesmen.
It carries a hell of a lot of weight.
If you want binding, then hurry along Turkey's appeal to the ICJ. That will be binding--but you won't like the ruling when it comes out. The reason why is clearly spelled out in the Palmer/Uribe report to the UN: The blockade was lawful.
It carries a hell of a lot of weight.
If you want binding, then hurry along Turkey's appeal to the ICJ. That will be binding--but you won't like the ruling when it comes out. The reason why is clearly spelled out in the Palmer/Uribe report to the UN: The blockade was lawful.
Oh, like the Goldstone report?The UN HRC, aka the Arab League, has no legal basis. The UN HRC has no status, standing, or authority to make pronouncements on security issues. It can and does issue "recommendations", but those are resoundingly ignored by the UN SC, because everybody knows that the thugs who run UN HRC--people like Moamar Ghadaffi--are not trustworthy or credible.
Also a UN HRC report.
Stop whining that they don't count when you don't like the rulings, it makes you sound like a four year old.
If you can find valid reasons the report shouldn't be counted from the report, I'll listen to you, but this whining is pathetic.
It was not defensive.You're being silly. The US has got involved in lots of wars that were NOT defensive wars. This one was. They botched it. But they WERE legitimately attacked on 9/11.
The US was not attacked by Afghanistan, the theory goes, but by a small global group that had some of their operations there.
The Taliban supported and protected Al Qaeda at a time when Al Qaeda had already launched several attacks on the US. Although the Taliban probably did not know the specific details of the 9/11 campaign, they would have known that Al Qaeda was continuing to plan some sort of attack on the United States, and on other countries, and yet they still supported and protected them.It was not defensive.
The US was not attacked by Afghanistan, the theory goes, but by a small global group that had some of their operations there.
It was not defensive.
The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oh, and I take offense with your claims on the Palmer report, namely:
The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oh, and I take offense with your claims on the Palmer report, namely:
Alvaro Uribe is a noted human rights violator who is also had a strong Israeli military alliance while in power. Hardly an unbiased juror or judge.it was chaired by two of the most highly respected global statesmen.
The war in A-stan was clearly a defensive war.It was not defensive.
The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
Oh, and I take offense with your claims on the Palmer report, namely:
Alvaro Uribe is a noted human rights violator who is also had a strong Israeli military alliance while in power. Hardly an unbiased juror or judge.
The purpose was to eliminate the base of attack of those folks who had just whacked New York.
The Taliban allowed their country to become a base of attack against America. Their mistake.
Great, so they moved even more into Pakistan, which is or used to be an ally.The war in A-stan was clearly a defensive war.
The purpose was to eliminate the base of attack of those folks who had just whacked New York.
The Taliban allowed their country to become a base of attack against America. Their mistake.
Why didn't they also attack Pakistan (even more then the drone bombings, that is)?
It was no more defensive then the Iraq war.
But I'd like to skip this argument, and won't reply any more to it, I think we should get back to the mess in Israel.
It looks like the one state solution is closer then you think, there is now one party in the Knesset calling for the west bank to be annexed.
Read this and tell me how close the two state solution is:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-must-annex-west-bank-settlements-right-wing-mks-tell-netanyahu-1.387018Israel should legally annex West Bank settlements in response to the Palestinians' recent bid for recognition in the United Nations, the leaders of several right-wing Knesset factions said in a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.
Rubbish. The Taliban were Al Qaeda's patrons. The Taliban harboured and protected them, gave them bases from which to operate, and did that knowing FULL WELL that Al Qaeda were planning attacks on Western countries, including the United States. The Taliban would not have known the specific details of the attacks Al Qaeda were planning but they would certainly have know that Al Qaeda was planning something: Al Qaeda said so. Repeatedly. Every chance they got.The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11.
By that point in time Al Qaeda had already carried out several strikes on US targets. They had attacked the USS Cole. They had attacked US embassies. They had bragged about doing that, they had taken credit for it, and they had announced that they were going to carry out further attacks.
Throughout all of this the Taliban harboured them, protected them, provided them with bases, even integrated Al Qaeda units into their military.
After 9/11 the Taliban were confronted over this, and despite Al Qaeda having bragged to the world, very publicly, that they had been responsible for the 9/11 attacks the Taliban demanded "proof" that Al Qaeda had been responsible for 9/11. It was plain bullshit, everybody in the world knows that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attack, he bragged about doing so in videos that he himself released. Yet the Taliban refused to arrest him, refused to help bring him to justice, and continued to demand "proof" that he was responsible.
They wrote their own death warrants. International law is clear in such cases.
9/11 was an attack on the United States and the Taliban were a clear accessory to that attack.
Fuji, you are an idiot.Rubbish. The Taliban were Al Qaeda's patrons. The Taliban harboured and protected them, gave them bases from which to operate, and did that knowing FULL WELL that Al Qaeda were planning attacks on Western countries, including the United States. The Taliban would not have known the specific details of the attacks Al Qaeda were planning but they would certainly have know that Al Qaeda was planning something: Al Qaeda said so. Repeatedly. Every chance they got.
By that point in time Al Qaeda had already carried out several strikes on US targets. They had attacked the USS Cole. They had attacked US embassies. They had bragged about doing that, they had taken credit for it, and they had announced that they were going to carry out further attacks.
Throughout all of this the Taliban harboured them, protected them, provided them with bases, even integrated Al Qaeda units into their military.
After 9/11 the Taliban were confronted over this, and despite Al Qaeda having bragged to the world, very publicly, that they had been responsible for the 9/11 attacks the Taliban demanded "proof" that Al Qaeda had been responsible for 9/11. It was plain bullshit, everybody in the world knows that Osama bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attack, he bragged about doing so in videos that he himself released. Yet the Taliban refused to arrest him, refused to help bring him to justice, and continued to demand "proof" that he was responsible.
They wrote their own death warrants. International law is clear in such cases.
9/11 was an attack on the United States and the Taliban were a clear accessory to that attack.
I won't even dignify this rambling with an answer.
But I will ask how a two state solution is possible if Israel is talking about annexing the west bank again.
You won't reply to it anymore because you are incapable of dealing with it.Great, so they moved even more into Pakistan, which is or used to be an ally.
Why didn't they also attack Pakistan (even more then the drone bombings, that is)?
It was no more defensive then the Iraq war.
But I'd like to skip this argument, and won't reply any more to it, I think we should get back to the mess in Israel.
It looks like the one state solution is closer then you think, there is now one party in the Knesset calling for the west bank to be annexed.
Read this and tell me how close the two state solution is:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-must-annex-west-bank-settlements-right-wing-mks-tell-netanyahu-1.387018
You seem to think everything is part of a zionist plan, even in this post about the war in A-stan you start babbling on like a broken record about a one state solution which has nothing to do with A-stan. You seem unhealthily obsessed.
But I am happy to talk about why the US did not invade Pakistan right after 9/11 or since. Firstly AQ was in A-stan and it would have been stupid. Secondly to a greater or lessor degree the government of Pakistan is interested and somewhat helpful in the war against AQ and the Taliban. Thirdly Pakistan was not openly harbouring AQ like A-stan was. And there is that little thing about Pakistan having nuclear weapons.
IF we follow your poor attempt at logic the US would be obliged to invade every country where AQ has hidden or cropped up. Is that what you believe.
I can't wait to see how you try and tie this into Israel because clearly nothing else exists in the world.
You repeat illogical assertions in the hope they will become true, with no reasoning or facts to back them up.
With allies like you the Palestinians are in a heap of trouble...
That's because you can't answer. My post was correct. The Taliban sponsored Al Qaeda even though they knew they were planning to attack the United States, and continued harbouring after the attack. It's just a fact. You don't like the fact, but it's a fact anyway.Fuji, you are an idiot.
I won't even dignify this rambling with an answer.
It does not surprise me in the least that you discount terrorist attacks as being something a nation needs to reasonably defend itself against.
The problem for Groggy is ideological. If he accepts that Al Qaeda attacking the United States was reasonable grounds for a US military response, then he will have no answer as to why Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., attacking Israel aren't also grounds for a military response.I can't wait to see how you try and tie this into Israel because clearly nothing else exists in the world.
He can't answer these points so he won't. He will switch the topic, bring up something irrelevant, and generally not answer while making a lot of noise.
