Jump to content

Grits, Tories battle for Jewish support in next election


Recommended Posts

Another "misunderstanding" of plain English, Dobbin? OK, let's try again: there's been a 70% increase in illegal settlements in the last two decades, which is a clear and massive violation of the settlements agenda, and what did your "peaceful" strategy do about it in real, practical measures, like those that have been applied to the other side for its violations?

You called Oslo a success. However, it didn't deal with any of your main issues.

The roadmap was a process to go from one place to the next in terms of reducing violence and removing setlements.

You want it done all at once.

Try again, and I'll hold you to it until you either provide examples of such measures, or admit that your strategy is obviously one sided and therefore useless and bankrupt as a genuine, in good faith approach to mediation.

You haven't said whether you think Hamas is a terrorist organization or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You called Oslo a success. However, it didn't deal with any of your main issues.

It's becoming very obvious Dobbin that you will not post those examples, and I think I may know why, because they simply do not exist in this reality. And that obvious reality makes you "peaceful" strategy severely lopsided, and therefore useless and even counter productive for the real process of peace. No spinny words will hide that obvious truth and it will be there staring at you no matter what commendable effort you'd make to not see it, until at some future and hypothetical moment of time you'll learn to recognise the reality and change your wonderful strategy to reflect it closer, and maybe then, at that hypothetical moment, your claims to fame as a genuine and real agent for peace could become something more than just empty claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's becoming very obvious Dobbin that you will not post those examples, and I think I may know why, because they simply do not exist in this reality. And that obvious reality makes you "peaceful" strategy severely lopsided, and therefore useless and even counter productive for the real process of peace. No spinny words will hide that obvious truth and it will be there staring at you no matter what commendable effort you'd make to not see it, until at some future and hypothetical moment of time you'll learn to recognise the reality and change your wonderful strategy to reflect it closer, and maybe then, at that hypothetical moment, your claims to fame as a genuine and real agent for peace could become something more than just empty claims.

It is obvious that you don't think Hamas is a terrorist organization that Canada should not deal with. No spinny words will hide the truth.

As for Oslo, you think it covered your main concerns?

Edited by jdobbin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dobbin, you're avoiding the same question that was asked of you long before you woke up with that wonderful idea of sidetracking on Oslo and terrorism. And I'll certainly answer your curiousity the moment you provide requested examples, or admit that your strategy is obviously one-sided, and then explain logically how such one-sided approach could be conductive to anything but continuation and escalation of conflict. I hope you can come up with one (examples) or the other (honest admission of obvious reality) soon, or we'll be stuck at this point of our discussion for another extended period, and you'll earn yet another set of great "successes" with your disputing skills.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many racists and bigots can mapleleafweb absorb at one time before it explodes?

Nuke it all from orbit. All of it. Gaza, West bank, Israel, .... let them fight over a piece of glass.

The fighting there won't stop untill all the Palestinians are dead displaced, or Israelis are dead or displaced.

All this because of a 1947 UN resolution.

jdobbin

It is obvious that you don't think Hamas is a terrorist organization that Canada should not deal with. No spinny words will hide the truth.

Irgun was also a terrorist organization.And they began the fight almost a decade before the 1947 UN resolution. The jews were setting them up the bomb by this. So I fail to see your point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Some of the better-known attacks by the Irgun were the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre (accomplished together with Lehi) on 9 April 1948. The Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[2] several media sources,[3][4][5][6][7] and a number of prominent world and Jewish figures.[8][9][10] Irgun attacks prompted a formal declaration from the World Zionist Congress in 1946, which strongly condemned "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare".[11]

The Irgun was a political predecessor to Israel's right-wing Herut (or "Freedom") party, which led to today's Likud party. Likud has led or been part of most Israeli governments since 1977.

So the modern Isreal government was founded on terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jdobbin

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9178/kach_k...extremists.html

Introduction

Kach is a hard-line Israeli militant group that advocates for the expulsion of Arabs from the biblical lands of Israel. The U.S. State Department listed it as a terrorist organization in 1994. Kach, as well as the splinter group Kahane Chai, condones violence as a viable method for establishing a religiously homogenous state. The group has not staged a large terrorist attack since 1994, although people affiliated with the groups have been arrested for “low-level attacks” since 2000, according to the State Department’s 2006 Country Report. In 2006 a U.S. Federal Court upheld that Kach was rightly listed as a terrorist organization in an appeal.

There are terrorists in jewishland as well. Not all terrorists scream 'Allah Ackbar'!!!

I really want to open a restaurant with middle east cuisine. I'd call it Allah Ackbar'n'grill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't adivise to sidetrack on a search for a guilty party. There's certainly a lot of bad blood in that place and I could hardly think that any of the sides would qualify for the wings / horns (Dobbin may be of a different opinion). So I'd rather focus the question on something that concerns us and relates to us directly, i.e. our own view, and acts in this conflict. It's very obvious (proven with facts) that our position, that of West in general, and Canada specifically, has been severely skewed to one side, despite numerous proven facts that both sides have committed gross and massive violations of peace agendas. So the question remains, why so? What do the have to gain by supporting one side in the conflict, and thus delaying its resolution, and increasing its cost, in lives, destructions, delayed development, and so on? Why could we not assume an honest, impartial position, based on our cherished (back home) principles of fairness and justice, and be an honest mediator working genuinly and in good faith for the cause of peace (if we simply can't help doing something), or, short of that, just let it go and mind our own business?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't adivise to sidetrack on a search for a guilty party. There's certainly a lot of bad blood in that place and I could hardly think that any of the sides would qualify for the wings / horns (Dobbin may be of a different opinion). So I'd rather focus the question on something that concerns us and relates to us directly, i.e. our own view, and acts in this conflict. It's very obvious (proven with facts) that our position, that of West in general, and Canada specifically, has been severely skewed to one side, despite numerous proven facts that both sides have committed gross and massive violations of peace agendas. So the question remains, why so? What do the have to gain by supporting one side in the conflict, and thus delaying its resolution, and increasing its cost, in lives, destructions, delayed development, and so on? Why could we not assume an honest, impartial position, based on our cherished (back home) principles of fairness and justice, and be an honest mediator working genuinly and in good faith for the cause of peace (if we simply can't help doing something), or, short of that, just let it go and mind our own business?

When Hamas officially recognizes the right of Israel to exist, and not just Arafat-style, but openly proclaims within the Palestinian territories, then I think I'd be more willing to see their side. But seeing as Hamas is basically just an arm of Tehran, it's clear that they're not just siding against Israel, but against the West as well. So maybe stack on top of that a public declaration severing all ties with the Butchers of Qom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to open a restaurant with middle east cuisine. I'd call it Allah Ackbar'n'grill.

I would like to open a chicken n wings emorium..I would call it Sam 'N Ella Chicken Paradise...

Who do you think would be out of business first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dobbin, you're avoiding the same question that was asked of you long before you woke up with that wonderful idea of sidetracking on Oslo and terrorism.

You're the one who said Oslo was a success. Elaborate.

You also appear to indicate that you don't support identifying Hamas as a terrorist organization.

And I'll certainly answer your curiousity the moment you provide requested examples, or admit that your strategy is obviously one-sided, and then explain logically how such one-sided approach could be conductive to anything but continuation and escalation of conflict. I hope you can come up with one (examples) or the other (honest admission of obvious reality) soon, or we'll be stuck at this point of our discussion for another extended period, and you'll earn yet another set of great "successes" with your disputing skills.

Your strategy seems to favour Hamas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irgun was also a terrorist organization.And they began the fight almost a decade before the 1947 UN resolution. The jews were setting them up the bomb by this. So I fail to see your point.

And we didn't recognize them either. You think we should have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can run Dobbin but you won't hide. It should be obvioius by now that those examples, of Canada and West acting against the ongoing and massive expansion of settlements, simply do not exist, and therefore the policy you advocate is one sided and despite all you have to say, leads not to the peace but away from it. And it isn't even much different from what we know have from the Harpers bunch, so looks like in things international (as in most things these days, other than pompous rthetorics) Liberals are quickly catching up with the political standard of the day.

And we didn't recognize them either. You think we should have?

But you recognized them as soon as they achieved their goals, right? Quelle difference!

To ToadBrother:

There's no obligation on any one state to recognise another state. If you'd bother to look around with a fresh, unobscured by idelogical prejudice sight, you'll find any number of states that wouldn't recognise another state, and still would exist peacefully without attracting justful attention of our "peacemakers". Why is it stressed so often in this case, to the extent that people who wouldn't stop to think about it independently start repeating the mantra, is yet another paradox of this ostensibly peaceful strategy that doesn't seem to have many actual connections to peace? I'd venture a guess though, Israel wants to be recognized (without dealing with the past sins of the way it's been created) and its mighthy friends could not but oblige, as they always do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can run Dobbin but you won't hide. It should be obvioius by now that those examples, of Canada and West acting against the ongoing and massive expansion of settlements, simply do not exist, and therefore the policy you advocate is one sided and despite all you have to say, leads not to the peace but away from it. And it isn't even much different from what we know have from the Harpers bunch, so looks like in things international (as in most things these days, other than pompous rthetorics) Liberals are quickly catching up with the political standard of the day.

The support for Hamas on your part is one sided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now you Dobbin are reduced to throwing that standard accusation, so commonly used by "rightwingers" and "conservatives". Normally used as a last resort for the lack of any better, meaningful, substantiated argument. Quelle dommage! But maybe indeed and overall, there wouldn't be much difference, we're talking of course, real, practical difference, between you and them? Think about it.

In any case, it certainly demonstrates that you're out of all meaningful arguments to support your strategy. And that's of no surprise, because to work out a meaningful, genuine peace strategy, attempting if not succeeding due to numerous and serious obstacles, to approach peace, one'd need to first, learn to admit and overcome one's own idelogical biases and secondly, recognise and deal with the reality rather than one's ideas and visions of it.

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And now you Dobbin are reduced to throwing that standard accusation, so commonly used by "rightwingers" and "conservatives". Normally used as a last resort for the lack of any better, meaningful, substantiated argument. Quelle dommage! But maybe indeed and overall, there wouldn't be much difference, we're talking of course, real, practical difference, between you and them? Think about it.

In any case, it certainly demonstrates that you're out of all meaningful arguments to support your strategy. And that's of no surprise, because to work out a meaningful, genuine peace strategy, attempting if not succeeding due to numerous and serious obstacles, to approach peace, one'd need to first, learn to admit and overcome one's own idelogical biases and secondly, recognise and deal with the reality rather than one's ideas and visions of it.

You keep dodging but you won't answer the question: Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You keep dodging but you won't answer the question: Do you think Hamas is a terrorist organization?

Nobody can match yourself Dobbin in that skill, but you know what, I promise to answer that simple question the moment you either provide evidence of real and practical actions against ongoing massive build up of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, or admit that your strategy is clearly one sided and therefore bankrupt as a genuine peace effort. It was asked of you long before you came with this recent deviation, but I fully understand that having nothing to say of real value, you still have to say something...anything

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can match yourself Dobbin in that skill, but you know what, I promise to answer that simple question the moment you either provide evidence of real and practical actions against ongoing massive build up of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, or admit that your strategy is clearly one sided and therefore bankrupt as a genuine peace effort. It was asked of you long before you came with this recent deviation, but I fully understand that having nothing to say of real value, you still have to say something...anything

It is hard to see what the delay is on your part about answering whether you think the Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is dodging on a grand scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody can match yourself Dobbin in that skill, but you know what, I promise to answer that simple question the moment you either provide evidence of real and practical actions against ongoing massive build up of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, or admit that your strategy is clearly one sided and therefore bankrupt as a genuine peace effort. It was asked of you long before you came with this recent deviation, but I fully understand that having nothing to say of real value, you still have to say something...anything

Well...is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer and answer the question for Dobbin, as he appears to have been delayed (for a while now, apparently) with other important issues? As soon as there's some way to ascertain that we could have an intelligible discussion here, I (already) promised to answer that question in full and in honesty.

Oh, and by the way, do you (and you Dobbin, too) think that my answer to that question, whatever it may be, would somehow, anyhow change the obvious fact that there has been no real, practical action against ongoing and massive expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied territories?

Or could be that, finding difficulty in answering a direct and simple factual question, you somehow find it easier (surprise! and a "success" as well!) to sidetrack into discussing the thoughts and beliefs, etc of the messenger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or could be that, finding difficulty in answering a direct and simple factual question, you somehow find it easier (surprise! and a "success" as well!) to sidetrack into discussing the thoughts and beliefs, etc of the messenger?

If you won't answer it for me, answer for people here who may agree with you. Is Hamas a terrorist organization?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

myata: Then the question(s) to you are: Are settlements in the "West Bank" legal or illegal? Does every lawyer agree? When was the West Bank a nation? How did it come into Israeli hands? Why is it such a grey area today?

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was really funny, thank you. "All lawyers agreeing" on anything? Wouldn't it happen the morinng after the pigs take off to South Pole for an annual masquerade party?

Wikipedia: legality of Israeli settlements

"According to the BBC, the "overwhelming view" of the international community is that the settlements are illegal based upon Article 49 of the Geneva Convention. [51]

The consensus view is largely based on UN Security council resolutions, including resolutions 446, 452, 465, 471 and 476 which find the settlements to be illegal. [52]. In Resolution 465 the settlements are even described as a "flagrant violation". Separately also the legal arm of the UN, the International Court of Justice, has found the settlements to be illegal under international law [53].

International human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced the settlements as illegal,[54][55].

The European Union considers the settlements to be illegal[56]. Similarly contracting states to the Geneva Convention declared in 2001 the settlements to be illegal [57].

"

I believe there's now a World Court decision on this issue as well.

It is also telling who supports the legality of settlements (from the same reference):

"Parties in favour of the legality of Israeli settlements

Israel

Anti-Defamation League"

And who does nothing about their continuing expansion (whatever they may say).

I'm not going to comment on this any more though as the question that's been asked clearly still isn't answered ( Dobbin still being tied up with something very imortant :-((

Edited by myata
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...