All bluster and no ideas? Guess what Eggo, if you can't step up to the plate, you can't play the game. Frankie has you on the run too. When you want to join the adult table, feel free to refute what I said with something real. A concrete origional idea or premise.
Israel at war
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
That's your plan? That question was to you.
woah again
We've been through the ravage, slaughter and steal part....
Here we go, guys!
Into Rafah in the next couple of days! Betting that Yahya is long gone and has bribed the Egyptian border guards to let him, his favourite wife and a few of his favourite kids out of Gaza. The Gazan people and the wives Yahya is sick of can stay and get bombed.
Into Rafah in the next couple of days! Betting that Yahya is long gone and has bribed the Egyptian border guards to let him, his favourite wife and a few of his favourite kids out of Gaza. The Gazan people and the wives Yahya is sick of can stay and get bombed.
I agree with Valcazar on this one, the George Floyd and BLM protests were largely very peaceful and most reported violence was instigated either by the police or agitators. Same with climate protests and these Palestine protests.
I prefer this Shaw quote to Calgacus, where Gunner asks the Lord how he would respond to protesters in Jinghiskahn.
GUNNER. What would you do with me in Jinghiskahn if you had me
there?
LORD SUMMERHAYS. Well, since you ask me so directly, I'll tell you.
I should take advantage of the fact that you have neither sense enough
nor strength enough to know how to behave yourself in a difficulty of
any sort. I should warn an intelligent and ambitious policeman that
you are a troublesome person. The intelligent and ambitious policeman
would take an early opportunity of upsetting your temper by ordering
you to move on, and treading on your heels until you were provoked
into obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty. Any trifle
of that sort would be sufficient to make a man like you lose your
self-possession and put yourself in the wrong. You would then be
charged and imprisoned until things quieted down.
Here's a good one:
The US, who wouldn't sign on to the ICC, has declared that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Israel.
The problem is the charges will be for war crimes in Palestine, which is recognized by the UN.
The US, who wouldn't sign on to the ICC, has declared that the ICC has no jurisdiction on Israel.
The problem is the charges will be for war crimes in Palestine, which is recognized by the UN.
It tells you a great deal about what people will accept and how they will react to protests turning violent.
It will also tell you a great deal about the likelihood of it happening, because the more the society in general thinks violence is an appropriate tactic, the more it will be used.
After all, if going violent results in no one supporting you, the choice to do so looks different than going violent resulting in many people cheering you on.
Which is why knowing what people think of violence as a tactic is important.
Yes, the immediate issue is whether or not that particular group right now is going to, but again, that calculus changes according to community support.
As I've mentioned before, in the US, violence by the police against protesters has usually been met with approval.
More than half of the people surveyed after Kent state thought it was the students fault they got themselves shot.
You mean after the protests that were massively larger in scale, size, international recognition, and duration - along with being in a different political environment - the only thing you can think of that moved the needle was violence that the protesters mostly condemned as hurting their cause?
Have the University protests issued demands to the US Government?
I don't feel any pressing need to engage with "The way to solve the conflict is ethnic cleansing or genocide" actually.
I'm not sure the jurisdiction is clear, though.
Could they prosecute a commander on the ground, who was physically in Palestine and committed war crimes?
I think that's clearly yes.
Can they go after the Prime Minister of a nation that isn't signed on to the ICC?
That's trickier.
Obviously they can - theoretically they can claim jurisdiction over whoever they want whenever they want.
I presume Netanyahu's answer to that will be to simply never leave Israel again.
Thank you.
We will have to disagree on that other than the violence did increase its media value, but not in a good way, IMO.
Sure.
But when discussing what it means to be listened to, you have to discuss their actual demands.
I don't know.
That's why I said it was trickier.
I don't know if there is existing case law or what.
Like I said, my understanding is that "You did this thing physically in the territory of an entity that recognizes the ICC so you can be tried by us even if your government doesn't recognize us" is well accepted.
I don't know what the history is concerning the more ambiguous situation.
This is all true, but there is also a significant contingent of the US population that opposes foreign entanglements in general. This has existed since the founding of the country.
The reasons are diverse and what they view as problematic isn't the same.
This makes the potential of some kind of alliance across these diverse groups a real thing, you are right to be suspicious of it being simple or even necessarily a very stable coalition.
There are people who - in general - feel the money shouldn't be spent "abroad" (whatever that means in the specifics).
So, once again, you can make possibly make an alliance of "don't spend this money or get involved" despite the very different ideas about what to do with that money.
This is a common problem across many many people when thinking about politics.
If a patient is afraid to go into the hospital because of the protest, he/she is the only one who is the authority as to whether they feel intimidated or not.
We already agreed on that.
We already agreed on that as well. Why do you keep repeating yourself? Please show us some document stating what these legal requirements are? How stringent are they?
Based on what statistics that you seem to have at your disposal? Have you seen the stats of how many applications that they've submitted? Was the protest on the Avenue Rd. legal? Was it pre-approved? Not that you strongly suspect they did or probably did, but do you definitively know. We know that the cops drove them away, so clearly it was not approved. And again, the devil is in the details. What are these legal requirements as spelled out by Toronto by-laws?
BTW, it is not up to the protesters to decide if they think that they've addressed the legal requirements. They need to apply to the authorities just the same as people who want to parade in Santa Claus or Gay Pride. There is a process that needs to be followed.
So the protest on Avenue Rd. was NOT properly addressed. According to that 99.99% you cited, simple math means that that there have been 9,999 protests that were pre-approved by the authorities, which we both know is a ridiculous number. But that's what happens when you apply hyperbole to your anecdotal and irrelevant personal observations.
And you are no expert either, so for you to say what and where how they are allowed to protest is a joke. You seem to want to set one standard to me follow and no standards for yourself.
I showed you the section of the criminal detailing what is a nuisance, yet here you are still claiming that that these protester are allowed to disrupt people's lives.
I think a far better comparison is apartheid South Africa.
Up until 2008 Mandela and the AFC were labelled as terrorists by the US.
Global action, protests and BDS like sanctions were what ended apartheid, that's what finally forced governments to act.
So governments supporting Israel will continue to do so until the votes lost supporting Israel outweigh the cash coming in from AIPAC.
We are likely at that moment now, though the governments don't know it yet.
That was unclear, read your post.
Butler asked for your solution and you gave the quote.
That makes it look you said turning Gaza into a desert was your solution.
It wasn't far off, same with Canada, the country backed South Africa until it became too unpopular.
We'll see what happens, but the university protests are looking very Vietnam to Gaza's Tet offensive.
It just gets worse and worse for the US every day.
And there is an election coming up.
