dreamdancer 0 #151 November 17, 2010 you're not quite coming through andy - what is your opinion again?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #152 November 17, 2010 Quotedon't worry. i won't ask you a question. if you don't think iran and israel going to war is a serious option then just carry on with your legal/illegal pedantry. Direct quote of you from your post #20: Quote so you agree with the UN (and your government) that illegal israeli building should stop. You either stop dodging and answer the question, or you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #153 November 17, 2010 Quoteyou're not quite coming through andy - what is your opinion again? He intervened to see if you would stop trolling. No luck on that one right? And about the Iranian question, I hope they stop their quest. Most likely if we go to war with them, I'll be part of that and I don't mean this "in thought"."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #154 November 17, 2010 Quoteyou're not quite coming through andy - what is your opinion again? You either stop dodging and answer the question, or you don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #155 November 17, 2010 keep dancing on that legal/illegal pin (meanwhile will the building stop - doesn't look like it. so to war we go) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #156 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteyou're not quite coming through andy - what is your opinion again? He intervened to see if you would stop trolling. No luck on that one right? And about the Iranian question, I hope they stop their quest. Most likely if we go to war with them, I'll be part of that and I don't mean this "in thought". another personal 'trolling' attack. (glad to see that you're finally thinking about the world war just around the corner. now, is a world war legal or illegal)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #157 November 17, 2010 Congratulations. You've rendered yourself irrelevant to your own thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #158 November 17, 2010 Quote Quote and we're all waiting for the illegal settlement building to stop. either it does or the us loses face big time. It is only illegal if there is a law against it.Could you please cite the law that indicates their actions as illegal, please. I'm still waiting.If you cannot produce such a law, just say that you cannot do so. You're asking for an Israeli law that indicates the illegality of the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory? Really? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #159 November 17, 2010 Your original post: Quote war or peace... Quote Israel today risked provoking fresh US anger when a plan to build 800 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel was disclosed hours after the Obama administration expressed "deep disappointment" at approval for more than 1,300 Jewish homes in East Jerusalem. The plan for the homes, in an area of Ariel close to the Palestinian town of Salfit, was reported to be at an advanced stage, needing only the approval of the local planning and building committee. The disclosure drew a furious reaction from the Palestinians, who said it was time for the international community to immediately recognise a Palestinian state on the pre-occupation 1967 borders. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator, said: "Once more, at the moment when we expected Prime Minister Netanyahu to announce a full settlement freeze ... he has sent Palestinians and the US administration a clear message that Israel chooses settlements, not peace." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/09/israeli-settlement-homes-ariel-west-bank Taking it piece by piece - Quote Israel today risked provoking fresh US anger when a plan to build 800 homes in the West Bank settlement of Ariel was disclosed hours after the Obama administration expressed "deep disappointment" at approval for more than 1,300 Jewish homes in East Jerusalem. I don't see anything there where it says that there is any illegal activity going on, just that it goes against what Obama thinks. Quote The plan for the homes, in an area of Ariel close to the Palestinian town of Salfit, was reported to be at an advanced stage, needing only the approval of the local planning and building committee. Still doesn't sound very illegal - it seems like this has been planned for quite some time and is just now being implemented Quote The disclosure drew a furious reaction from the Palestinians, who said it was time for the international community to immediately recognise a Palestinian state on the pre-occupation 1967 borders. OK - So it pissed off the palestinians - BIG SURPRISE - Isreal could implode and vanish like Atlantis, and the Palestinians would still be finding something to be outraged about. Quote Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator, said: "Once more, at the moment when we expected Prime Minister Netanyahu to announce a full settlement freeze ... he has sent Palestinians and the US administration a clear message that Israel chooses settlements, not peace. This is OBVIOUSLY an opinion. The message that I see it brings is that Isreal is tired of putting up with falseness and ingenuine talks. More importantly, I think they like the view better there.Nowhere is it stated that it is illegal. Isreal is completely within their rights to do this. I am sure there are some people out there that believe that Isreal should stop building until an agreement can be made. That really sucks for them. They shouldn't have done what they did in the past. They got their asses handed to them. After that offers were made and rejected by the palestinians. They were given ample opportunity to compromise. they refused. They have made their bed, time to sleep in it. If the Palestinians wanted a different outcome they should have chosen better leaders to represent them.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #160 November 17, 2010 and now can you provide the german law that made it illegal to strip the jews of their rights, property and then their lives?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #161 November 17, 2010 Godwin confiscated your post - Sorry. I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #162 November 17, 2010 Quote If the Palestinians wanted a different outcome they should have chosen better leaders to represent them. Though shall not answer trolls."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #163 November 17, 2010 Quote Quote If the Palestinians wanted a different outcome they should have chosen better leaders to represent them. Though shall not answer trolls. is that your advice to me about turtle's pointless question?stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #164 November 17, 2010 It was a pretty ridiculous question in my opinion. Juanesky seems to want an answer though so....... "October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Yet Israeli settlements are still built on Palestinian land in violation of its own laws, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm and not giving a crap what the US thinks. http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258 That's the Israeli law. International laws consider them all illegal. wiki summary Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
futuredivot 0 #165 November 17, 2010 Quote keep dancing on that legal/illegal pin Or you could, if possible, back up your statement. If it's not supportable you can admit that you screwed the pooch and move on. Personally, I'm still wondering where the US anger comes from. My representative sample of one isn't angry. I don't know of any Americans that are angry. Is there anything you have stated that is anything but your usual fodder of alternet Israel bashing? But don't stop-I haven't installed my Sirius receiver in the new car and am jonesing for the comedy stations.You are only as strong as the prey you devour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #166 November 17, 2010 QuoteIt was a pretty ridiculous question in my opinion. Juanesky seems to want an answer though so....... "October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Yet Israeli settlements are still built on Palestinian land in violation of its own laws, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm and not giving a crap what the US thinks. http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258 That's the Israeli law. International laws consider them all illegal. wiki summary nicely done...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #167 November 17, 2010 QuoteIt was a pretty ridiculous question in my opinion. Juanesky seems to want an answer though so....... "October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Yet Israeli settlements are still built on Palestinian land in violation of its own laws, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6168752.stm and not giving a crap what the US thinks. http://www.haaretz.com/news/settlements-grow-on-arab-land-despite-promises-made-to-u-s-1.203258 That's the Israeli law. International laws consider them all illegal. wiki summary And here is your loop hole. then. Quotethere needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. If they can prove that it is a security reason - then - voila - issues solved.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #168 November 17, 2010 Quotenicely done... Perhaps you can show me where in this op ed piece that : Quote"October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Is stated?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #169 November 17, 2010 Quote And here is your loop hole. then. Quotethere needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. If they can prove that it is a security reason - then - voila - issues solved. Precisely my point. Israel is using loopholes, labeling all of those yellow areas on the map I posted yesterday as necessary for their security. That way they can justify stealing the land that is not theirs. And as noted on the other links, even private Palestinian land that has not been determined to be "state" land has been stolen as well. Let's not forget that in the eyes of the international community they are all illegal though. So we're back to my original point which is that Israel is stealing land and is not interested in sitting down at a peace table because it hasn't finished stealing land. If some of you are ok with Israel stealing land and treating its inhabitants as second class citizens then that's your prerogative. I'll simply have to disagree and be content that my views coincide with international law and the official stance of the US on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #170 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuote And here is your loop hole. then. Quotethere needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. If they can prove that it is a security reason - then - voila - issues solved. Precisely my point. Israel is using loopholes, labeling all of those yellow areas on the map I posted yesterday as necessary for their security. That way they can justify stealing the land that is not theirs. And as noted on the other links, even private Palestinian land that has not been determined to be "state" land has been stolen as well. Let's not forget that in the eyes of the international community they are all illegal though. So we're back to my original point which is that Israel is stealing land and is not interested in sitting down at a peace table because it hasn't finished stealing land. If some of you are ok with Israel stealing land and treating its inhabitants as second class citizens then that's your prerogative. I'll simply have to disagree and be content that my views coincide with international law and the official stance of the US on this issue. So then you are in favor of trial without an option of a defence attorney then, right?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #171 November 17, 2010 QuoteQuotenicely done... Perhaps you can show me where in this op ed piece that : Quote"October 1979 in the Elon Moreh case, in which the Court ruled that the state could not seize private Palestinian land for the purpose of allowing a settlement to be built. The Court said that, in order to seize land, there needed to be a specific and concrete security reason. Three weeks after the Court’s decision, the Israeli government decided that: the full Cabinet would need to approve the establishment of a new settlement; a settlement could be established only on “state land”; the settlement would need an approved municipal building plan; and the local IDF commander would need to approve the settlement’s municipal boundaries." http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/06/28/israels-settlements-are-shaky-ground Is stated? Sorry, grabbed the wrong link. That case was referred to by the Peace Now investigation that is linked on the BBC piece. http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=781 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #172 November 17, 2010 Sounds like the issue is at LEAST a little unequal here: It is impossible to plumb the depths of the Arab-Israeli conflict, not to speak of formulating proposals for its solution, if no true understanding exists of the full significance of its cardinal characteristic-the extreme asymmetry of its two sides. This asymmetry is manifest not merely in one or two, but in all, of its aspects. It is obvious in such objective data as the comparison between Arab and Israeli territories (of the Arab League states 8,500,000 square miles; of Israel, including presently administered areas, about 28,500); or of the relative population statistics (of the Arab League states 134,000,000; of Israel 3,500,000 citizens); not to mention their contrasting actual and potential wealth. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/26601/yigal-allon/israel-the-case-for-defensible-bordersI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #173 November 17, 2010 Quoteand jews were really not liked in europe in the thirties and forties. what solution would you like to see to the 'palestinian question'? How about tribunals to continue the work of hanging those who helped to deport and murder jews under the auspices of the germans who did so much for human rights. The people you are supporting are just trying to carry on all the work done to rid the world of jews. From Wiki Palestine [edit] Arabs A Palestinian Arab nationalist and a Muslim religious leader, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammad Amin al-Husayni worked for the Nazi Germany as a propagandist and a recruiter of Muslim volunteers for the Waffen SS and other units. On November 28, 1941, Hitler officially received al-Husayni in Berlin. Hitler made a declaration that after "...the last traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been obliterated... the German army would... gain the southern exit of Caucasus... the Führer would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the Vernichtung des... Judentums ['destruction of the Jewish element', sometimes taken to be a euphemism for 'annihilation of the Jews'] living under British protection in Arab lands.."[36] The Mufti spent the remainder of the war assisting with the formation of Muslim Waffen SS units in the Balkans and the formation of schools and training centers for imams and mullahs who would accompany the Muslim SS and Wehrmacht units. Beginning in 1943, al-Husayni was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions. The largest of which was the 13th "Handschar" division of 21,065 men. In 1944, al-Husayni sponsored an unsuccessful chemical warfare assault on the Jewish community in Palestine. Five parachutists were supplied with maps of Tel Aviv, canisters of a German–manufactured "fine white powder," and instructions from the Mufti to dump chemicals into the Tel Aviv water system. District police commander Fayiz Bey Idrissi later recalled, "The laboratory report stated that each container held enough poison to kill 25,000 people, and there were at least ten containers."[37] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #174 November 17, 2010 the palestinians are trying to get a homeland of their own - same as the israelis have done.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #175 November 17, 2010 Quotethe palestinians are trying to get a homeland of their own - same as the israelis have done. I guess they should have chosen better leaders and linguists to go to "The Tables" the first few times then, eh?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
