Should Hamas support rallies in Canada be stopped?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Where can I find documents that the goal of the UN is a one-world government?  
 

I don’t think the UN is particularly effective at stopping wars, or passing effective resolutions when nations get  out of line.  
 

But their work outside of the member nations voting on resolutions  is quite amazing.  It has laid the groundwork for many treaties among nations with regard to things like stopping over-fishing, food security, health issues like Ebola and AIDS….  The list goes on.  
 

If you’re judging the UN based solely on when the nations get together and try to come up with an agreement over some conflict you’re mistaken in a couple ways:

• It is the fault of the nations involved, not the UN, when the world can’t agree on a topic. 
• You ignore the vast amount of work the UN does. 

Would you not say that a major problem is how the UN is set up, with a very limited amount of nations having the powers of veto...instead of actually counting votes and the most wins...now you have the power of veto, which any of these privileged nations can say no when it wants to...regardless of how good the resolution is or not...

UN or UN attempts to stop conflict have been mostly ranked as failures...more than 95% of them...and your right the UN has made some fantastic resolutions that have improved the global community...But becasue of the way it is set up it could have made thousands more, but it has a limit of scope and powers to really effect change where it is needed...That and all you have to do as a nation is not sign on to that resolution , and never have to abide by it...or unsign when it is convenient there is no consequences or fines, or anything...even if your a signatory what is the real consequences of just ignoring it..

I think your giving the UN to much respect for the lack of a better word, when it comes to influencing global issues, it is nothing more than a frame work which can guide nations in their existence, they can either take that guidance or leave it at the curb...  

[TreeBeard]

33 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

it may not be roses and unicorns you and others may think....

What do you think the advantages would be ? 

Where did I say I was in favour of a one-world government?   Or that it would be better than what we have?  

[TreeBeard]

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Would you not say that a major problem is how the UN is set up, with a very limited amount of nations having the powers of veto...instead of actually counting votes and the most wins...

No, I wouldn’t say that’s an issue.  The security council is probably a necessity.  I don’t think most nations on earth should have the same voting power as others.  
 

If anything, the security council should be restricted to nations that meet certain criteria;  that being full democracies committed to following the rule of law.  They should also have to be members of the International Court of Justice.  I don’t think anything other than a full democracy should have any sort of veto power. 
 

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I think your giving the UN to much respect for the lack of a better word, when it comes to influencing global issues, it is nothing more than a frame work which can guide nations in their existence, they can either take that guidance or leave it at the curb...  

Is that the UN’s fault that it has no enforcement powers?  Of course not.  All they can do is offer solutions.  If a nation chooses not to follow it, that’s not the fault of the UN.  
 

Your argument against the UN seems to be that it should have MORE power, like a one-world government might…

Edited November 17, 2023 by TreeBeard

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

The body of some women does not really show me as to who is parading her around or as to why she was being paraded around. It is a picture of a woman being driven around in a truck. Was she an Israeli or a Palestinian? Well? 

Those pictures you posted does not show me all those pictures and videos of dead Israeli people or dead babies. Those pictures are only showing the destruction of buildings and vehicles. Nice try though. I want to see those terrible nasty pictures of pictures and videos of those dead Israeli victims and dead babies. Then i will believe all that you say. 

So, give me something better as proof? Geez, is that so hard to do? ?

Are the pictures and videos of Gaza really of Gaza? Maybe they're from Afghanistan, or Iraq...

Maybe Israel and Gaza don't really exist, and this is just a movie. Have you ever been to Gaza yourself? Have you ever been to Israel? This could all be fake. 

Only you know the truth...

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Are the pictures and videos of Gaza really of Gaza? Maybe they're from Afghanistan, or Iraq...

Mars.  $#$#&( Israelis have been harassing mars for generations now. FREE CYDONIA!!!!

 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

So you're admitting that they kidnapped 200+ people, killed 7x as many more, some of the hostages were killed, they fired 10,000+ bombs at civilian targets, but they're probably a swell bunch of guys... ?

Lots of Jews survived Auschwitz. Was Auschwitz ok too?

I really wanna know what you think about that. I don't think that you have it in you to say "Auschwitz was bad". 

Well, that is the number that your Israeli media has said that were kidnapped, and not me. The rest of your sentence applies to Israel. The Jews are the ones that have killed many Palestinian people, way more than Hamas killing Jews. I guess that must mean that the Israeli military is a swell bunch of guys also, right? 

I do not give a crap about what happened at Auschwitz. It was a prison concentration camp where not only Jews died. Strange that you only show concern for the Jews at Auschwitz? Why is that? The Jews were not only the prisoners there. 

Lot's of Russians survived Stalin's gulag. Was the Stalin's gulags okay with you? 

Stalin's Gulags and Auschwitz were not great places to be at anytime during the war. 

I know that you are trying to say, I gotcha, but it's not working for you so far. Aw geez whiz. LOL.

[taxme]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Are the pictures and videos of Gaza really of Gaza? Maybe they're from Afghanistan, or Iraq...

Maybe Israel and Gaza don't really exist, and this is just a movie. Have you ever been to Gaza yourself? Have you ever been to Israel? This could all be fake. 

Only you know the truth...

I can believe that those pictures that you have shown could easily be pictures from Afghanistan or Iraq. But I cannot deny that I have seen pictures of Gaza and their bombed out cities and buildings. 

It would be nice if Israel and Gaza did not exist. Then I would not be wasting my fkn time talking to you or those other Israeli supporters who believe that Israel is all innocent and Hamas is all guilty as charged. It may well become a movie one day. Of course, we all know as to who would win the war in the end, right? 

No, i have never been to Gaza nor Israel and have no desire to do so. I have been to Egypt and Turkey though. I enjoyed visiting the ruins of Ephases?? in Turkey and the pyramids in Egypt. What does Israel or Gaza have to show? 

Ir would appear to me that you seem to feel that you know all and i know nothing. But the truth is out there somewhere. 

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

What is wrong with one-world government? 

It would sure be a hell of a lot easier to keep an eye on one than the 200 or so that we have now.

Its too easy for people and corporations that are often as powerful as countries to use them like a shell game for avoiding taxes, accountability and the law.

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Where did I say I was in favor of a one-world government?   Or that it would be better than what we have?  

I didn't say you were in favor, you made it sound like that with the statement below, perhaps i read to much into if so my bad.

Quote

What is wrong with one-world government? 

 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I didn't say you were in favor, you made it sound like that with the statement below, perhaps i read to much into if so my bad.

 

I was responding to this:

Quote

Globalists such as the U.N. are working to establish a one-world government.

so if I am asking someone why they oppose it, why does that mean I am for it?  Or why would I need to provide the positives?  

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

No, I wouldn’t say that’s an issue.  The security council is probably a necessity.  I don’t think most nations on earth should have the same voting power as others.  
 

If anything, the security council should be restricted to nations that meet certain criteria;  that being full democracies committed to following the rule of law.  They should also have to be members of the International Court of Justice.  I don’t think anything other than a full democracy should have any sort of veto power. 
 

Is that the UN’s fault that it has no enforcement powers?  Of course not.  All they can do is offer solutions.  If a nation chooses not to follow it, that’s not the fault of the UN.  
 

Your argument against the UN seems to be that it should have MORE power, like a one-world government might…

I would say it is the main reason it does not function properly, my question would why would everyone's vote not count as one vote.. why do you need 5  permanent members with the power of veto...

And yet 2 out of the 5 permanent members that have the power of veto are dictatorships, Russia and China...kind of blows your theory of being a full democracy out of the water.

My question would be why have an organization, who is powerless to enforce anything, and that nations can opt in or out of any resolution on a whim...meaning even if it could enforce policies', a country can simply opt in and out when it is convenient...really your depending on the good will of a nation to follow the rules , except when it is inconvenient....sounds like an organization that has no powers or ways to enforce any of them and is basically useless... 

My argument is the UN does have a space or role to play globally, but it is very limited...and it is controlled by 5 nations with the power of veto... It has no power, and it should stick to what it specializes in...which is very little... 

11 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

I was responding to this:

so if I am asking someone why they oppose it, why does that mean I am for it?  Or why would I need to provide the positives?  

Normally when someone asks why not a global government it refers to you be in favor, or like i said i may have read to much into it.

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Normally when someone asks why not a global government it refers to you be in favor, or like i said i may have read to much into it.

You certainly did read into it, when you could just ask.  

My view is that I have heard nothing that I would oppose.  I agree with @eyeball’s last post about tax havens being eliminated. But, I also think it’s science fiction;  it’s simply not viable.  It’s like listing all the pros and cons of teleportation, ala Star Trek. 
 

25 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

My argument is the UN does have a space or role to play globally, but it is very limited...and it is controlled by 5 nations with the power of veto... It has no power, and it should stick to what it specializes in...which is very little... 

OK.  My view is that they mostly do really great work, but that’s not what the media (you) focus on.   
As I said, ideally, the security council wouldn’t be made up of despots, but of democracies who want to make the world a better place.  Under my criteria, the USA wouldn’t be on the security council either. 
 

 

[Army Guy]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

You certainly did read into it, when you could just ask.  

My view is that I have heard nothing that I would oppose.  I agree with @eyeball’s last post about tax havens being eliminated. But, I also think it’s science fiction;  it’s simply not viable.  It’s like listing all the pros and cons of teleportation, ala Star Trek. 
 

OK.  My view is that they mostly do really great work, but that’s not what the media (you) focus on.   
As I said, ideally, the security council wouldn’t be made up of despots, but of democracies who want to make the world a better place.  Under my criteria, the USA wouldn’t be on the security council either. 
 

 

Like i said already my bad if i did...

Well we have not evolved as humans to even make it work, we are to diverse globally to even come up with a plan let alone to execute...

Well so much for a global power,  and for the same reasons is why the UN is so ineffective at most things...or things i focus on.... being on the military side of things the whole peace keeping thing is a total failure...becasue of civilians playing generals never work...and that works for most fields the UN has their hands into...there are other organizations out there that do a much better job becasue it is what they specialize in. 

But the US has the means to enforce resolutions...it is what it does....the worlds police men. 

[DUI_Offender]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:11 PM, impartialobserver said:

the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

As it stands today, the whole idea that Israel is committing "genocide" is absurd.  Even if 10,000+ Palestinians have been killed in this war, that is only 0.2% of the population. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have done so years ago.

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

As it stands today, the whole idea that Israel is committing "genocide" is absurd.  Even if 10,000+ Palestinians have been killed in this war, that is only 0.2% of the population. If Israel wanted to commit genocide, they would have done so years ago.

Well this is the thing.

Now - there are claims that they intend genocide not in the sense of killing everyone but kicking them out of their country and relocating them some where else (and that is a recognized form of genocide, when you do it to destroy the people's society) but so far that hasn't happened, and what's happening now isn't genocide or even close,

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, taxme said:

Well, that is the number that your Israeli media has said that were kidnapped, and not me. The rest of your sentence applies to Israel. The Jews are the ones that have killed many Palestinian people, way more than Hamas killing Jews. I guess that must mean that the Israeli military is a swell bunch of guys also, right? 

I do not give a crap about what happened at Auschwitz. It was a prison concentration camp where not only Jews died. Strange that you only show concern for the Jews at Auschwitz? Why is that? The Jews were not only the prisoners there. 

Lot's of Russians survived Stalin's gulag. Was the Stalin's gulags okay with you? 

Stalin's Gulags and Auschwitz were not great places to be at anytime during the war. 

I know that you are trying to say, I gotcha, but it's not working for you so far. Aw geez whiz. LOL.

I don't have to say gotcha after you've already proven that you're a loonie.

1) The Jews don't "kill Palestinians". Palestine and India were partitioned at the same time, and the Palestinians were treated far better than the Sikhs and Hindus were at the time. A million Sikhs and Hindus were killed vs less than a thousand Palestinians. Still, the Palestinians have chosen to be at war this whole time. I'll reiterate: the Palestinians have chosen to be at war this whole time. 

2) The Palestinians MO is to sacrifice enough of their women and children to foment enough hatred of the Jews to bring about a genocide. 

If that's not what they're doing then what are they doing?

3) Why is it that NO middle eastern countries have allowed Palestinians to immigrate to their countries in all this time? 

Do you really think that Iran et all want peace? All it would have taken was about three hundred thousand muslims to split up into the 12 countries on earth that are so islamic that they still have the death penalty on the books for apostasy. That's less than 30,000 per country.

If that seems like a lot, just remember that the Pakistanis killed more than 300,000 people and then 300,000 more and then 300,000 more and about 100,00-300,000 more.

If that seems like a lot, just remember that several million people emigrated from Syria and Iraq when islamic state was committing genocide there. 

It would have been that easy to create peace 70 years ago, but the muslims chose 70 years of misery, just because it pains them so much to see Jews living in the Holy Land with a bit of sovereignty instead of living as second-class citizens.

4) So I ask you: why are the muslims so fine with Pakistan and so upset about Palestine?

Answer: It's just bigotry - it has absolutely nothing to do with humanitarianism.  

[taxme]

On 11/18/2023 at 9:15 AM, WestCanMan said:

I don't have to say gotcha after you've already proven that you're a loonie.

1) The Jews don't "kill Palestinians". Palestine and India were partitioned at the same time, and the Palestinians were treated far better than the Sikhs and Hindus were at the time. A million Sikhs and Hindus were killed vs less than a thousand Palestinians. Still, the Palestinians have chosen to be at war this whole time. I'll reiterate: the Palestinians have chosen to be at war this whole time. 

2) The Palestinians MO is to sacrifice enough of their women and children to foment enough hatred of the Jews to bring about a genocide. 

If that's not what they're doing then what are they doing?

3) Why is it that NO middle eastern countries have allowed Palestinians to immigrate to their countries in all this time? 

Do you really think that Iran et all want peace? All it would have taken was about three hundred thousand muslims to split up into the 12 countries on earth that are so islamic that they still have the death penalty on the books for apostasy. That's less than 30,000 per country.

If that seems like a lot, just remember that the Pakistanis killed more than 300,000 people and then 300,000 more and then 300,000 more and about 100,00-300,000 more.

If that seems like a lot, just remember that several million people emigrated from Syria and Iraq when islamic state was committing genocide there. 

It would have been that easy to create peace 70 years ago, but the muslims chose 70 years of misery, just because it pains them so much to see Jews living in the Holy Land with a bit of sovereignty instead of living as second-class citizens.

4) So I ask you: why are the muslims so fine with Pakistan and so upset about Palestine?

Answer: It's just bigotry - it has absolutely nothing to do with humanitarianism.  

It's pretty much plain to see why Arabs despises Jews. They stole some Arab lands in 1948. They did not pay for that land, they just took it. Would you be happy if someone stole a part of your land from you, would you be happy?

Never mind all that gobilty-gook about Pakistan. I do not really give a crap about what went on in that part of the world centuries ago. Should we start another war over that now? Hey, why not, eh. Might as well get another war going to make the you know who more richer. 

(4)You are asking me? Why should i even give a crap? Israel, Gaza or Pakistan are all just shitty little parts of the world to me. They are always fighting among themselves. We do not see western countries fighting against each other like they do over there in those somewhat backwards countries. 

So, i will ask you? Where did the name Palestine come from? Was the name Palestine pulled out of the hat way back when? No one here so far has been able to tell me. You appear to want to look smart and a know-it-all, so where did the name Palestine come from? Well? 

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, taxme said:

So, i will ask you? Where did the name Palestine come from? Was the name Palestine pulled out of the hat way back when? No one here so far has been able to tell me. You appear to want to look smart and a know-it-all, so where did the name Palestine come from? Well? 

Funny how you can't seem to do a search on Google or any search engine to come up with the answer.  Far as I know, almost everybody knows how to search a word or question.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

It's pretty much plain to see why Arabs despises Jews. They stole some Arab lands in 1948. They did not pay for that land, they just took it. Would you be happy if someone stole a part of your land from you, would you be happy?

The Jews took land from 1/15th as many Arabs as the Pakistanis took from Sikhs and Hindus. Go look it up. About 700,000 Arabs were affected, more than 10M Sikhs and Hindus were affected. 

The Pakistanis killed 1,000 times as many people. The Jews killed less than 1,000, the Pakistanis killed over 1,000,000. 

Arabs forgave the Pakistanis. Then the Pakistanis committed a second genocide that was even bigger. Still the Arabs don't complain.

1948 is just an excuse for islamic religious bigotry. If they forgave Pakistan then they should have forgiven Israel 100x as much.

Quote

Never mind all that gobilty-gook about Pakistan. I do not really give a crap about what went on in that part of the world centuries ago. Should we start another war over that now? Hey, why not, eh. Might as well get another war going to make the you know who more richer. 

1947 taxme. Literally just 9 months before Israel.

15x as many people were displaced from Pakistan and 1,000x as many people were killed.

The Arabs instantly forgave them.

 

Then the Pakistanis committed an even bigger genocide in 1971. Between 2-3M people killed. Just 52 years ago, not "centuries". 

The Arabs instantly forgave them, again.

Quote

(4)You are asking me? Why should i even give a crap? Israel, Gaza or Pakistan are all just shitty little parts of the world to me. They are always fighting among themselves. We do not see western countries fighting against each other like they do over there in those somewhat backwards countries. 

You've taken a side, that's why I'm asking you. 

You think that 1948 is unforgivable but 1947 was 100x worse and apparently it was 100% forgivable. 1971 was also 100x worse and apparently it was 100% forgivable for Pakistan to commit a second massive genocide. 

If Pakistan kills another 3M people tomorrow, the Arabs won't give a fork - as long as it's not Arabs that they're killing. 

Quote

So, i will ask you? Where did the name Palestine come from? Was the name Palestine pulled out of the hat way back when? No one here so far has been able to tell me. You appear to want to look smart and a know-it-all, so where did the name Palestine come from? Well? 

Gaza is basically "Palestine" of old. 

It was called Philistia in ancient times, the Greek name for it was "Palestine".

If you take what's currently "Gaza", and extend it northwards to extend past Ashkelon, that's basically old-skool Palestine.  

That area was part of different empires over the centuries. I couldn't name 1/4 of them. 

I recommend you turn the sound off lol. 

This timeline takes 8 minutes and 30 seconds. The area was known as Palestine from 7:41 to 7:53 on that timeline. 12 seconds out of 510 seconds, so it has barely ever been known as that, and only by British reckoning. It was Israel from 7:53 - 8:30, 37 seconds of the timeline. 3x as long.  

 

FYI I'm not claiming to know all of that, but I did know that their name comes from the Philistines of the bible era, and that the region is where Gaza currently is. 

I found out that Askelon was part of it on a Google search just now. I even had to look back to make sure that I spelled it right the second time.

Edited November 21, 2023 by WestCanMan

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

It's pretty much plain to see why Arabs despises Jews. They stole some Arab lands in 1948.

that's not a good reason to dispise anyone today,

 

2 hours ago, taxme said:

I do not really give a crap about what went on in that part of the world centuries ago. Should we start another war over that now?

You're Literally advocating for doing just that with your first comment.

[OftenWrong]

On 11/17/2023 at 2:02 PM, impartialobserver said:

we are all watching this from the sidelines. No one on this forum is on the frontlines and has "boots-on-the-ground" information. Therefore.. all your information is second hand and demands that you believe it. 

Yeah but it's fun. Did you hear the new Call of Duty - Palestine is coming out?

[WestCanMan]

On 11/17/2023 at 10:47 AM, Michael Hardner said:

1/2 the forum just passed out ? 

The same people think that the nation state was around 1000 years ago just as it is now...

Good job MH. 1-world gov't would be so awesome!

Trump could run it!

No, wait, Biden's teleprompter could run it!

No, not a cracka, it has to be KJU! No, the Ayatollah! Xi! The Pope! Trudeau! (whoops, sorry, them's crackas too, but at least they're trustworthy) Boris Johnson? (DOH!) Oprah? Empress Oprah.... Geez, luckily she's not sexist or racist at all...

Help me out here, I'm running out of great ideas (don't die from shock).

Who would run this b1tch? Who could handle all that power, be fair to everyone of every race and religion, and not just horde trillions of dollars and lavish wealth on his cronies?

I know what you're thinking - thanks but no thanks. I'm gonna stay here in God's country and finish growing my webbed feet. 

[CdnFox]

13 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Yeah but it's fun. Did you hear the new Call of Duty - Palestine is coming out?

I hear the final boss is Rashida Talib.

[taxme]

17 hours ago, blackbird said:

Funny how you can't seem to do a search on Google or any search engine to come up with the answer.  Far as I know, almost everybody knows how to search a word or question.

I did, did you?  

[taxme]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

that's not a good reason to dispise anyone today,

 

You're Literally advocating for doing just that with your first comment.

It is always your globalist zionist bankster ilk that keeps on looking for more wars to start up because they make lots and lots of moola from wars. You know that and so do so y others. It's too bad that we still have politicians around who still ass kiss those warmongering buffoons. They hate Trump because Trump believes in peace and not wars. ?