What's the capital of Israel?

[PredFan]

What is your quest?
To find the Holy Grail.
What is your favorite color?
Blue.
What is the capital of Israel?
What, it's still being negotiated...um...we don't want to disrupt the negotiations....

BOING!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

One always has to remember that to a liberal "House of David" is just a fashionista title and is located somewhere in Paris next to House of Chanel.

I'm just wondering why you think we should get into the middle of a fight between Muslims and Jews about whose Sky Pixie has a bigger dick....

 

[Truthseeker420]

Berlin?

 

[Jroc]

I never knew there was an international problem with their capital till this post, and thats totally why obamas guy wouldnt answer the question. Thanks for the thread, it brought something to my attention that i didnt know. He should have said what side obama was, but they are too scared to be firm. Socialism first, truth last.

the question was improper and impolite and designed to trash obama needlessly. it embarrassed the office of the presidency on what is sure to be an international stage. furthermore, the jewish woman (BBC News America) knew the answer to the question and jay carney correctly stated the answer.

not one single president since truman has recognised al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel. before truman, it was not a state. the fate of al quds/jerusalem is rightfully relegated to the final status negotiations. israel has consistently refused to negotiate that final status on some pretext or another since what seems like forever. some are fooled. i am not. the reason for such delay is to build more settlements on the west bank and erase any possibility of a viable palestinian state.

now i a going to sat something, and i am sure every single one of you will disagree with me. i imagine you have already. what i have said above is genocide according to the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, whose signatories include the USA and israel.

history will record that. i do not want this country, that i served in the u.s. army in the sixties and that my son is serving now in the u.s. navy, to be any way complicit in such atrocities. this is no time to continue playing politics with the lives of israeli and palestinian children at stake.

only two countries around the world recognise al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel, el salvador and guatamala.

Watch the video on post #49 and see the similarity to these remarks by GW Bush.

Candidate George W. Bush on Israel
(May 22, 2000)

In recent times, Washington has tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables; but this is not the path to peace. A clear and bad example was the administration's attempt to take sides in the most recent Israeli election. America should not interfere in Israel's democratic process. And America will not interfere in Israeli elections when I am the president. But something will happen when I become the president. As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital....
Candidate George W. Bush on Israel

And then 9/11 happened you people seem to forget about that. Nothing new with the left no way Bush could do that when he trying to get support for the war on terror

 

[JWBooth]

Berlin?

Shreveport?

 

[Jroc]

civilians fleeing a war zone have a right to return when the hostilities cease. those are the rules...and they make sense.

so you think mexico should have a right of return to texas and california?

get real. i'm not real keen on "ex post facto"ing things, particularly when they go back that far AND there is specific language regarding refugees.

and that does not mean that i think that the U.S.Invasion was right. it wasn't.

i don't think we can take today's laws and impose them on events that happened 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago, nor can we judge ancient societies with our value systems. i also do not think we can judge current societies different from ours using our value systems, and certainly not without trying to understand those societies and perhaps trying to educate them to something that might be better.

i try to understand things. i don't judge the hasidim in jerusalem by my western standards, for instance, as the way they live probably has some rhyme or reason in their past, but i do not think their archaic laws should interfere with others who aren't hasidic.

so you think might makes right and people displaced or deprived by hostilities should have no recourse to remedy their grievances? i know you don't think that, because you are jewish and you think that reparations paid to the jewish people by the NAZI german (and other) state(s) is right, and so do i.

here is what i think too. i think arabs are syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis and etc shouldn't all be grouped into arabs. i make a distinction between israelis and jews.

now, perhaps you can give me some specific incidences of how the palestinins wronged the israelis during this '48 war, not that it makes a difference, noncombatants fleeing a war zone have a right to return.

Learn a little history Syrians Jordanians, Lebanese, "Palestinians are all the same people all those countries were created by the Europeans Jordan is 70% so called Palestinians the Zionist Jews re-created their own country in their ancestral homeland.

 

[hortysir]

Is that right?

So Israel wasn't created in 1949 after they invaded Palestine, and terrorized its residents since , 1925 ?!?!?!?!!?

So Israel wasn't created when David Ben-Gurion "donated" 2.5 millions to the Truman presidential campaign?

.

.

No, it wasn't. Ask any archeologist if you don't believe me.

So in other words, you found no evidence for your bullshit claim.

.

You seriously believe that there was no Israel prior to 1900???

 

[Quantum Windbag]

civilians fleeing a war zone have a right to return when the hostilities cease. those are the rules...and they make sense.

so you think mexico should have a right of return to texas and california?

get real. i'm not real keen on "ex post facto"ing things, particularly when they go back that far AND there is specific language regarding refugees.

and that does not mean that i think that the U.S.Invasion was right. it wasn't.

i don't think we can take today's laws and impose them on events that happened 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago, nor can we judge ancient societies with our value systems. i also do not think we can judge current societies different from ours using our value systems, and certainly not without trying to understand those societies and perhaps trying to educate them to something that might be better.

i try to understand things. i don't judge the hasidim in jerusalem by my western standards, for instance, as the way they live probably has some rhyme or reason in their past, but i do not think their archaic laws should interfere with others who aren't hasidic.

so you think might makes right and people displaced or deprived by hostilities should have no recourse to remedy their grievances? i know you don't think that, because you are jewish and you think that reparations paid to the jewish people by the NAZI german (and other) state(s) is right, and so do i.

here is what i think too. i think arabs are syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis and etc shouldn't all be grouped into arabs. i make a distinction between israelis and jews.

now, perhaps you can give me some specific incidences of how the palestinins wronged the israelis during this '48 war, not that it makes a difference, noncombatants fleeing a war zone have a right to return.

The strange thing is that, until the Arab world displaced the Palestinians after Israel was granted independence by the British, no one cared about displaced refugees having a right of return. The same governments that clamor for the Palestinian's right to return to a land they never had refuse to give various groups the same consideration, which is why there are ongoing conflicts with the Khurds and various countries, most of them our allies.

What, in your view, makes the Palestinians the only group worthy of ex post facto application of modern laws? Especially considering that their political leaders have all publicly proclaimed that the only thing they will accept is the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people.

 

[sealadaigh]

I never knew there was an international problem with their capital till this post, and thats totally why obamas guy wouldnt answer the question. Thanks for the thread, it brought something to my attention that i didnt know. He should have said what side obama was, but they are too scared to be firm. Socialism first, truth last.

the question was improper and impolite and designed to trash obama needlessly. it embarrassed the office of the presidency on what is sure to be an international stage. furthermore, the jewish woman (BBC News America) knew the answer to the question and jay carney correctly stated the answer.

not one single president since truman has recognised al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel. before truman, it was not a state. the fate of al quds/jerusalem is rightfully relegated to the final status negotiations. israel has consistently refused to negotiate that final status on some pretext or another since what seems like forever. some are fooled. i am not. the reason for such delay is to build more settlements on the west bank and erase any possibility of a viable palestinian state.

now i a going to sat something, and i am sure every single one of you will disagree with me. i imagine you have already. what i have said above is genocide according to the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, whose signatories include the USA and israel.

history will record that. i do not want this country, that i served in the u.s. army in the sixties and that my son is serving now in the u.s. navy, to be any way complicit in such atrocities. this is no time to continue playing politics with the lives of israeli and palestinian children at stake.

only two countries around the world recognise al quds/jerusalem as the capital of israel, el salvador and guatamala.

Watch the video on post #49 and see the similarity to these remarks by GW Bush.

Candidate George W. Bush on Israel
(May 22, 2000)

In recent times, Washington has tried to make Israel conform to its own plans and timetables; but this is not the path to peace. A clear and bad example was the administration's attempt to take sides in the most recent Israeli election. America should not interfere in Israel's democratic process. And America will not interfere in Israeli elections when I am the president. But something will happen when I become the president. As soon as I take office, I will begin the process of moving the United States ambassador to the city Israel has chosen as its capital....
Candidate George W. Bush on Israel

i

so? i don't know what thaat has to do with anything?

i thought we were talking about al quds/jerusalem. that is an issue between the palestinians and israelis and that has been the white house's position forever, and the international community's, and correctly so.

the white house's position ever since israel was created has pretty much been the same. that the status al quds/jerusalem is to be decided in negotiations. personally, i think we should just walk away from the whoke deal instead of propping up israel while they lie to us and the world. they want the west bank, and their "undivided jerusalem" and will lie, cheay and steal to get it, but they want it without having to acknowledge the people living there and, heaven forbid, allow them to vote. that would be like...OMG...that would mean israel would be a democracy. i love this country and i a tired of watching us make fools of ourselves. the deal is done. look at the map. there will never be a viable palestine. god bless america. we helped genocide those people.

we blew it big time on this one. nwe keep saying we want a peaceful solution and we let israel stall on peace talks and keep building ILLEGAL settlements, and by "illegal", i mean even by their own laws "illegal". then they, likud, labour, kadima, whoever goes to the knesset and voila, the knesset makes them legal...and we are not only too kind, but we are too stupid, and we fall for it every time...and then, more empty proises.

what do you think? that if one president says something and then the next president says the exact same thing that one is either right or wrong depending upon their party affiliation.

i hate to say it, but maybe people need to stop being led around by one side or the other and learn to start thinking for themselves on the issues.

 

[sealadaigh]

so you think mexico should have a right of return to texas and california?

get real. i'm not real keen on "ex post facto"ing things, particularly when they go back that far AND there is specific language regarding refugees.

and that does not mean that i think that the U.S.Invasion was right. it wasn't.

i don't think we can take today's laws and impose them on events that happened 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago, nor can we judge ancient societies with our value systems. i also do not think we can judge current societies different from ours using our value systems, and certainly not without trying to understand those societies and perhaps trying to educate them to something that might be better.

i try to understand things. i don't judge the hasidim in jerusalem by my western standards, for instance, as the way they live probably has some rhyme or reason in their past, but i do not think their archaic laws should interfere with others who aren't hasidic.

so you think might makes right and people displaced or deprived by hostilities should have no recourse to remedy their grievances? i know you don't think that, because you are jewish and you think that reparations paid to the jewish people by the NAZI german (and other) state(s) is right, and so do i.

here is what i think too. i think arabs are syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis and etc shouldn't all be grouped into arabs. i make a distinction between israelis and jews.

now, perhaps you can give me some specific incidences of how the palestinins wronged the israelis during this '48 war, not that it makes a difference, noncombatants fleeing a war zone have a right to return.

The strange thing is that, until the Arab world displaced the Palestinians after Israel was granted independence by the British, no one cared about displaced refugees having a right of return. The same governments that clamor for the Palestinian's right to return to a land they never had refuse to give various groups the same consideration, which is why there are ongoing conflicts with the Khurds and various countries, most of them our allies.

What, in your view, makes the Palestinians the only group worthy of ex post facto application of modern laws? Especially considering that their political leaders have all publicly proclaimed that the only thing they will accept is the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people.

ya know what. screw you. where in the hell did i ever say that i believed palestinians were the only people who had the right to return, so don't be putting words in my mouth. i think every refugee has the right to return, forgive me for not being alive in 1847 to lay myself down in the path of manifest destiny and prevent the expulsion of them damn brown kafirs from south of the border.

as for the "ex post facto"ing, the eternally wise jillian was talking about something unjust that happened 150 years ago and that was resolved, rightfully or wrongfully. furthermore, i have no problems with laws that try to correct an immediate wrong, which includes trying nazis for acts of genocide.

and you are either a liar or ignorant. read the arab peace initiative which offers israel the peace they claim to want and full recognition, but io and behold, it seems that israel wants the west bank and more.

lemme guess...you don't think jewish people and the jews should be compensated and made whole for the property that was taken from them during WWII or that that property should be returned? if the answer is that they shouldn't be compensated or have property returned, then i can understand how you feel about the palestinians. if, however, you do think the jews deserve compensation and not the palestinians, then it is easy...you are a racist and a bigot. i'm kinda going with the latter on that one here, ol buddy..

 

[sealadaigh]

so you think mexico should have a right of return to texas and california?

get real. i'm not real keen on "ex post facto"ing things, particularly when they go back that far AND there is specific language regarding refugees.

and that does not mean that i think that the U.S.Invasion was right. it wasn't.

i don't think we can take today's laws and impose them on events that happened 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago, nor can we judge ancient societies with our value systems. i also do not think we can judge current societies different from ours using our value systems, and certainly not without trying to understand those societies and perhaps trying to educate them to something that might be better.

i try to understand things. i don't judge the hasidim in jerusalem by my western standards, for instance, as the way they live probably has some rhyme or reason in their past, but i do not think their archaic laws should interfere with others who aren't hasidic.

so you think might makes right and people displaced or deprived by hostilities should have no recourse to remedy their grievances? i know you don't think that, because you are jewish and you think that reparations paid to the jewish people by the NAZI german (and other) state(s) is right, and so do i.

here is what i think too. i think arabs are syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis and etc shouldn't all be grouped into arabs. i make a distinction between israelis and jews.

now, perhaps you can give me some specific incidences of how the palestinins wronged the israelis during this '48 war, not that it makes a difference, noncombatants fleeing a war zone have a right to return.

Wait a second I've never heard a liberal say this, everyone from the past is barbaric and horrible, is all I ever hear......I agree with the statement, somehow I dont think you really believe this.

i believe exactly that. i believe that more than you. did some liberal die and somehow i was elected as a replacement. i am not particularly a liberal, nor am i particularly a conservative. in my opinion, neither group seems particularly consistent in values and action.

and believe me. i get in a lot of trouble for that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What is your quest?
To find the Holy Grail.
What is your favorite color?
Blue.
What is the capital of Israel?
What, it's still being negotiated...um...we don't want to disrupt the negotiations....

BOING!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Best post ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!¡!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

get real. i'm not real keen on "ex post facto"ing things, particularly when they go back that far AND there is specific language regarding refugees.

and that does not mean that i think that the U.S.Invasion was right. it wasn't.

i don't think we can take today's laws and impose them on events that happened 100 or 200 or 2000 years ago, nor can we judge ancient societies with our value systems. i also do not think we can judge current societies different from ours using our value systems, and certainly not without trying to understand those societies and perhaps trying to educate them to something that might be better.

i try to understand things. i don't judge the hasidim in jerusalem by my western standards, for instance, as the way they live probably has some rhyme or reason in their past, but i do not think their archaic laws should interfere with others who aren't hasidic.

so you think might makes right and people displaced or deprived by hostilities should have no recourse to remedy their grievances? i know you don't think that, because you are jewish and you think that reparations paid to the jewish people by the NAZI german (and other) state(s) is right, and so do i.

here is what i think too. i think arabs are syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis and etc shouldn't all be grouped into arabs. i make a distinction between israelis and jews.

now, perhaps you can give me some specific incidences of how the palestinins wronged the israelis during this '48 war, not that it makes a difference, noncombatants fleeing a war zone have a right to return.

The strange thing is that, until the Arab world displaced the Palestinians after Israel was granted independence by the British, no one cared about displaced refugees having a right of return. The same governments that clamor for the Palestinian's right to return to a land they never had refuse to give various groups the same consideration, which is why there are ongoing conflicts with the Khurds and various countries, most of them our allies.

What, in your view, makes the Palestinians the only group worthy of ex post facto application of modern laws? Especially considering that their political leaders have all publicly proclaimed that the only thing they will accept is the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people.

ya know what. screw you. where in the hell did i ever say that i believed palestinians were the only people who had the right to return, so don't be putting words in my mouth. i think every refugee has the right to return, forgive me for not being alive in 1847 to lay myself down in the path of manifest destiny and prevent the expulsion of them damn brown kafirs from south of the border.

as for the "ex post facto"ing, the eternally wise jillian was talking about something unjust that happened 150 years ago and that was resolved, rightfully or wrongfully. furthermore, i have no problems with laws that try to correct an immediate wrong, which includes trying nazis for acts of genocide.

and you are either a liar or ignorant. read the arab peace initiative which offers israel the peace they claim to want and full recognition, but io and behold, it seems that israel wants the west bank and more.

lemme guess...you don't think jewish people and the jews should be compensated and made whole for the property that was taken from them during WWII or that that property should be returned? if the answer is that they shouldn't be compensated or have property returned, then i can understand how you feel about the palestinians. if, however, you do think the jews deserve compensation and not the palestinians, then it is easy...you are a racist and a bigot. i'm kinda going with the latter on that one here, ol buddy..

You specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws, yet you support the Palestinian right of return, which is an ex post facto application of modern laws. I did assume that was the only exception to your stance on ex post facto applications. Would you care to elaborate on what other groups you want to carve an exception out for, or is your outrage merely a cover for your getting caught in a lie?

This is really strange, you said that you do not think all the different groups, "syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis," (sic) should all be lumped together as Arabs yet you conveniently ignore your own position when I point out that all the leaders of the Palestinians have all called for the end of Israel, and call me a liar and insist that many Arabs publicly support the right of Israel to exist. Is there a reason you change your definitions, or is it simply more convenient if you see your position crumbling because of something I said?

Then you throw in a strawman. Just an FYI, if individual Jews are compensated for the fact that the German government sanctioned the outright theft of their property as a result of lawsuits filed in Germany under German law, I fully support that. The same logic would apply to Palestinians, they are free to petition the courts of whatever country displaced them for a legal redress of their grievances and whatever compensation they are legally able to get. They are not allowed to call for the destruction of the state of Israel as a precursor to any other claims they have being settled, especially if they were actually displaced by the actions of countries Israel has no control over.

I think my position is logically consistent. I think yours relies on a bunch of shifting definitions and the ability to ignore your own arguments. On top of that, I still don't see why you want to exempt the Palestinians from your position on ex post facto laws.

 

[Jroc]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSBh6C5eZgc]Obama State Department Won't Say If Jerusalem Is The Capital Of Israel - YouTube[/ame]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So the white house press guy doesn't want to answer completely pointless questions meant to disrupt a news conference? I don't blame him for ignoring the useless loudmouth twits in regards to their pointless question that seems to be way out of context. There comes a certain point when the person in the front just has to ignore the rabble and let them make the stupid assumptions they wish.

If only they ignored disruptive twats more often we might get something done.

Oh, and the only people who admitted to not knowing the capital was the woman who was playing a game and the loud guy next to her. If it was geography class and the teacher ignored the question there might be a point, but this is a damned white house press conference, and not a college class. Go back to your office and google it, don't waste the white houses time asking them for geography lessons.

Carney is that stupid. There's a lot of grasping for the next word in all of his pressers.

 

[sealadaigh]

The strange thing is that, until the Arab world displaced the Palestinians after Israel was granted independence by the British, no one cared about displaced refugees having a right of return. The same governments that clamor for the Palestinian's right to return to a land they never had refuse to give various groups the same consideration, which is why there are ongoing conflicts with the Khurds and various countries, most of them our allies.

What, in your view, makes the Palestinians the only group worthy of ex post facto application of modern laws? Especially considering that their political leaders have all publicly proclaimed that the only thing they will accept is the destruction of Israel as a nation, and a people.

ya know what. screw you. where in the hell did i ever say that i believed palestinians were the only people who had the right to return, so don't be putting words in my mouth. i think every refugee has the right to return, forgive me for not being alive in 1847 to lay myself down in the path of manifest destiny and prevent the expulsion of them damn brown kafirs from south of the border.

as for the "ex post facto"ing, the eternally wise jillian was talking about something unjust that happened 150 years ago and that was resolved, rightfully or wrongfully. furthermore, i have no problems with laws that try to correct an immediate wrong, which includes trying nazis for acts of genocide.

and you are either a liar or ignorant. read the arab peace initiative which offers israel the peace they claim to want and full recognition, but io and behold, it seems that israel wants the west bank and more.

lemme guess...you don't think jewish people and the jews should be compensated and made whole for the property that was taken from them during WWII or that that property should be returned? if the answer is that they shouldn't be compensated or have property returned, then i can understand how you feel about the palestinians. if, however, you do think the jews deserve compensation and not the palestinians, then it is easy...you are a racist and a bigot. i'm kinda going with the latter on that one here, ol buddy..

You specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws, yet you support the Palestinian right of return, which is an ex post facto application of modern laws. I did assume that was the only exception to your stance on ex post facto applications. Would you care to elaborate on what other groups you want to carve an exception out for, or is your outrage merely a cover for your getting caught in a lie?

This is really strange, you said that you do not think all the different groups, "syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis," (sic) should all be lumped together as Arabs yet you conveniently ignore your own position when I point out that all the leaders of the Palestinians have all called for the end of Israel, and call me a liar and insist that many Arabs publicly support the right of Israel to exist. Is there a reason you change your definitions, or is it simply more convenient if you see your position crumbling because of something I said?

Then you throw in a strawman. Just an FYI, if individual Jews are compensated for the fact that the German government sanctioned the outright theft of their property as a result of lawsuits filed in Germany under German law, I fully support that. The same logic would apply to Palestinians, they are free to petition the courts of whatever country displaced them for a legal redress of their grievances and whatever compensation they are legally able to get. They are not allowed to call for the destruction of the state of Israel as a precursor to any other claims they have being settled, especially if they were actually displaced by the actions of countries Israel has no control over.

I think my position is logically consistent. I think yours relies on a bunch of shifting definitions and the ability to ignore your own arguments. On top of that, I still don't see why you want to exempt the Palestinians from your position on ex post facto laws.

the palestinians have legal refugee status as the law is written and thus, are entitled to any and all considerayions given to refugees. does thaat clear it up for you.

they are refugees. they do not have the means to legally seek reparations.

the arab peace initiative was endorsed by the arab league which includes all the arab states acting in condert. in such instances i have no problem referring to them as arabs.

as for ex post facto. jillian was talking about something that happened over 150 years ago. if ex post facto addresses some very grievous wrong or an ongoing wrong, while i don't like it, it may be the only way to achieve justice. it really isn't all that clear now legally, is it?

look...i am not going to follow the paper trail for you into some bizarre abyss of minutiae. read UDHR, i think article 13 or 14, i don't recall right off hand. it was written with WWII in mind i am sure...in late '48 i am pretty sure.

and why don't you show me where "specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws," is. what i said was in the context of a war that the US waged against mexico 160) years ago. then i said i am not to keen on ex post facto, and i am not.

what the hell do you think should be dome with the refugees. that is sort of a rhetorical question but i would like to hear your answer. yes, i will slip and slide a little bit on a case by case basis, but i have a feelig you are gonna slip and slide a lot.

and yes, i do think there should be a kurdistan.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ya know what. screw you. where in the hell did i ever say that i believed palestinians were the only people who had the right to return, so don't be putting words in my mouth. i think every refugee has the right to return, forgive me for not being alive in 1847 to lay myself down in the path of manifest destiny and prevent the expulsion of them damn brown kafirs from south of the border.

as for the "ex post facto"ing, the eternally wise jillian was talking about something unjust that happened 150 years ago and that was resolved, rightfully or wrongfully. furthermore, i have no problems with laws that try to correct an immediate wrong, which includes trying nazis for acts of genocide.

and you are either a liar or ignorant. read the arab peace initiative which offers israel the peace they claim to want and full recognition, but io and behold, it seems that israel wants the west bank and more.

lemme guess...you don't think jewish people and the jews should be compensated and made whole for the property that was taken from them during WWII or that that property should be returned? if the answer is that they shouldn't be compensated or have property returned, then i can understand how you feel about the palestinians. if, however, you do think the jews deserve compensation and not the palestinians, then it is easy...you are a racist and a bigot. i'm kinda going with the latter on that one here, ol buddy..

You specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws, yet you support the Palestinian right of return, which is an ex post facto application of modern laws. I did assume that was the only exception to your stance on ex post facto applications. Would you care to elaborate on what other groups you want to carve an exception out for, or is your outrage merely a cover for your getting caught in a lie?

This is really strange, you said that you do not think all the different groups, "syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis," (sic) should all be lumped together as Arabs yet you conveniently ignore your own position when I point out that all the leaders of the Palestinians have all called for the end of Israel, and call me a liar and insist that many Arabs publicly support the right of Israel to exist. Is there a reason you change your definitions, or is it simply more convenient if you see your position crumbling because of something I said?

Then you throw in a strawman. Just an FYI, if individual Jews are compensated for the fact that the German government sanctioned the outright theft of their property as a result of lawsuits filed in Germany under German law, I fully support that. The same logic would apply to Palestinians, they are free to petition the courts of whatever country displaced them for a legal redress of their grievances and whatever compensation they are legally able to get. They are not allowed to call for the destruction of the state of Israel as a precursor to any other claims they have being settled, especially if they were actually displaced by the actions of countries Israel has no control over.

I think my position is logically consistent. I think yours relies on a bunch of shifting definitions and the ability to ignore your own arguments. On top of that, I still don't see why you want to exempt the Palestinians from your position on ex post facto laws.

the palestinians have legal refugee status as the law is written and thus, are entitled to any and all considerayions given to refugees. does thaat clear it up for you.

they are refugees. they do not have the means to legally seek reparations.

the arab peace initiative was endorsed by the arab league which includes all the arab states acting in condert. in such instances i have no problem referring to them as arabs.

as for ex post facto. jillian was talking about something that happened over 150 years ago. if ex post facto addresses some very grievous wrong or an ongoing wrong, while i don't like it, it may be the only way to achieve justice. it really isn't all that clear now legally, is it?

look...i am not going to follow the paper trail for you into some bizarre abyss of minutiae. read UDHR, i think article 13 or 14, i don't recall right off hand. it was written with WWII in mind i am sure...in late '48 i am pretty sure.

and why don't you show me where "specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws," is. what i said was in the context of a war that the US waged against mexico 160) years ago. then i said i am not to keen on ex post facto, and i am not.

what the hell do you think should be dome with the refugees. that is sort of a rhetorical question but i would like to hear your answer. yes, i will slip and slide a little bit on a case by case basis, but i have a feelig you are gonna slip and slide a lot.

and yes, i do think there should be a kurdistan.

What law are you referring to? Have you read my signature? What makes you think I care about laws other people wrote if I didn't have a part in writing them?

You just contradicted yourself, if they are legally refugees, and thus entitled to the legal considerations of refugees, how can they not be entitled to those considerations because they are refugees?

You admit you said you don't support ex post facto, yet you want me to show you where you said it? Remember when I commented about the logical inconsistencies of your arguments?

I already explained what I think should be done, weren't you paying attention?

 

[buckeye45_73]

You specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws, yet you support the Palestinian right of return, which is an ex post facto application of modern laws. I did assume that was the only exception to your stance on ex post facto applications. Would you care to elaborate on what other groups you want to carve an exception out for, or is your outrage merely a cover for your getting caught in a lie?

This is really strange, you said that you do not think all the different groups, "syrians and jordanians and palestiniaans and iraqis and saudis," (sic) should all be lumped together as Arabs yet you conveniently ignore your own position when I point out that all the leaders of the Palestinians have all called for the end of Israel, and call me a liar and insist that many Arabs publicly support the right of Israel to exist. Is there a reason you change your definitions, or is it simply more convenient if you see your position crumbling because of something I said?

Then you throw in a strawman. Just an FYI, if individual Jews are compensated for the fact that the German government sanctioned the outright theft of their property as a result of lawsuits filed in Germany under German law, I fully support that. The same logic would apply to Palestinians, they are free to petition the courts of whatever country displaced them for a legal redress of their grievances and whatever compensation they are legally able to get. They are not allowed to call for the destruction of the state of Israel as a precursor to any other claims they have being settled, especially if they were actually displaced by the actions of countries Israel has no control over.

I think my position is logically consistent. I think yours relies on a bunch of shifting definitions and the ability to ignore your own arguments. On top of that, I still don't see why you want to exempt the Palestinians from your position on ex post facto laws.

the palestinians have legal refugee status as the law is written and thus, are entitled to any and all considerayions given to refugees. does thaat clear it up for you.

they are refugees. they do not have the means to legally seek reparations.

the arab peace initiative was endorsed by the arab league which includes all the arab states acting in condert. in such instances i have no problem referring to them as arabs.

as for ex post facto. jillian was talking about something that happened over 150 years ago. if ex post facto addresses some very grievous wrong or an ongoing wrong, while i don't like it, it may be the only way to achieve justice. it really isn't all that clear now legally, is it?

look...i am not going to follow the paper trail for you into some bizarre abyss of minutiae. read UDHR, i think article 13 or 14, i don't recall right off hand. it was written with WWII in mind i am sure...in late '48 i am pretty sure.

and why don't you show me where "specifically said you don't support ex post facto application of modern laws," is. what i said was in the context of a war that the US waged against mexico 160) years ago. then i said i am not to keen on ex post facto, and i am not.

what the hell do you think should be dome with the refugees. that is sort of a rhetorical question but i would like to hear your answer. yes, i will slip and slide a little bit on a case by case basis, but i have a feelig you are gonna slip and slide a lot.

and yes, i do think there should be a kurdistan.

What law are you referring to? Have you read my signature? What makes you think I care about laws other people wrote if I didn't have a part in writing them?

You just contradicted yourself, if they are legally refugees, and thus entitled to the legal considerations of refugees, how can they not be entitled to those considerations because they are refugees?

You admit you said you don't support ex post facto, yet you want me to show you where you said it? Remember when I commented about the logical inconsistencies of your arguments?

I already explained what I think should be done, weren't you paying attention?

I approve this message.....


To add International law is not real law it's an agreement among nations, Kind of like a courtesy, but it's not that serious. Sure you'll piss folks off by breaking it, but hell Iraq broke it several times and liberals didnt care.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tel Aviv... no, wait, thats the capitol of the US.

lol, the capital of Israel is Washington, DC. The capital of Washington, DC is Tel Aviv.

...and the wheels on the bus go round and round...

 

[blackhawk]

The sad thing is I think the guy really didn't know the answer.