Post by Frank on Apr 13th, 2024 at 5:01pm
Frank wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 4:59pm:
|
| Australian Politics Forum | |
|
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Thinking Globally >> WW3? An informed conservative perspective http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1712872603 Message started by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am |
|
|
Title: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am
Would absolutely love to see constructive comments about the following video. This is conservative dialogue i absolutely agree with almost entirely.
Compelling and brilliantly explored and explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DSSSuhF64s&ab_channel=JudgeNapolitano-JudgingFreedom |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by AusGeoff on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:21am Unfortunately, my attention span doesn't always run to 35 minutes. particularly for a "talking heads" video. Is it possible for you to post half a dozen lines explaining the gist of the interview? Thanks. 8-) |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:26am AusGeoff wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:21am:
Apologies for threatening you with a taxation on your valuable time. May i suggest you sit back and wait and see if anyone else feels compelled to educate themselves about crucial world events and perhaps you can follow a discussion resulting from that? Apologies, i know of no other way to spoon feed you whilst avoiding making points i would prefer the two gentlemen in the clip to make. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:32am Quote:
;D With Mothra's youtube videos. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:35am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:32am:
Indeed. Have you any basis on which to dismiss this? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:41am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:35am:
Yes. Your posts. If someone needs a 30+ minute video to explain themselves, they are either incapable of thinking, or selling "infotainment" to morons. People who insist others watch long youtube videos generally have not reached the realisation that others might be more knowledgeable or have a different perspective than them. Most people get there before primary school. Psychologists mark it as a key stage of development for human beings. I think even some animals show signs of it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:47am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:41am:
But i'm not explaining myself. I am providing outstanding commentary from incredibly knowledgeable and qualified men on the state of play in the wider world. What's more, they are conservative men. I am not a conservative, just in case the layered on innuendo intended to discredit my contribution was lost on you. In short Fleadriver, i thought members of forum might be interested in this clip that i have watched twice through so far, so enthralled was i by it. I thought i'd share. I hoped even that we could find common ground. So sorry that hurts you. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:18am
McGregor is good and 'mostly' on target with his comments.
But he hasn't been privy to the latest 'real' info since Biden came to power. He's running on what he had during the Trump term when he was privy to it all. To understand how WW3 will go about, one must understand first how World Wars - 4, 5, 6, etc go about as the world's people all jostle one another to find their place and purpose in this 'very finite' and now 'very small' world. If it doesn't 'equalise' - then it doesn't work. Simple as that. He definitely also sees it from just an 'American' point of view - which is a flaw in itself. If you are going to discuss 'Global or Worldly' issues - then you must take all eight habitable Region's point of view and influence in the matter to understand the truth of it all. Simple mathematics really. Like I said, McGregor is good - but he's running on fumes and coming up with less as time goes on. If Trump was back in, he might get his old job back and be given the real 'intel' on everything happening currently. Currently though, he's just 'youtubing'. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Bobby. on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:29am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
of course it's WW3 - https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1712740793/15#25 Iran says its imperative to punish Israel could have been avoided had UN Security Council condemned attack. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:31am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:32am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
Douglas Macgregor: Trump 'the only thing standing between us and another pointless war' in Middle East Published December 30, 2019 10:29pm https://www.foxnews.com/media/col-macgregor-trump-the-only-thing-standing-between-us-and-another-pointless-war Fox News’ Invasion Expert Is a Trump-Appointed Putin Propagandist Who Thinks Russia Is Being ‘Too Gentle’ Douglas Macgregor has said there's no point in sanctioning Russia and that America should "absolutely" let Putin take over as much of Ukraine as it wants MARCH 8, 2022 https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/douglas-macgregor-fox-news-tucker-carlson-russia-ukraine-1318143/ Tucker Carlson talked with Col. Douglas Macgregor about the possibility of war with Iran https://www.facebook.com/DailyCaller/videos/tucker-carlson-talks-war-with-iran/372798225080002/ |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:36am Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:32am:
Well done fruitbat! Did you watch the video? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:37am
Mothra here is some information for you. Let me know when you have finished watching it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ql8tzQZqAY |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:40am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 9:37am:
Would you care to describe what it is about and who is speaking on it? I really don;t want to mess with my youtube algorithm. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:15am
The artcicle that prompted the interview
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/will-israels-war-expand/ Bonus: NATO and Europe's need for independence Douglas Macgregor: "Europeans need to take control of their own destiny" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9Z6UscNdjg Timestamps 0:00 Intro 1:48 NATO and Europe's need for independence 10:59 Ukraine 15:45 Status of European and Russian military 18:35 Path to peace in Ukraine and Russia's strategy 31:58 Trump 36:07 China and Taiwan 42:05 Macgregor's advice to European voters |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:17am
What did you learn, fruitbat?
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:38am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:17am:
Nothing new. Macgregor explains larger strategic chessboards. As Steyn said in an interview with him 4 years ago, "America is a tourist in the heart of darkness". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDFcyWHAU0o I don't believe that Israel is aiming to eradicate the population of Gaza. That is far fetched. On Ukraine - don't know. It's like the Balkans - always trouble. The Serbs caused WWI and then within a century they almost started another European war and the Americans had to sort them out. America doesn't understand the world and its place in it. It is not there to export democracy and build nations. That was a very stupid doctrine after the fall of the Soviet Union. Every attempt of it failed everywhere it was tried. Opening the borders of America and the West to the world is also a very stupid move. The supreme stupidity of multicultralism and open borders is that it allows ignorance to be evelated to a virtue: you dont need to know anything about the rest of the world, about other cultures, just declare them essentially the same as your own. That is stupid on a global strategic level and on a national 'multicultural'level. The lesson, remaining unlearned: The West is becoming a tourist in the heart of darkness it has been importing into its own jurisdictions and continues to import without let up. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:40am
Four years ago.
Care to be updated? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:41am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:40am:
as the current Macgergor interview you posted shows, nothing has changed not in 4 years but in 20. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:45am Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:41am:
Lies. You didn't watch it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:10am
Mothra cannot comprehend the possibility that people might still disagree with her after watching the same 30 minute youtube video.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:31am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:10am:
Disagree with me how? I haven't stated my opinion. All i wanted to do was share what i thought was an amazingly informative video. I thought because it was conservative in nature i might meet minds on a shared playing field. But look what i got. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:36am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:45am:
Macgregor reiterates the same point because the same point remains unchanged since, as he says, since 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7D5eO5Qg-U |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:36am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:31am:
And all you had to do was insult people for not watching your video. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:38am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:31am:
mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:47am
A very significant point is made at the 10 minute 43 seconds mark, a point I also made in an earlier post on this thread, about the implicatons andd impact on OUR societies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7D5eO5Qg-U |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:49am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:36am:
And I actually watched it all and posted the article that prompted it, as pointed out by Napolitano at the end of the interview. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:49am freediver wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:41am:
My thoughts on the - intriguing* - thread title, without watching the video (which I will do): * intriguing , because conservatives are mostly self-justifying survival of the fittest war-mongers. If WW3 is a direct result of human design, then god (excuse my reference to god) should destroy humanity immediately as a failed species, just as he (she?) threatened to destroy Israel back in the day, requiring Moses's intervention via a few words with god, on behalf of Israel. ....! ..which gets me back to the need for rule of law to outlaw war; speaking of 'educating yourself' - sorely needed in FD's case. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jovial Monk on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:50am Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:38am:
So mothra said the dialogue was conservative—said nothing about the substance of the dialogue. JS is right—you are too stupid to work in a University even as janitor. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:00pm Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 11:50am:
:D :D :D :D You missed the bit where she said she agreed with it almost entirely- now highlighted for the Juvenile Wanker community. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:08pm mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:26am:
Dear Mothra, I admit I can't the tolerate listening to the fool on the right (in the video), especially with the video headed "small government and personal liberty" being the basis of his argument. Please say what he said that you found attractive, to save me 30 mins of agony listening to another conservative delusonal "individual rights" dummy. And do you agree the world needs to outlaw war, to avoid WW3 eg would you vote to abolish the veto in UNSC? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:13pm Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:00pm:
What did i agree with, fruitbat? What do you think Israels objectives are? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:14pm
Mothra? (see my #30)
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:14pm
Israel's objective is to survive as a modern state.
But that state was created on land occupied by Palestinians in the former 'Palestine Mandate' area, against the will of the Arab world. Hence - in the absence of an effective international rules-based system - it's 'game on' ie continuous conflict with Palestinians since Israel's forceful unilateral declaration of its existence. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:14pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Belgarion on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:34pm mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
Can you just skip to the part where he offers proof that the Jews are putting bombs in toys? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 12th, 2024 at 1:17pm
Hmm...I can see why Mothra has got herself into strife with conservatives on this thread.
Like the anti-war stance of the Greens; but they don't want to create the machinery to outlaw war, being beholden to 'national sovereignty'/"freedom" bs. Doc Evatt was right; you can' have effective international law AND the UNSC veto. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Laugh till you cry on Apr 12th, 2024 at 1:31pm
If Israel is seen as the cause of WW3 will its self-proclaimed right to exist be withdrawn?
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Bobby. on Apr 12th, 2024 at 1:41pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:14pm:
It can be summed up with one word: greed. In fact both sides are greedy - they both want it all - they don't want to share it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 1:58pm mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 12:13pm:
Well, your thread title is indicates what you think about the interview: informed perspective. Your opening post also says what you made of it : "This is conservative dialogue i absolutely agree with almost entirely. So there is 30 minutes of views and ideas and you absolutely agree with almost all of it. So let's say you disagree with 10% of it - 3 minutes, probably one or two ideas. You are very coy about what these are, though. Still, you yourself said it is informed and you absolutely agree with almost all of it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by John Smith on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:01pm Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 10:38am:
Like the Israeli land grab |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:50pm John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:01pm:
During the Six-Day War, in 1967, Israeli forces occupied the Gaza Strip, and in 1970 Israel built the first Israeli settlement in the territory. By 2005 the Gaza Strip had 21 Israeli settlements and about 9,000 Israeli settlers compared with about 1.3 million Palestinians living in the territory. Meanwhile, in 1993 Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) had agreed to a framework for Palestinian self-governance in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (see Oslo Accords). As part of that peace process, Israeli forces withdrew from the city of Gaza in 1994 (as well as from the West Bank city of Jericho) and transferred civilian functions for the city to the newly created Palestinian Authority (PA). But concerns over Israel’s security derailed the peace process, especially because of violence from religious nationalists on both sides. At the turn of the century, negotiations came to a virtual halt with the outbreak of the second intifada (2000–05). Despite the impasse, the cost of occupying the Gaza Strip weighed heavily on the Israeli public, especially amid rising casualties among soldiers who were deployed to defend the settlements. In 2002 the idea of evacuating the settlements before negotiations recommenced was floated by the leader of the Israel Labor Party, then the largest party on the Israeli left. In 2003 Prime Minister Ariel Sharon embraced the idea, despite strong opposition within his own Likud Party. That December, Sharon unveiled a plan for the complete removal of Israeli settlers and soldiers from the Gaza Strip. At the insistence of the United States, the plan later included the evacuation of four small settlements in the West Bank. On August 15, 2005, when the deadline for evacuation had passed, only about two-thirds of all the settlers had left their homes and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) notified the remaining settlers that soldiers would begin enforcing the evacuation order two days later. Most of the remaining settlers agreed to leave when prompted by the soldiers, but some resisted and were carried away, sometimes screaming. The most dramatic evacuation was in Kfar Darom, where soldiers broke through a barricade in a synagogue and removed some 200 residents despite violent protest. On August 22 the IDF reached an agreement with residents of Netzarim, the last of the settlers in the Gaza Strip, whereby they agreed to evacuate after a final prayer service in the local synagogue. In the weeks that followed, Israeli forces demolished residential buildings and dismantled military installations and completed their withdrawal on September 12. Some land grab. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Belgarion on Apr 12th, 2024 at 5:02pm Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:50pm:
Do not the the truth get in the way of bogus victimhood. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 12th, 2024 at 5:54pm
Eat shyte Smith you turd muncher. ;D
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by John Smith on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:50pm:
With 33000+ dead and climbing, mostly women and children, it certainly is some land grab. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:01pm John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm:
How many of that were Hamarse fighters? Women and 'children' of 15-18 are also Hamarse fighters. Who are the Palestinian resistance to the fascist Hamerse goons? Why aren't YOU there fighting the Jooos? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 13th, 2024 at 8:25am
Well - did Hamas blow that one full time!!!!!!
They've confessed that they do not have forty Israeli hostages left to exchange for 900 retarded Arabs with hare lips... own goal - now what is to stop Israel flattening the joint to dig them out? One of the greatest OOPS moments in Middle East history.... why should Israel waste time 'negotiating' with morons for the impossible? Murderous savage - not human at all. Let Allah sort 'em out....... they should be grateful for the chance for a chat with him.... turn the 900 wastes of good food loose into a very wide no man's land and start shooting them as they run.... good practice. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 13th, 2024 at 9:48am Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 3:50pm:
Er...did you miss it? The IDF occupied the entire WB as well as the Gaza Strip. That's why Hamas is so angry - apart from the fact the Arab world never accepted the confiscation of Palestine Mandate land to create Israel... aka a "land grab"..... |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 13th, 2024 at 9:49am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 13th, 2024 at 9:49am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by AusGeoff on Apr 13th, 2024 at 10:30am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:26am:
Is there any particular reason that your responses to other members here are invariably insulting, inflammatory and just not really agreeable? As this one is? I actually have an underlying mental disorder that's caused my longer-term attention span to have decreased as I've aged—I'm 78 this year. That you can't even take a couple of minutes in order to write a half-dozen-line précis says more about you than me Mothra. In fact the amount of time and effort you've spent posting your nasty little response could've been better spent doing just that. And it would've been more helpful—maybe even to others here. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 13th, 2024 at 10:53am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 9:48am:
They had been occupied by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. They were NEVER independent 'Palestinian' territories. The Kurds want independence from Turkey, Syria, Iran. They have been suppressed and killed by each of these countries for decades. They are all Muslims so there is no big self-righteous protests at the Opera House. Penny Wong is not dangling promises of statehood for the Kurds. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 13th, 2024 at 11:52am Frank wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 10:53am:
The land known as 'Palestinian Mandate' land (after the collapse of the Ottomans) had been part of the Islamic world since the 8th century AD. Even Britain during the League of Nations era acknowledged that. Quote:
Independence movements within (former) empires are different to the unilateral proclamation of Israel which was de facto supported by the UN. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Captain Nemo on Apr 13th, 2024 at 12:16pm
Things are hottin' up. :o
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Bias_2012 on Apr 13th, 2024 at 12:16pm
What's the definition of WW3?
Normally we think every nation will be involved, and possibly nuclear weapons will be used What a catastrophe that would be In the video, the nations most talked about were: Israel, Iran, Russia, and the United States - not really the "World" are they? Any big future war will probably start in the Middle East where all the hot heads are And that's it, the hotter the heads, the better chance of war We better stay out of any future conflict over there, and we're off to a good start by not sending a naval ship to the Red Sea Palestinians in Australia are about to blockade roads, ports and anything else they can stand in front of Imagine what they'd do if we took part in a future war on the side of the Israelis This is why Penny Wong is calling for a two state solution - It may work, but it may not, the Palestinians would have to be convinced first So, an all encompassing World War is not likely, we'll just get a continuation of regional wars |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by John Smith on Apr 13th, 2024 at 12:59pm Frank wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 8:01pm:
Israel cannot tell you because they neither know nor care |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by John Smith on Apr 13th, 2024 at 1:01pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 9:48am:
they never moved out. They only pretended to do so. Nothing happened in Gaza without Israel's approval. Thats hardly 'moving out'.. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 13th, 2024 at 4:59pm John Smith wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 12:59pm:
Exactly. Gaza = Hamarse. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 13th, 2024 at 5:01pm Frank wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 4:59pm:
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 13th, 2024 at 6:16pm
Rome supported the creation of Palestine in Israel/Judah Jewish lands to undermine the Jewish presence there.
Such support allowed Palestine and other 'Arab' surrounding nations to eventually force all Jews out to be scattered 'elsewhere' like homeless (the wandering jews). ...now the Jews are back thanks to Great Britain and the modern world and it looks like 'KARMA' is kicking the Roman created Palestine out - so they too can experience what its like to be homeless. What goes around, comes around. Suck it up Terrorist! |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by John Smith on Apr 13th, 2024 at 6:22pm Frank wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 4:59pm:
More like Frank = dumbarse |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 10:12am Jasin wrote on Apr 13th, 2024 at 6:16pm:
"Looks like"...but the UN voted to partition Palestine, not eliminate it. Quote:
Yes, and Netanyahu is well on the way to achieving recognition of the Palestinian state...the US won't want to be the only country in the world blocking its creation. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 10:14am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 10:15am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 10:15am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:25pm John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:45pm:
You are confused John. Hamas starting another war they are bound to lose is not the same thing as an Israeli land grabs. Land grabs usually involve grabbing land, don't you think? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:25pm:
You mean like the "water front properties" recently being flogged off in Gaza by New Jersey real estate agents? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm
John Fido doesn't want to admit that Israel protects its women and children and HAM-ARSE doesn't protect its own women and children.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:28pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Would you like to buy some land on the moon Mothra? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:28pm freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:28pm:
What a stupid retort. Keep trolling, Fleadriver. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:29pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 10:12am:
Everyone's entitle to a few mistakes.... it's just life.... perpetuating those, however, when the proof is in ... well.... let's just say that's plain egotistic orneriness... gotta save face even when it's two faced .... |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:30pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Might as well get in early..... grab a few choice hundreds of acres along the waterfront and build the paradise resort the dopey Palestinians should have been building, along with the tax haven Swiss style banking. Trust an Arab to stuff it all up .... ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:41pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:28pm:
Do you always check the New Jersey real estate ads for an update on the latest conflict in the middle east? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:44pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
:D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:47pm Frank wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:44pm:
You mean you didn't know? The levels of awareness versus the levels of vehemence on this forum are seriously out of whack. https://therealnews.com/illegal-real-estate-sales-of-palestinian-land-are-happening-around-the-us |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:54pm
Jared Kushner says Gaza’s ‘waterfront property could be very valuable’
Donald Trump’s son-in-law also says Israel should bulldoze an area of the Negev desert and move Palestinians there https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/19/jared-kushner-gaza-waterfront-property-israel-negev https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntUBA_DWQj0&ab_channel=MiddleEastEye |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:00pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:47pm:
Where did you get that claim from Mothra? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:00pm freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:25pm:
Yes.... like the UN grabbing Arab land for an Israeli state. As compensation, the UN could have at least created the remnant Palestinian state at the same time, with security of both states enforced by the UNSC. But now 140 nations recognize Palestine, with Spain and Slovenia planning to present another resolution to the UNGA on the issue; the US - trying to create a united front of 'democracies' against China - will begin to see its 'soft power' in the world evaporate. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:03pm
Maybe you lot need to hear it from the horse's mouth?
https://jewishlink.news/the-biggest-israeli-real-estate-event-comes-to-teaneck-march-10/ |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:07pm US: Israeli real estate event draws backlash over sale of West Bank settlement properties Council on American-Islamic Relations calls for federal investigation into real estate event in Teaneck, New Jersey https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-israeli-real-estate-event-draws-backlash-over-sale-west-bank-settlement-properties Legal complaints escalate over Israeli real estate events https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2024/03/15/israeli-real-estate-event-legal-complaints-escalate/72970499007/ https://reason.com/2024/03/11/the-west-bank-comes-to-new-jersey/ Need more? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:53pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:47pm:
:D :D :D :D |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:57pm
If you go to their website, their properties are all in Jerusalem. And so they’re not selling properties in Gaza dot, dot, dot yet, question mark.
https://therealnews.com/illegal-real-estate-sales-of-palestinian-land-are-happening-around-the-us |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:59pm
That's right, fruitbat. Ignore all of the links. Don;t try to google it. Don;t learn.
How else can you possibly justify staying as bigoted and hateful as you are? This ha s to be the least informed political forum on the internet. Just how Fleadriver planned it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:00pm Frank wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 5:57pm:
And the West Bank, fruitbat. And according to informed commentators, in Gaza itself. Did you know that Israel were also bombing the West Bank? Probably not. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:04pm
Why, you can hear all about it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZRB2EsG13A&ab_channel=JudgeNapolitano-JudgingFreedom Not that you will, of course. Who to believe? John Mearsheimer or the fruitbat? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:08pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkN6PH5cG7c&ab_channel=AlJazeeraEhttp://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/bold.gifnglish
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:12pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5shC3orEsw&ab_channel=TRTWorld
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:18pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Did you make this up Mothra? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:24pm freediver wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:18pm:
Evidently not. But hey, don't blame me when even spoon-feeding fails to nourish you. Stay stupid and bigoted, Fleadriver. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:26pm mothra wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:24pm:
Where is it from? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:31pm
I'm confused : Mearsheimers appears to be making absolute sense (I tuned in around the 20 min mark) in asserting the Israelis are conducting genocide in Gaza, as well as deliberately trying to get the Americans to attack Iran.
I'm comfused because Mothra claimed the professor in the video is a conservative. He must be an antiwar conservative, a rare breed. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:32pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:32pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:32pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:33pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:42pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:31pm:
Shows how much you both know in reality... and how very much you both rely on assumptions about others for which there is no support but your own particular version of insanity and stupidity.... like American political fanatics - you assume everyone and everything is black and white and when someone shows a grey you die in the arse trying to figure it out.... |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:43pm chop divide and mothra smith and laugher are gone |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:43pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:44pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:44pm * |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:54pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 14th, 2024 at 7:00pm Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:42pm:
Ah graps... a reasonable point from you at last; I was hoping Mothra would explain her understanding of Prof. Mearsheimers 'conservatism'. (I still don't want to watch the entire video). But I have no doubt about your (conservative) 'individual responsibility' world view: you would rather take your chances with WW3, than outlaw war. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 7:08pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 14th, 2024 at 7:09pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 14th, 2024 at 7:39pm
Nothing EVER unfolds as the newspapers predict.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by mothra on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:24am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 14th, 2024 at 6:31pm:
Small 'c' conservative. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jovial Monk on Apr 15th, 2024 at 3:04am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jovial Monk on Apr 15th, 2024 at 3:04am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jovial Monk on Apr 15th, 2024 at 3:05am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jovial Monk on Apr 15th, 2024 at 3:05am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:07am
Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started in a malicious act of depravity
It beggars belief that even the terrorists of Hamas and other organisations of similar bent, could engage in the murder and abuse of innocents as we now know for certain occurred on October 7. Take for example the people attending the rock concert, dedicated to peace. Murder, rape and kidnapping were the consequences of Hamas crossing the border. The current war would not be occurring but for Hamas, almost certainly at the behest of its Iranian mentors, committing such widespread atrocities, in the certain knowledge that the Israeli response would be massive. And why did Iran choose to push Hamas last October? At this time, US diplomacy appeared to be succeeding in encouraging Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to recognise Israel. This would be catastrophic for Iranian ambitions in the region. So, let us be clear. The Iranians in particular bear enormous responsibility as an openly terrorist regime for all that has happened in the Gaza strip. They are a regime dedicated to creating maximum turmoil in the region. This is part of the regime's survival strategy in Teheran. If anyone should doubt Iranian involvement, then a glance at the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria in liaison with the Hezbollah terrorist grouping will remove any doubts. US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, put this clearly on April 9 last: “It remains astounding to me that the world is almost deafeningly silent when it comes to Hamas”. The terrorists are never taken before international courts, nor is its leadership ever brought to book and held responsible. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am
Hamas escapes almost all accountability for a war it started in a malicious act of depravity
It beggars belief that even the terrorists of Hamas and other organisations of similar bent, could engage in the murder and abuse of innocents as we now know for certain occurred on October 7. Take for example the people attending the rock concert, dedicated to peace. Murder, rape and kidnapping were the consequences of Hamas crossing the border. The current war would not be occurring but for Hamas, almost certainly at the behest of its Iranian mentors, committing such widespread atrocities, in the certain knowledge that the Israeli response would be massive. And why did Iran choose to push Hamas last October? At this time, US diplomacy appeared to be succeeding in encouraging Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to recognise Israel. This would be catastrophic for Iranian ambitions in the region. So, let us be clear. The Iranians in particular bear enormous responsibility as an openly terrorist regime for all that has happened in the Gaza strip. They are a regime dedicated to creating maximum turmoil in the region. This is part of the regime's survival strategy in Teheran. If anyone should doubt Iranian involvement, then a glance at the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Syria in liaison with the Hezbollah terrorist grouping will remove any doubts. US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, put this clearly on April 9 last: “It remains astounding to me that the world is almost deafeningly silent when it comes to Hamas”. The terrorists are never taken before international courts, nor is its leadership ever brought to book and held responsible. Stephen Loosley |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:19am
Seen on X (twitter) today:
David Sacks "After the U.S. hit Soleimani, Trump says that he understood that Iran had to hit back to save face. So he managed the escalation to avoid a war. Is Biden capable of thinking this way?" Well, to answer Sacks, the WH is urging restraint by Israel. While Trump failed to implement UN res 242. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am:
Corrected for you. The rest of the article is self-justifying GIGO. Loosely reveals the fault-lines in the ALP re the creation of Israel, mirroring the old DLP conflict re Catholicism versus Marxism. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:26am |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:35am mothra wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:24am:
Ah, thanks. He certainly calls out the Israeli genocide in Gaza for what it is - something a Conservative would never do - witness this thread. Graps says I don't know small 'c' from capital 'C' (C/conservative), but graps (an anti-governement Libertarian) is promoting the completion of the genocide in Gaza. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:36am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am:
In what sense did the UN confiscate the land? Aren't you the one who always says we should stick with what the UN wanted? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:51am freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:36am:
The UN voted to partition Palestine, thereby being complicit in the confiscation of more than half of the Palestine Mandate land, for the proposed Israeli state. The actual confiscation occured when Zionists unilaterally proclaimed the existence of Israel, during the violence which followed the UN partition vote. Quote:
No, I'm the one who says Doc Evatt was right....ie effective international law requires a UNSC without veto. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:54am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:23am:
Corrected for you. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am Quote:
As even the dimmest 12 year old knows, there was NO UNSC veto power involved in the UN resolution to partition the British mandate of Palestine. Israel simply accepted the UN resolutions, the Mohammedans did not. There was no veto so your endless moronic parrotting about UNSC veto powers is totally irrelevant, like practically all your fatuous, doctrinaire misunderstandings and misrepresentations of any given topic and issue. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:01am Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:54am:
You need to assist FD to reply to my #117 (at the time of writing, no more questions from him....) , to show how you "corrected" my post. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Oh dear...regardless of age, low IQ is entreched in some people. Of course the UN resolution to partitioin Palestine didn't involve the UNSDC veto, because all UNSC members were in favour of the proposal. The probem arose when the Arabs - without representation in the UNSC - began resisting self-proclaimed Israeli sovereignty (in the land designated as Israel by the UN). That's when the UNSC veto reared its ugly head, meaning the UNSC was unable to speak with one voice, to maintain the peace. Quote:
Refuted above. "moronic" ...oh dear, it's mirror time again. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:18am
... got a big fish on the line....................
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:19am Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:59am:
Encyclopedia Britannica United Nations Resolution 181 Israeli-Palestinian history Also known as: Resolution 181 Written and fact-checked by Article History UN partition plan for Israel and Palestine in 1947 United Nations Resolution 181, resolution passed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in 1947 that called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, with the city of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum (Latin: “separate entity”) to be governed by a special international regime. The resolution—which was considered by the Jewish community in Palestine to be a legal basis for the establishment of Israel, and which was rejected by the Arab community—was succeeded almost immediately by violence. Palestine had been governed by Great Britain since 1922. Since that time, Jewish immigration to the region had increased, and tensions between Arabs and Jews had grown. In April 1947, exhausted by World War II and increasingly intent upon withdrawing from the Middle East region, Britain referred the issue of Palestine to the UN. To investigate a suitable course of action, the UN formed the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), an inquiry committee made up of members from 11 countries. Ultimately, UNSCOP delivered two proposals: that of the majority, which recommended two separate states joined economically, and that of the minority, which supported the formation of a single binational state made up of autonomous Jewish and Palestinian areas. The Jewish community approved of the first of these proposals, while the Arabs opposed them both. A counterproposal—including a provision that only those Jews who had arrived before the Balfour Declaration (and their descendents) would be citizens of the state—did not win Jewish favour. The proposal to partition Palestine, based on a modified version of the UNSCOP majority report, was put to a General Assembly vote on November 29, 1947. The fate of the proposal was initially uncertain, but, after a period of intense lobbying by pro-Jewish groups and individuals, the resolution was passed with 33 votes in favour, 13 against, and 10 abstentions. https://www.britannica.com/topic/United-Nations-Resolution-181 Who voted for, against, abstentions: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine#Final_vote No veto. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:20am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am:
Refuted above. "moronic" ...oh dear, it's mirror time again. [/quote] Corrected partially for you - just walking over the personal nonsense from an alleged adult... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:21am
chew on dividie's arse
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:22am stealth glitches in operation |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:23am
it drives him c r a z y
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:24am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:17am:
Refuted above. "moronic" ...oh dear, it's mirror time again. [/quote] Ah, you mean the Arabs exercised their lizard-brain individual sovereignty and voted against the wishes of the majority, against common prosperity and peaceful coexist e nice, and then immediately attacked Israel to force their wishes upon it and on the majority of the UN members a nd consensus. Tsk, tsk ::) ::) You are an endlessly self-contradictory, dogmatic little pea-brained parrot. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:48am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 10:51am:
So the locals "confiscated" their own land? Who from? You cannot seem to make up your mind whether to complain about the UN partitioning or complain about them not sending in troops to enforce their declarations. Is there some higher authority other than the UN who you think should have established a state instead? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:08pm Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:24am:
Ah, you mean the Arabs exercised their lizard-brain individual sovereignty and voted against the wishes of the majority, [/quote] In the UNGA...yes. Nice to see you make a correct statement now and again, but I fear it won't be repeated below.... Quote:
Oh dear - nothing to with common prosperity and peaceful coexistence, everything to do with lizard brains and their delusional cultural/national sovereignty ideologies... Quote:
The non-Arab/non-UNSC members of the UNGA were powerless to prevent the violonce resulting from a general ignorance of the egregious effects of cultural/ national sovereignty delusions - delusions which caused the veto to be demanded by the UNSC members only a year earlier (despite the fact delegates from many smaller countries voted to withhold the veto from the UNSC in 1946) Quote:
Refuted above; aren't you ashamed to have your "individual freedom" delusions so utterly exposed? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 11:48am:
A brain-damaged question. The UN by vote, and the Zionists by force, confiscated more than 50% of Palestinian Mandate land. Quote:
Oh yes I can: the UN should have guaranteed a Palestinian state alongside Israel, BEFORE recognising Israel's existance. But the UN(SC) was rendered powerless by your delusional "individual freedom" ideology, hence Israel enforced its own existance - and the rest is history. Now 140 UNGA members (2/3rds) are calling for a Palestinian state, but ONE nation - the global hegemon - is exercising its veto power. Quote:
Yes: one capable of establishing an effective international rules-based order. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm Quote:
So the locals "confiscated" their own land? Who from? Quote:
That is not what the UN does. It cannot force Muslims to create a functioning state instead of devoting their efforts towards slaughtering Jews. Am I correct that your problem is not with Israel's existence, it is with the UN not setting up a second state alongside it? thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm:
Sigh. I am asking you about the reality, not your fantasy. Does this higher authority actually exist? Are you referring to your insistence that the USA intervenes? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by aquascoot on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:54pm
boo hoo
so the poor old palestinians got displaced now they have acted up they can get displaced again into the sinai desert or back under whatever rock they crawled out from under the other arab states despise them one wonders why maybe its because they are despicable bye bye gazans enjoy your tents in the sinai next time, maybe dont elect a terrorist government learn from your mistakes take some 'personal responsibility" for where you messed up. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by chimera on Apr 15th, 2024 at 1:04pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:22pm:
Yes the final soution is the Chinese Peoples' Military Province of Palestine-Israel. With naval order in the Western China Sea. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:19pm
"establishing an effective international rules-based order."
Done a great job there so far................................... now then - when you can compel the Muslim states to stop firing on Israel while Israel fends off the attacks with a little help from the USAF and the RAF .... didn't miss that, did you? Even Syria is supposed to be assisting the defence..... they know who'll win eventually. The UN is becoming increasingly isolated and deservedly so.... weak as piss and now dominated by losers ... lucky to get through the double doors with those chips on their shoulders.... |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:45pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:08pm:
In the UNGA...yes. Nice to see you make a correct statement now and again, but I fear it won't be repeated below.... Quote:
Oh dear - nothing to with common prosperity and peaceful coexistence, everything to do with lizard brains and their delusional cultural/national sovereignty ideologies... [/quote] :D :D So the problem started by the Jews accepting the UN resolution and Muslims starting a war instead. And that is the UNSC's fault because they didn't stop the lizard-brained, individual sovereignty Muslims from starting a war despite the clearly expressed will of the UN for common prosperity and peaceful coexistence in the Middle East. You talk some really self-contradictory, hare-brained crap. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:56pm
Meanwhile, after six months in geopolitical Coventry, Israel is once again flush with allies:
(April 14, 2024 / JNS) The United States, United Kingdom and Jordan downed many of the over 300 projectiles launched at Israel by Iran overnight Sunday, while France also played a role in defending the Jewish state against the unprecedented attack. The Jordanians were mostly concerned to protect their own territory from carelessly targeted incoming, the French are said to have confined their efforts to patrolling the airspace and giving a friendly head's up, and the British dispatched jets from the RAF base at Akrotiri to take out Iranian drones over Syria and Iraq. Whether any of these efforts were militarily necessary to Israel's defence, they're not likely to be politically popular on their respective home fronts. Yet all were eager to be perceived as in on the operation, and their participation is being hailed as the emergence of a new Israeli-Sunni-western regional security force: So rather than weaken Israel, Iran's attack has ended up convening an extraordinary military alliance – with Arabs, Israelis, Americans and British acting as one to neutralise the assault. The Tehran regime is many things but it is not stupid. It has seeded its proxies - Hamas, Hizb'allah and Houthis - all over the map, and it showed greater strategic clarity over Iraq than the boobs in Washington did: America toppled Saddam, but the mullahs got the spoils. If Iran had lobbed what they threw at Israel at the average EU member, its cities would be in flames and its mortuaries full. It is not credible that the mullahs would not be fully aware that the Iron Dome would hold. So that's an awful lot of matériel to blow on a minimal bang for the buck. When the Iranians use their cut-outs, they know how to kill Jews: General Zahedi, the Quds Force commander assassinated by the IDF earlier this month, is said to have been the man behind the October 7th operation - which certainly would seem to be beyond the capabilities of the average Hamas honcho. By comparison with the visceral depravity of autumn's parachutists and flatbed riders, last night's assault had the air of the performative and bloodless. For his part, the squinting mumbling stiff being passed off as "Leader of the Free World" could do no more than recycle his summer-stock slab of ham from his pre-Ukraine shtick. For Khamenei as for Putin, a single word: Don't. And Khamenei, like Putin, did. But ineffectually. IDF warplanes killed Zahedi in the Iranian Embassy compound in Damascus, which is an act of war - notwithstanding Israel's artful argument that their particular target was a non-consular building within a consular complex. Still, it could hardly not have provoked a response from Tehran. As the lefties at The Guardian argue: "The war had come out of the shadows – and this was Netanyahu's doing. He must have known how furious would be the reaction in Tehran. Tellingly, he did not inform his US ally in advance, probably because the Biden administration would have tried to veto the operation. The Damascus embassy attack looks like a premeditated escalation designed to fortify Netanyahu's domestic political position, silence criticism from the blind-sided Americans and deflect international pressure to halt arms supplies to Israel. And it has worked." Indeed. After forty-five years of loosing its lethal proxies on Jews all over the world, Iran decided to act as a sovereign state and for the first time openly sic its official armed forces on Israel. But without killing anyone ...and after giving the Sunni Arab states a seventy-two-hours advance warning. And, having offered up its most expensive baubles for Anglo-Franco-American-Jordanian target practice, Tehran has now assured the United Nations that it's had its fun and there will be no further strikes. As Daniel Greenfield concludes: This is not the actual Iranian attack. This is the 'attack' prearranged for show between Iran and the Biden administration through backchannels. https://www.steynonline.com/14200/when-the-dust-settles |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:27pm:
You can't confiscate your own land (quotation marks or not). That's just your brain damage in evidence; the confiscation happened when Jews among the "locals" (note the quotation marks...) were supported by zionists who drove many Palestinians out of the proposed Israeli state - Palestinians being a majority among the "locals" before their forced expulsion - a direct result of incompetent UN management of the Partition. Quote:
Wrong on both counts. The UN can create states, and indeed proposed the creation of two states in the Palestine Mandate Area. And it SHOULD enforce security in the proposed 2 states, since lizard brains have the upper hand in both states. (No doubt you will claim you aren't a lizard brain...) Quote:
Correct, with jail for evil-doers on either side. Quote:
So sayeth the lizard brain with his subjective reality/ shared belief delusion. Quote:
1. No 2. Yes; ie, intervene along with the other UNSC members, to enforce securty among the lizard brains on either side. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:16pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
How many offers of statehood have the Pallos rejected since 1947? Five or six? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:27pm Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:45pm:
(sigh) Yes; of course the Jews accepted the UN Partition resolution - because they were gaining sovereignty over other people's confiscated land...what's not to like...."what are we waiting for", said one zionist leader after the vote. Quote:
Yes, it is the UNSC's fault for not preventing the unilateral declaration of Israel by Zionists. Quote:
Refuted above; lizard brains will have trouble understanding the concept of an effective international rules-based order. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:37pm Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:16pm:
Lizard brains on either side want all of Palestine "from the river to the sea". Hence no "agreement among the parties" - providing a cover for Israel and the US, the stronger side, to keep pushing the Palestinian state into the future, while the divided UNSC remains unable to act, courtesy of the veto. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:42pm chimera wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 1:04pm:
Wrong . China wants to see international peace, while it develops common prosperity in its own economy. The Taiwan issue is none of your business. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:43pm aquascoot wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 12:54pm:
Yes. boo hoo? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:47pm Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 2:19pm:
Earth to graps: the viability of our species is in question here; in the age of MAD, the risks of NOT having an effective rules-based order loom large. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by chimera on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:07pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:42pm:
Thank you so very much. Lovely! 'peace' > 'none of your business'. Philippines, Australia, India will be under the elegantly simple CHINA RULES! |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:07pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:27pm:
Refuted above; lizard brains will have trouble understanding the concept of an effective international rules-based order. [/quote] :D :D The UN VOTED to establish Israel AND and Arab state next to it. The Jews accepted the rules based decision, the Arabs didn't but started a war instead. But all that is the UN's fault and the Jews' fault for accepting the UN vote and following the rules an dc th ed Arabs ar e the injured party for not accepting the UN rules but starting a war instead. You are an idiot. Whose fault is that?? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:32pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
A huge number of Muslims voluntarily left Israel as it was being created, on the assumption that their fellow Muslims would come back and wipe out the Jews and give them their properties back. thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
So you think the USA is a higher authority than the UN and they should set up a functioning state for the Palestinians? What makes you think they would be any better than the Israelis at ensuring security? And why is the obligation on them? And how can you identify that higher authority so easily in the same breath as insisting it does not exist? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:51pm freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:32pm:
"With the birth of the State of Israel, over 850,000 Jews were forced from Arab Lands and Iran. The desperate refugees were welcomed by Israel." The Arabs, on the other hand, have been farming the Pallos in 'refugee camps' ever since. Millions of Germans and Slavs were displaced after WWII. European borders were redrawn, populations expelled and absorbed. Millions more were shuffled around with the partition of India. Th ed New World absorbed millions of displaced refugees. But Muslims cannot bring themselves to welcome their Palestinian bruvvers and sistas and settle them and make peace with Israel and each other. Jihad uber alles, to coin a phrase. The Muslims conquered the whole of North Africa and the Eastern Roman Empire, the Persian Empire and the north of India. But for the Jews to have Jewdea - Israel is about half the size of Tasmania - well, the Hamerse Muslims can't bear the idea. You can't negotiate with fanatical dickheaddles like that. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 9:59am chimera wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:07pm:
Taiwan is none of those nations' business either. Taiwan is part of China, which the UN recoginizes. Just as 'peace' within your nation is none of my business; though sorting out your own internal squabbles may require intervention by an international body - as opposed to other nations' interventions on ideological grounds - to solve the problem. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:10am freediver wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 5:32pm:
Laughable.... Next. Quote:
(sigh) No, I think the UN should be a higher authority than the US which is blocking the Palestinian state. (UN res 242 woud have been implemented by the UN by 1968, except for the US's UNSC veto). Next. Quote:
Wrong premise, as noted above. Next. Quote:
By noting the requirement to eliminate the UNSC veto. Next..... |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:34am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:10am:
Also, the Arab Liberation Army systematically evacuated them from wherever they hoped to set up military strongholds from which to slaughter Jews. Quote:
You do realise that a piece of paper does not make a state exist, right? Quote:
What army does the UN have? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:40am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:10am:
Next... You are an ignorant, blowhard idiot. It was the Palllos who rejected it, fathead, not the UNSC or the US. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (S/RES/242) was adopted unanimously by the UN Security Council on November 22, 1967, in the aftermath of the Six-Day War. It was adopted under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.[1] The day after Resolution 242 was adopted, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) rejected it as "fundamentally and gravely inconsistent with the Arab character of Palestine, the essence of the Palestine cause and the right of the Palestinian people to their homeland." and "disappoints the hopes of the Arab nation and ignores its national aspirations [... and] ignores the existence of the Palestinian people and their right of self-determination." |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:55am freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:34am:
Laughable, next Quote:
I do realize you brain is crippled by fake 'individual rights'/freedom" ideology, as shown above; your statement bears no relationship to the comment to which you imagined you were replying. Quote:
Nations need police forces to deal with criminals individuals. Whereas under an effective international rules based order, nations don't need armies, since the UNSC would possess the sole "army". Spot the difference? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:57am Quote:
;D Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the Jews are still trying to stop the Muslims from slaughtering them. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 11:36am freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 10:57am:
Your inability to address the issues re police versus armies, and national versus international security noted. As to be expected from a deluded "individual freedom"/ individual rights" ideologue. Quote:
with lizard brains still in command... Quote:
Of course, while Netanyahu has said there will be no Palestinian state. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2024 at 12:23pm
The UN put Iran in as the chair of the human rights council. And you expect us to take you seriously when you suggest they should be running the only army in the world. That is no les idiotic than expecting people to trust the CCP after they rewarded rather than punished leaders for killing about 100 million Chinese people, on top of letting the Japanese kill and rape their way across China.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 1:43pm freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 12:23pm:
I agree - madness: however, sorry to inform you the UN's madness results from your delusional 'individual rights/individual sovereigtny' ideology which crippled the UN from its inception (including the UNSC veto). Quote:
Addressed above. The viability of the human species is being increasingly brought into question by more and more people around the world, as economic and political disasters cause ever more chaos. The maintenance of individual armies with control over weapons of mass destruction is unviable and unsustainable. Quote:
You are confused. What the CCP did last century isn't relevant to how the UN must reform now. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 16th, 2024 at 1:49pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 1:43pm:
So if not by bringing together individual, sovereign nations to form the United Nations - then how would you bring the world together? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 16th, 2024 at 2:02pm Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 1:49pm:
By instituting examination in the UNGA of necessary UN reform, including the need to eliminate the UNSC veto. The lizard brain in all of us would quickly be exposed as the culprit which is preventing action "to save mankind from the scourge of war" (UN Charter preamble). |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2024 at 2:17pm Quote:
It is relevant. You consistently choose the worst possible option. You expect people to trust the CCP after they rewarded rather than punished leaders for killing about 100 million Chinese people, on top of letting the Japanese kill and rape their way across China. This behaviour is not limited to last century. They managed another colossal bugger-up with covid that cost huge numbers of lives, and again they are trying to BS their way out of it while patting themselves on the back, and we have to wait until they have a corpse to blame it on before they even admit it was an "administrative error". The behaviour of last century is firmly embedded in the culture of the CCP. That's what happens when you allow leaders to get away with killing millions - they keep doing it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 16th, 2024 at 4:11pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 2:02pm:
How is that to be done? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 16th, 2024 at 4:14pm
You just need to fill out the right forms and trust the CCP to take care of everything.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:23am freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 2:17pm:
UN reform is independent of CCP policy. Quote:
No I don't, I expect people to work to reform the UN, by waking up to the lizard brain in all of us which is the barrier to UN reform. Meaning your "subjective reality/shared belief" delusions will need to be exposed for what they are: the self-interested nonsense of naturally competitive, self-interested individuals who would rather not submit to rule of law which of necessity limits individual political and cultural 'sovereignty' and 'freedom'. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:36am freediver wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 4:14pm:
And NO admin errors this time, right? We don't want another 40 million dead due to an admin error. The paperwork must be korrekt at all times. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:52am Frank wrote on Apr 16th, 2024 at 4:11pm:
By continuing the process already started in the UN: "The "enormous influence of the veto power" has been cited as a cause of the UN's ineffectiveness in preventing and responding to genocide, violence, and human rights violations.[47] Various countries outside the permanent members, such as the Non-Aligned Movement and African Union, have proposed limitations on the veto power.[48] Reform of the veto power is often included in proposals for reforming the Security Council." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#:~:text=Various%20official%20and%20semi%2Dofficial,Assembly%20subsequently%20agree%20that%20action |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:58am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:52am:
So what is the relevance of the veto power in the case of Israel and Hamarse? You are, as usual, barking up the wrong tree. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 17th, 2024 at 11:42am Frank wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 10:58am:
Because the Arab world wasn't represented in the UNSC. Quote:
The US alone has consistently vetoed resolutions condemning Israel, since 1967. Quote:
Refuted above. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 17th, 2024 at 12:12pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 11:42am:
Refuted above. [/quote] There was NO security council role in the vote for the creation of TWO states. The Arabs simply did not accept to play by the rules, not then, not since. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 17th, 2024 at 1:09pm Frank wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 12:12pm:
There was NO security council role in the vote for the creation of TWO states. [/quote] The flaw in your argument is the UN failed to implement its Partiton Plan in full, and since 1967 the US has used its UNSC veto to prevent implementation of the Plan. Quote:
"Not then" - correct; but "not since" - more complicated; the Arabs would have accepted UN res 242 in 1967, and Yasser Arafat would have signed up, including East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. The US's UNSC veto prevented it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 17th, 2024 at 2:10pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 1:09pm:
The flaw in your argument is the UN failed to implement its Partiton Plan in full, and since 1967 the US has used its UNSC veto to prevent implementation of the Plan. Quote:
[/quote] The Muslims started the wars in 1948 and again in 1967 DESPITE the UN resolution to create the two states. The Muslims simply do not accept the UN resolution that endorsed the creation of two states, one Jewish, one Muslim. Note, the UN did not create Israel, it simply endorsed the creation of the two states. The Jews accepted it, the Muslims went to war. The UN couldn't force anyone, it has never had the moral or military power to 'implement' anything, regardless of security council veto. Only member states can implement UN resolutions, supply peace keepers or militarily enforce they will, supported or not by the UN. The Muslims have not been acting in good faith because they have not accepted Israel's right to exist or the UN's jurisdiction to endorse the creation of two states. They want a Judenfrei Muslim middle East. Your endless waffle about UNSC veto is totally irrelevant. You never once shown how it has ANY relevance to the creation of Israel in 1948, to the armistice in 1949 or to the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank by Egypt and Jordan. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Grappler Truth Teller Feller on Apr 17th, 2024 at 3:18pm
WHAT? You expect either an informed Woke perspective or an informed Conservative perspective?
Where you bin, Laden? The secret de jour is to NOT be informed... but to be biased and uninformed in forming a view .... how would our politics and social interactions in Australia and the Rest of The West get along if people were actually informed....?? An informed people is a dangerous people, armed with knowledge and understanding - the very worst enemy of government.... all those billions spent turning out savants in Aboriginal Mathematics and Aboriginal Calendars who cannot read or write or add up or invent a stick with a stone head ... and you expect an 'informed' society? Where the hell you bin hidin', Biden? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 17th, 2024 at 6:06pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 11:42am:
Refuted above. [/quote] The USA has continually condemned many Dictators 'over-the-table' and on Media (the 'Show') while funding and supporting them 'under-the-table', even putting them in place (to keep their nations 'weak' for US National Security). ...like they do here via the Prime Ministers - like Albanese and Juliar Gillard, unlike Rudd who wouldn't tow the line to the USA so we know what happened to him, eh. ;) So who cares what a corrupt 'Media-Mafia' Privatised Political nation like the USA says? It will undermine anything International for its own selfish gain. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 18th, 2024 at 1:15pm
National Conservatism Conference: Police told to shut down right-wing Brussels event
Brussels police were ordered to shut down a conference for right-wing politicians, including Brexiteer Nigel Farage and Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban, on Tuesday. People were stopped from entering the National Conservatism Conference a few hours after it began, organisers said - although it continued for those inside. The local mayor said he issued the order to ensure public security. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68826577 The local mayor? Step forward, Emir Kir. A socialist Turk. The move to shut down the conference was also criticised by Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo, who called it "unacceptable". "Banning political meetings is unconstitutional. Full stop," Mr De Croo wrote on X. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 24th, 2024 at 3:46pm Frank wrote on Apr 17th, 2024 at 2:10pm:
[/quote] The Muslims started the wars in 1948 and again in 1967 DESPITE the UN resolution to create the two states.[/quote] The UN Partition resolution was intended to create two states, not to let one side force its own way when the other side (naturally) objected to the partition of their land. The UN patently failed to create the two states; Israel should never have been recognized WITHOUT the creation of the Palestinian state as well. Quote:
Because your delusional "national sovereignty" ideology rendered the UN powerless to maintian the peace - by force when necessary; just as a police force within a nation has to maintain the peace by force, to avoid chaos. Quote:
Addressed above; the veto renders the UNSC incapable of maintaining peace between belligerents, whereas as a national police force CAN establish peace - by force - between warring criminal gangs within a nation. Quote:
Correct (but see above, Israel should not have been recognized without recognition of the Palestinian state). Quote:
Addressed and refuted above. Let me know when you are ready to establish effective international law, capable of over-riding anachronistic 'national sovereignty'. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2024 at 3:51pm Quote:
No state has ever been created by a committee or a piece of paper. It was intended to sanction the creation of two states. It still requires someone, usually the locals, to actually do something about it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 24th, 2024 at 4:00pm freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 3:51pm:
Er...even Frank noted the UN granted itself the right to create states. Quote:
Which means ...create two states. Quote:
Sure, in your delusional national sovereingty/ "individual freedom" ideology which rejects establishing effective international law. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2024 at 4:25pm Quote:
I hearby grant myself the right to create states. See how easy that was? Quote:
Do you understand the difference between sanction an action and acting? Quote:
No. I mean in reality. States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order. It is your delusion that having the paperwork in order makes them magically pop into existence. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 24th, 2024 at 5:05pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 3:46pm:
Because your delusional "national sovereignty" ideology rendered the UN powerless to maintian the peace - by force when necessary; just as a police force within a nation has to maintain the peace by force, to avoid chaos. Quote:
Addressed above; the veto renders the UNSC incapable of maintaining peace between belligerents, whereas as a national police force CAN establish peace - by force - between warring criminal gangs within a nation. Quote:
Correct (but see above, Israel should not have been recognized without recognition of the Palestinian state). Quote:
Addressed and refuted above. Let me know when you are ready to establish effective international law, capable of over-riding anachronistic 'national sovereignty'. [/quote] You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UNSC veto powers have any relevance to the creation of Israel. You have not demonstrated, ever, how the UN could have its own military force, how it could create states, or prevent the creation of states. You just repeat irrelevant non sequiturs and declare them 'refuted above. Ludicrous. It is like debating a 3 year old obcessive-compulsive with severely restricted vocab and retarded comprehension. The UN resolution approved the creation of Israel and an Arab state alongside it. The Jews accepted the approval and created a state (NB. the UN did not create it) while the Arabs did not accept the approval and the Jews' creation of their own state so they did not similarly create an Arab state but went to war instead. Note also that it was the existing sovereign Arab states that went to war against the Jews. They went against the UN resolution. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:06pm freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 4:25pm:
Ere...you are not an agreed upon institution (the UN) with a Charter to which all nations are signed up. Quote:
Quote:
Yes. The vote to partiton Palestine - passed by a majorty - envisioned two states. Sanction is your word. Quote:
You mean your 'subjective reality'.....oh dear... Addressed above. The Charter was agreed and signed, though your delusional - or rather, anachronistic and obsolete national sovereignty ideology - forced the veto into the UNSC, rendering it useless and incapable of "saving mankind from the scourge of war". Quote:
Refuted above; re delusions, don't look in the mirror unless you want a trip to Bunnings. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:17pm Quote:
No. I mean objective reality. States don't come into existence by virtue of having the paperwork in order. Quote:
And the signing of the charter made absolutely no difference to the reality on the ground in Israel. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:32pm Frank wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 5:05pm:
I disagree, but let's read on, maybe we can expose your errors: Quote:
Correct. Quote:
The Jews had/have no right to 'create a state'; after 1946, only the UN can do it, under international law. Quote:
Correct - and the UN should have refused recognition of Israel, without simultaneous recognition of Palestine with necessary security supplied by the UNSC. Quote:
Naturally the Arabs rejected Israel, which was carved out of Muslim lands, resulting in Muslims being expelled from their homes by Jewish forces in the ensuing battles. Quote:
Correct, as addressed above. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:44pm freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:17pm:
You are confused between objective and subjective, as your following comment proves: Quote:
The UN "paperwork" was never "in order" - though it certainly existed - because the necessary security arrangements were stuffed by your obsolete 'national sovereignty' ideology. Last time I looked, the Oz Constitution was written on paper. The difference is the supra-national UN role, under internationl law. Quote:
Addressed above. Israel unilaterally proclaimed its existance after the UN Charter was signed, an illegal act under the Charter. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:49pm Quote:
Are you saying the "paperwork was not in order" because of the absence of a real life army moving in and actually doing it? Quote:
That by itself means absolutely nothing. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 24th, 2024 at 7:36pm Quote:
The UN approved the creation of the two states side by side. The Jews accepted the UN's resolution, the Arabs didn't. On what basis do you say the Jews had no right to create a state along the approved UN lines? What other international law requirement was missing? The approval of Muslims who have been hellbent on wiping them out since the 7th century, in accordance with they creed that says there will be peace only when all the Jews are killed by Muslims? * Give us ONE example where the UN created a state, you eyewateringly stupid ijit, and the international law that empowers it to do so. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Jasin on Apr 24th, 2024 at 8:13pm
I think the Moslems have been fighting Christians for so long as their justified reason to exist.
That fighting Jews coming up from behind (and within) is something that they're really not up for. Israel was more than happy to 'war' with Iran (despite all the American Propaganda experts saying 'no way' to hide the fact that Israel is more 'military' in culture, than the USA is). And as you saw - Iran 'backed down' and made excuses. Obviously realising Israel isn't afraid of 'death and anihilation'... a path that Islam is yet to experience. The 'Empire' of Israel is rising! The Empire of Islam is falling. Suck it up! ;D |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 25th, 2024 at 8:06am Frank wrote on Apr 15th, 2024 at 9:09am:
"If I were a Palestinian, I'd occasionally wonder what I had to do to get a bad press." Just so. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 10:39am freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 6:49pm:
Yes, ie, because the "real life army" ie, the "army" representing combined UNSC security force had not been created. Quote:
You are the one bleating about "paperwork". Are you saying it's impossible to create international law? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 10:46am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 10:39am:
I am saying you can create all the international law you want, but if cannot project the authority to enforce it then it is meaningless, just like the UN resolutions were meaningless for the Israelis when they set up their new state. Their actions happened to be consistent with it, given that both the Israelis and the UN had a little common sense, but you can hardly blame the Israelis for a functioning state of palestine not magically popping into existence at the stroke of the pen. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:15am Frank wrote on Apr 24th, 2024 at 7:36pm:
Correct Quote:
Correct. Quote:
On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto). Quote:
Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today. Quote:
Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels. Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege..... Quote:
You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage. Re the UN's ability to create a state: https://kentlaw.iit.edu/ The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ... Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:18am Quote:
Under international law you cannot force people to be stateless. Yet that is what would happen if you insisted the locals could not "create a state" until the UN did. In any case I am pretty sure you understanding of the international law is wrong. Quote:
So the Israelis broke the law by setting up the UN-sanctioned state themselves, rather than waiting for the UN to do it for them - a capacity which they still lack to this day? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:25am freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 10:46am:
Remarkable, we are in agreement. Quote:
....BECAUSE the UNSC cannot "project the authority to enforce the law". ... because of YOUR outdated 'national sovereigty/ individual "freedom" ideology. Ouch. Quote:
No, the Zionists were self-interested, and the UN was incompetent, as noted above. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:27am
So all of your accusations against Israel are really nothing to do with Israel, they are just a segue into your whinge about the UN not having it's own army, or the only army?
Quote:
To this day they have a strong interest in not being slaughtered for being Jewish. You make it sound like that is a bad thing. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:31am freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:18am:
That's what the Netanyahu Cabinet is doing. Quote:
Nice one: a people can say they "deserve" a state, and then proceed to take other people's land by force. Quote:
Addressed in my previous two posts. Quote:
Yes. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:39am thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:31am:
The mind boggles. It's no surprise you support the CCP, despite them starving 50 million people to death through an "administrative error" and rewarding the leaders responsible. Do you have any idea how absurd you sound? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:43pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:39am:
Nonsense, you lying (or low IQ) ideologue.... Quote:
I know you are incapable of debating the issues - which is why you grabbed hold of my answer to your final (typical) GIGO question, rather than addressing the earlier points I made in that post. Not surprinsing from a delusional "individual freedom" ideologue who thinks "shared belief"/"subjective reality" = objective reality. Delusion: (def.) a fixed false belief not amenable to external evidence. Deplorable - a prize example of the "human condition" resulting in your "freedom or death" absurd ideological monstrosities. "All must submit to rule of law, for all to be free": Cicero. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:46pm
I am not sure what there is left to debate. I feel like I am resorting to argumentum ad absurdum, except you keep agreeing with me.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:53pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:46pm:
Keep agreeing with you? In my #196, I refuted every point you made, apart from your final misconstued question with which I agreed: there is no effective international law at this stage. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:56pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:15am:
Correct. Quote:
On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto). Quote:
Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today. Quote:
Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels. Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege..... Quote:
You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage. Re the UN's ability to create a state: https://kentlaw.iit.edu/ The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ... Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist. [/quote] So the UN DIDN'T have the ability to create states then and doesn't have the ability now, 75 years later. But the Jews should have waited. You are an idiot. And absurd, stupid idiot. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:56pm Quote:
Only when I accuse you of saying the most absurd things. thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:31am:
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:04pm Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:56pm:
On the basis only the UN itself can create states; in this case, the UN planned two states; the plan was not for one state enforcing its existance on land belonging to other people through war, but by the UN itself enforcing the creation of two states. The fact the UN didn't have the military capability to do that is another story (inc. the UNSC veto). Quote:
Th security enforcement mechanism; it's still missing which is why international affairs are still f**ked today. Quote:
Inaccurate statement: the Arabs in the 7th century followed the Koranic injunction to kill ALL infidels. Israel had long ceased to exist; and according to Muhammad, Jews and Christians had turned away from the OT prophets of god. Christians even claimed Christ WAS god - a sacrilege..... Quote:
You must understand, interntional law is nascent at this stage. Re the UN's ability to create a state: https://kentlaw.iit.edu/ The UN Security Council does not have the legal capacity to create states. This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states ... Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall or something, but you get the jist. [/quote] So the UN DIDN'T have the ability to create states then and doesn't have the ability now, 75 years later.[/quote] Did you miss it?: "This legal statement however does not exclude the possibility that the member states"...(may authorize the UN to create new states). Quote:
Of course, rather than go to war with people who objected to their land (Palestine mandate land) being confiscated to create a new state. Quote:
See my reply to FD; you are suffering the same delusions as him. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:12pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 2:56pm:
I agreed with your ideologically misconstrued question; while noting an individual group cannot set up a UN sanctioned state by themselves when another group objects. Only the UNSC can adjudicate the matter - except that the UNSC is rendered powerless by your "individual freedom" delusions. Catch-22. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:13pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:12pm:
This "another group" being the Muslims who object in principle to Israel's existence? Are you just making up rules as you go along? Also, what is an "individual group"? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:22pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 11:27am:
Your error there: both propositions are important (stop displaying your nuance-less, black and white brain...) Quote:
This debate - and that above statement - is at least important for showing why political discourse in the demoracies is so hyperpartisan and insane these days. 1. No-one likes being slaughtered for whatever reason; the causes require examination. 2. Genocide is always deplorable, whoever does it. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:28pm
Apologies, that statement was from back before I realised just how absurd your position is.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:30pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:13pm:
Yes. Quote:
No. Quote:
In this case, a group who wanted to carve a state out of other people's land (which was sanctioned by the UN) vote) - as opposed to the creation of a state (or states) under international law...law which is ineffective at this stage, owing to your delusioal "individual freedom" ideology. Catch-22. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:34pm
Can you quote the relevant legislation that you are paraphrasing?
If a visiting foreigner had helped them out, would that mean they were no longer breaking the law, because they were not acting as an "individual group by themselves"? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:47pm freediver wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:34pm:
See the link previouslty supplied a few posts back (to Frank, iirc). Quote:
No. A "visiting foreigner" is irrelevent to (as yet non-existent**) effective international law and the creation of states. ** non-existent, owing to your delusional 'individual freedo..... ...oh dear, I'm arguing with a madman, this will be tough.... Anyway, please stop asking your insane or low IQ or ideologically construed questions. They will be disposed of forthwith, as always. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:48pm
.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:58pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:47pm:
That is a link to a home page, not an article. The UN doesn't have the ability to create states, only to facilitate the recognition of a state by its members. The UN is NOTJING without its member states. Only a people can create a state since a state is the expression of the sovereignty of a people. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by freediver on Apr 25th, 2024 at 4:38pm thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:47pm:
Can you quote the relevant legislation that you are paraphrasing? In particular, this rule: thegreatdivide wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:30pm:
sounds like something a primary school student might make up in a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging they have lost all credibility. If the nation of Tokelau had sent it's army to assist the Israelis in setting up their nation, would that have legitimised it? |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 5:48pm
Now for some 'relief' from a 'deadly' topic:
Lovely to see a dove (symbol of peace) flying around inside the European Parliament..... https://metro.co.uk/2024/04/24/pro-putin-meps-bizarre-call-peace-ukraine-dove-hidden-a-bag-20711473/ Pro-Putin MEP’s bizarre call for peace in Ukraine with dove hidden in a bag ....... Reminded me of the imagery at the end of Bach's St. Matthew Passion, set to text: "In the evening the dove returned And carried an olive leaf in its beak. O beautiful time ..." (ie, the evening after the crucifixion). Of course, one MEP completely missed the point and complained about 'animal rights' ... while another complained about the dove being loose in the chamber....undoubtedly they voted for the usual conservative pro-war "freedom or death" ideology, as opposed to freedom and life. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 6:05pm Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 3:58pm:
Correct, but obviously the UN member states have to agree to abide by international law, which agencies of the UN can create (though at this stage, cannot defend - as I keep reminding the 'individual freedom' ideologues on this board). Quote:
Incorrect, Israel would not exist were it not for the UN Partition Plan (bungled though it was...). |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Apr 25th, 2024 at 6:15pm
You said the exact opposite an hour ago, you stupid, absurd idiot.
|
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Apr 25th, 2024 at 6:23pm Frank wrote on Apr 25th, 2024 at 6:15pm:
Care to state clearly what I said in #215 is the 'exact opposite' of what I said an hour ago? Meanwhile on this Anzac Day, Dutton is out there bleating about "courage".... like all conservative pro-war "freedom or death" ideologues, as opposed to freedom and life. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Jun 29th, 2024 at 10:34pm mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
BREAKING REPORT: Following Bidən’s debate performance, Colonel Douglas Macgregor calls for EARLY ELECTIONS… President Bidən is NOT FIT to discharge the immense duties of the presidency.” https://x.com/ChuckCallesto/status/1806858776433090668 |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by Bobby. on Jun 29th, 2024 at 10:53pm mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
That is all Russian propaganda. The Russians can hardly fight Ukraine yet alone 32 countries. ::) |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Jun 30th, 2024 at 1:13pm Frank wrote on Jun 29th, 2024 at 10:34pm:
Early elections - with Biden as the Dem. candidate? Organizing a replacement Dem candidate will take time, meaning "early" is moot. Still waiting for you to indentify what you claim was "the exact opposite"......see the post before yours. |
|
Title: Re: WW3? An informed conservative perspective Post by capitosinora on Jul 2nd, 2024 at 6:58pm
:)
|
|
Title: Re: An informed conservative perspective Post by Frank on Oct 6th, 2024 at 3:13am mothra wrote on Apr 12th, 2024 at 7:56am:
NewsColonel Douglas Macgregor Is ‘MAD AS HELL’ Over Biden-Harris’ Treasonous Hurricane Response "Our good countrymen and women are being left to fend for themselves while the government bends over backward for illegal immigrants, criminal gang members, foreign governments, and — of course — lines the pockets of warmongers!” As families in North Carolina suffer without food, water, or electricity, Macgregor laid out the harsh reality: “Fort Bragg, now renamed Fort Liberty, is only 300 miles from Asheville, North Carolina, where thousands of Americans are coping with washed-out roads and bridges, power outages, and a desperate need for clean water.” Yet, he pointed out, not a single army helicopter has been sent to rescue them. Why? Because those aircraft are busy overseas, leaving Americans in the dust. “Too many Americans have been left behind by a negligent federal government for too long,” Macgregor declared. His message to Washington is loud and clear: prioritize Americans NOW. https://vigilantnews.com/post/colonel-douglas-macgregor-is-mad-as-hell-over-biden-harris-treasonous-hurricane-response/ |
|
Title: Re: An informed conservative perspective Post by thegreatdivide on Oct 6th, 2024 at 11:25am Frank wrote on Oct 6th, 2024 at 3:13am:
Good to see a colonel criticizing the military-industrial complex for its egregious claims on resources needed at home. |
|
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved. |
