Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Hamas sympathizer Galloway wins Bradford election

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Hamas sympathizer Galloway wins Bradford election
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 6:28 am Post subject:

The fact that butterfly and Junior are agreeing he is a scumbag makes me think he truly is since those two never agree on anything.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:31 am Post subject:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

Israel shoots kids... Where's the outrage?

Where is the outrage when Israel's enemies like Khomeni kill 30,000?

Or when Saddam kills 300,000 or when Assad burns down a city?

Selective criticism.

northway

Joined: 05 Jul 2010

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:43 pm Post subject:

Junior wrote:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

Israel shoots kids... Where's the outrage?

Where is the outrage when Israel's enemies like Khomeni kill 30,000?

Or when Saddam kills 300,000 or when Assad burns down a city?

Selective criticism.

I'm pretty sure th outrage is there in all those cases. Tie isn't to say that Israel doesn't get a disproportionate amount of criticism. Even so, I think there are legitimate reasons for that criticism, most notably the fact that Israel is our ally whereas the countries you cite are essentially our sworn enemies (or were, in the case of Iraq). Moreover, Israel, ostensibly sharing our liberal democratic values, has much higher expectations placed upon it than authoritarian regimes do (somewhat justifiably so). Claiming anti-Semitism is all well and good, and the accusations probably have some truth to them, but it really oversimplifies the criticism of Israel's actions.

lichtarbeiter

Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:34 am Post subject:

Quote:

Sure, I'll agree that rarely, Israeli forces have accidentally killed Palestinian kids.

Or, as overwhelming evidence indicates, deliberately.

Quote:

But that is a far cry from your wild claims that Israel exists to kill Palestinian children, that this is the driving force and policy within Israel.

Where did I say that? One of Israeli's key policies is to build settlements in the occupied territories and eventually isolate the Palestinians into Bantustans. Killing civilians is not the policy, but simply a means to the end.

Quote:

Ah..the UN? Pshaww.
The same UN that does not care about tens of thousands of deaths in Syria yet passes multiple resolutions against Israel for minor infractions?

Targetting and killing civilians is not minor. The UN's handling of Syria is complicated because of Russia, but in any case that has nothing to do with the ICJ's ruling on Israel.

Quote:

You are naive. Islam has been at war with non-muslims since the 6th century, gradually swallowing chunks of territory and driving out infidels everywhere it has gone. Long, long before Israel was re-established. Giving them another bite-size piece of the planet will not placate them, more likely it will encourage them to even greater efforts.

You're judging Muslims based on their medieval ancestors? We better be careful with those Western Scandinavians too, we all know of the brutality and aggression that's engrained in their culture from their history. Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Millions of muslims live in the west, and in Israel, (which is presumably fine and dandy with you), but yet by your judgement westerners and Jews are are not allowed to live in the middle east?

Where did I say that?

Quote:

Sorry.. but Jews have a right to live, in their historic and documented homeland Israel, and to defend themselves.

Where did I say otherwise? And carrying out a brutal and illegal occupation/blockade is not how a country defends itself. That's how a country jeopardizes its own safety. It's funny how the people who claim to support Israel are the ones who support policies that are the most dangerous for it.

Quote:

If you genuinely care about the deaths of innocent people, go and rant on the Syria thread. They've been deliberately bombing and killing women and children there for the past year.. in case you hadn't noticed.

You would have made a fantastic Soviet Commissar. "Don't blame us, look at what the Afghans are doing to each other." That's standard jingoistic propaganda, and we know what to think of it when it comes from the enemy. Perhaps Hitler should've been given a free pass because Stalin's death count was higher.

If you don't understand why I feel more strongly compelled to criticize Israel's crimes than Syria's crimes, think about which of the two countries is the one that gets diplomatic and financial support from the western countries that we call home. The idea is that you look in the mirror before pointing the finger at your enemy. Again, I direct you to Matthew 7:3-5.

Quote:

Actually that was a ADVISORY OPINION and not legally binding. And when taken to the UN it died a quiet death due to lack of support.

What are you talking about? 11 days after the advisory opinion was issued, the UN passed a resolution that demanded Israel obey the ICJ's ruling. The only countries to vote against it were Israel, the US, (John Howard's) Australia, and three tiny South Pacific countries.

Quote:

It wouldn't be normally, except for the fact that we have allowed into our country millions of people who care more for the "Umma" than they do the state of their adopted country.

So what do you want to do? Prohibit immigration? The solution to the problem is much easier than that. If a country is serious about stopping terrorism, the wisest thing they can do is stop participating in it.

Quote:

Where is the outrage when Israel's enemies like Khomeni kill 30,000?

Or when Saddam kills 300,000 or when Assad burns down a city?

Selective criticism.

To the best of my knowledge, you don't support any of the crimes committed by those individuals. So what would be the point in bringing it up? What's the point in preaching to the choir? So that we can both be right and feel good about ourselves?

Further adding to the absurdity of this argument is the fact that two of those individuals aren't currently alive to commit any further atrocities. Perhaps you'd like to also to have a discussion regarding the crimes of Genghis Khan? Laughing

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

[q.

Quote:

Actually that was a ADVISORY OPINION and not legally binding. And when taken to the UN it died a quiet death due to lack of support.

Link?

lichtarbeiter

Joined: 15 Nov 2006
Location: Korea

Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:44 pm Post subject:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

[q.

Quote:

Actually that was a ADVISORY OPINION and not legally binding. And when taken to the UN it died a quiet death due to lack of support.

Link?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/world/remove-wall-israel-is-told-by-the-un.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Butterfly

Joined: 02 Mar 2003
Location: Kuwait

Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:59 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

The fact that butterfly and Junior are agreeing he is a scumbag makes me think he truly is since those two never agree on anything.

You meet people like him (George Galloway) when you�re at University, well, you did in the 90�s. The kind of people that work on the basic idea that everything we do is bad and evil, and everything foreign dictators do is good and just. Anything bad they do is only because of evil western imperialism etc etc. Black and white. Life is simple; we are bad and they are good. Fortunately most undergraduates grow out of it but George Galloway hasn�t and will strategically overlook the elements of the Islamic world view that are contrary to his otherwise leftist manifesto. That said, he has long since lost any actual political agenda other than the one which serves his own political ambitions and view of himself as being a bit of a statesman. He�ll suck up to the Muslims or anyone for that. He�s a creep.

George Galloway is not someone you can reason with and this is why I loathe him. He thinks we are bad and they are good, black and white. Junior is much the same (though perhaps not as bad), just a mirror image; Israel can do no wrong and anyone who opposes it is bad and probably holds anti-semitic views. Black and white. Simple.

comm

Joined: 22 Jun 2010

Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:08 am Post subject:

Butterfly wrote:

George Galloway is not someone you can reason with and this is why I loathe him. He thinks we are bad and they are good, black and white. Junior is much the same (though perhaps not as bad), just a mirror image; Israel can do no wrong and anyone who opposes it is bad and probably holds anti-semitic views. Black and white. Simple.

Very well put.

Junior

Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye

Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 5:18 am Post subject:

Via.Lichtarbeiter wrote:

The General Assembly approved a resolution overwhelmingly on Tuesday evening demanding that Israel obey a World Court ruling that it abandon and dismantle its separation barrier on the West Bank and pay compensation to Palestinians affected by its construction.

The General Assembly? It has no legal authority. It also the place where Iran and China cut deals like no criticism of Tibet in exchange for China's help against Israel.

Come up w/ something better.

The General Assembly is a joke.

Lichtarbeiter wrote:

carrying out a brutal and illegal occupation/blockade is not how a country defends itself.

Palestinian side ought to give up trying destroy Israel. That is the reason for the occupation. Why ought Israel leave when they have no guarantee that the Palestinian side won't continue their war. Indeed before 1967 Israel didn't have the West Bank or Gaza. What was the problem then?

Quote:

"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."

Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.

Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."

The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."

But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.

Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.

Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.

"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from."

If palestinians want an end to the occupation, why do they prolong it by refusing every offer they get to resolve the issue?

Quote:

Last week The New Yorker magazine revealed that Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, regards Mr Arafat's failure to accept the peace deal brokered by President Bill Clinton in January 2001 as "a crime".
According to the magazine, Prince Bandar met Mr Arafat on his arrival for the talks in Washington and told him: "Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table any more. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we said yes?"
The article states that Saudi's Crown Prince Abdullah told Prince Bandar that he was shocked that Mr Arafat had wasted such an opportunity and complained that the Palestinian chairman had lied to him about the terms of the American offer. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer," Prince Bandar said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/1425412/Palestinian-PM-to-get-instant-call-to-Washington.html

Arafat turned down Bill Clinton's peace plan.

Had he accepted it there would be no occupation or settlements today.

Quote:

During the first weeks of the second Bush Administration, the
Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, met with the new President. Bandar, who is fifty-three and has been the Saudi Ambassador for twenty years, was accustomed to an unusually personal relationship with the White House; he was so close to the President's father, George H. W. Bush, that he was considered almost a member of the family. The Saudi Ambassador had been happy about the younger Bush's victory, but he was worn out by the unpublicized role he had played in the failed negotiations to resolve the Middle East crisis during the last weeks of the Clinton Presidency.

President Clinton had been working on a compromise for years; after the
Monica Lewinsky scandal, he had called this effort part of his "personal journey of atonement." Bush had been briefed on the collapse of the talks and was baffled by Yasir Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian Authority. "Explain one thing to me," he said to Bandar. "I cannot believe somebody will not strike a deal with two desperate people." When Bandar asked what Bush meant by "desperate," Bush explained: President Clinton had been eager to leave office with a settlement in the Middle East, and Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, needed a deal to survive the next election. Bush said that he didn't think Arafat really wanted to solve the problem. Bandar believed that Arafat's failure to accept the deal in January of 2001 was a tragic mistake - a crime, really.

Yet to say so publicly would damage the Palestinian cause, which had been championed by the Saudis, who would then lose any leverage they still had. Bush told Bandar that, unlike Clinton, he did not intend to intervene aggressively.
Bandar left the meeting even more distressed. At the end of the Clinton
Presidency, Bandar had received confidential assurances from Colin Powell, the Secretary of State-designate, that he was to relay to Arafat: the Middle East deal made by Clinton that the new Administration endorsed would be enforced.
Powell warned that the "peace process" would be different under Bush. Bush would not spend hours on the telephone, and Camp David was not going to become a motel. The message was clear, and until the end Bandar had continued to hope: it appeared that Arafat would get almost everything he wanted, and that Bush's Administration, which Bandar saw as more tough-minded than Clinton's, would stand behind the agreement. "I still have not recovered, to be honest with you, inside, from the magnitude of the missed opportunity that January," Bandar told me at his home in McLean, Virginia. "Sixteen hundred Palestinians
dead so far. And seven hundred Israelis dead. In my judgment, not one life of those Israelis and Palestinians dead is justified."

http://www.saudiembassy.net/files/PDF/03-ST-Bandar-0324-NewYorker.pdf

TheUrbanMyth

Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired

Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 6:51 pm Post subject:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

TheUrbanMyth wrote:

lichtarbeiter wrote:

[q.

Quote:

Actually that was a ADVISORY OPINION and not legally binding. And when taken to the UN it died a quiet death due to lack of support.

Link?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/world/remove-wall-israel-is-told-by-the-un.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I'm guessing you missed this part.

Quote:

Resolutions from the 191-member General Assembly are nonbinding and largely symbolic, unlike those passed by the 15-member Security Council.

and this one

Quote:

Mr. Kidwa said before the vote that he would now push for a binding Security Council resolution, even though such a move would draw an American veto.

So as I said before the opinion JUST LIKE THE RESOLUTION was NOT legally binding and the resolution did not take effect due to lack of support (America's veto in other words).

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe