[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21917021]"Following numerous border clashes between Israel and its Arab neighbours, particularly Syria, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula in May 1967.[15] The peacekeeping force had been stationed there since 1957, following a British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt which was launched during the Suez Crisis.[16] Egypt amassed 1,000 tanks and nearly 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border[17] and closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, receiving strong support from other Arab nations.[18] Israel responded with a similar mobilization that included the call up of 70,000 reservists to augment the regular IDF forces.[19]"[/quote]
um... you didn't actually read that, did you? It states why the Egyptians were pissed off. You know, the whole... coalition invasion thing. You never read your sources, and you always link to Wikipedia.
[quote]Proof they burned and cut down settlers.[/QUOTE]
Deir Yassin never happened.
nope
please, deny that too.
I swear, if the holocaust was against Arabs, you'd probably be a denier.
[editline]02:58PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21917430]
I know that you think Israel has committed war crimes, but even if this is true[/QUOTE]
Would you like the picture of the child burned by WP? The video of the blindfolded peaceful protester shot in the leg? The picture of Israel firing WP on a hospital? The causlty reports of hundreds of children killed? The countless cases of rape and murder? I can go on and on and on.
You must be fucking naive as fuck if you think Israel never committed war crimes.
[editline]02:58PM[/editline]
you are a fuck up, you lunatic
You know it's easy for those of us not directly involved in any of this to sit here, read sensationalist news reports, and condemn one side or the other. Both sides commit atrocities, that's a fact of life (or death) in war. Peace is always going to be elusive in and around Israel as long as nationalism and ideology continue to mix and clash there. And as for who side has more claim to these lands, who gets to decide that? Regardless of what some "fairy tale" book claims, that IS the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. A majority of them (not all, not by a long shot) were forced out around 2,000 years ago, and in the meantime the Arabic people migrated there during the rise of the Caliphate. They've been there for well over 1500 years now, so I'd say that makes it their homeland too. Unfortunately history (and probably the future too) is going to be filled with mistrust and intolerance of anyone who looks/believes different than you. Peace in the Middle East isn't going to come about until both sides give up this idea that they have to be in control of an area their ancestors lived in and start from there. Two (or more) states are possible, neither side wants to give anything to get anything, they just want it all. Less so on the Arabs' part though...they currently have less than Israel, so they have more to gain and less to lose, whereas it's the exact opposite for Israel. Not a good starting point for negotiations.
I don`t think you can justify Israel nor Hamas.
Israel may shoot a school full of children to bits and pieces but there`s enough evidence that Hamas uses kids as living shields and train 14 year old kids to become soldiers themself. Plus they shoot mortars and rockets on the top of hospitals and such.
They`re bot assholes.
On Iran, Iran has like 10X as much troops as Israel, and has a ''real'' army with every branch that an army needs. ( So has Israel ) The technological divergence won`t mean that much because Iran can still counter all their weapons.
[QUOTE=cheezey;21922474]I don`t think you can justify Israel nor Hamas.
Israel may shoot a school full of children to bits and pieces but there`s enough evidence that Hamas uses kids as living shields and train 14 year old kids to become soldiers themself. Plus they shoot mortars and rockets on the top of hospitals and such.[/QUOTE]
Israel uses people as shields and the United states brainwashes 14 year olds to be soldiers. Hamas isn't innocent, but isn't as bad ass Israel
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21917430]
Israel is the only country in the middle east where Arabs can vote for their government[/QUOTE]
You're obviously quite misinformed. Most middle-eastern nations are either constitutional monarchies (you know... like Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan, New Zealand/Australia, etc) or republics. As a side-note, the USA is also a presidential republic, in case you didn't know republics are democratic forms of government as well.
In fact, the only non-democratic nations of the middle-east are Oman and Saudi-Arabia.
If you don't even know the first thing about typical Arabian government; how can you be so quick to label them all "evil" and "the enemy"?
hahaha, I didn't fucking even see that, jA_c0p. What a god damn idiot.
[QUOTE=TH89;21888350]Coalition troops don't use WP on UN hospitals.
Coalition troops also don't demolish Iraqi and Afghani homes to make space for American and European settlers.
Coalition troops don't prevent the shipment of crucial food and medical supplies into occupied areas.
Coalition troops are Mr. Rogers compared to the Israelis and insurgents.[/QUOTE]
Coalition troops don't establish the same ghettos that the Jews had to go through during WWII and say they territories for Palestinians that they can occasionally raid either.
<3 TH89
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;21935948]You're obviously quite misinformed. Most middle-eastern nations are either constitutional monarchies (you know... like Norway, Sweden, Spain, Japan, New Zealand/Australia, etc) or republics. As a side-note, the USA is also a presidential republic, in case you didn't know republics are democratic forms of government as well.
In fact, the only non-democratic nations of the middle-east are Oman and Saudi-Arabia.
If you don't even know the first thing about typical Arabian government; how can you be so quick to label them all "evil" and "the enemy"?[/QUOTE]
Most of them are constitutional monarchies, but not in a sense like the western-world nations you mentioned. They don't have elections, they can't vote for their government.
Also I know the USA is a republic, but Iran is a fake republic, which claims to be democratic. Let's look for example at the CIA's world factbook, which calls Iran a "Theocratic Republic": [url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[/url]
Theocracy is clearly not a democratic government, and you can't deny this.
Let's look at Jordan, one of the most democratic and politically advanced Arab countries, which you call a "constitutional monarchy".
From Wikipedia: "Jordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitution promulgated on 8 January 1952. Executive authority is vested in the king and his council of ministers. The king signs and executes all laws. His veto power may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the National Assembly. He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The council of ministers, led by a prime minister, is appointed by the king, who may dismiss other cabinet members at the prime minister's request. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a 50% or more of vote of "no confidence" by that body."
So yes, there is a prime minister and a cabinet, and also a parliament which isn't included in this paragraph, but the truth is that the King holds most of the power, he can veto any law and is the highest authority of the state.
Let me ask you, in the UK, Norway, Japan, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand, does the king or queen hold power even remotely close to this? No.
I'll respond to starpluck's and Ho Chi Min's earlier posts soon.
Israel has no balls to do it. Iran is a very Important area right now.
Also, In Before CriticalThought and heatsketch show up.
Also Israel is one of the evilest fucking places on the planet.
Activision just got inspiration for Modern Warfare 4
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21939598]Most of them are constitutional monarchies, but not in a sense like the western-world nations you mentioned. They don't have elections, they can't vote for their government.
Also I know the USA is a republic, but Iran is a fake republic, which claims to be democratic. Let's look for example at the CIA's world factbook, which calls Iran a "Theocratic Republic": [URL]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[/URL]
Theocracy is clearly not a democratic government, and you can't deny this.[/QUOTE] Iran is not a "fake"republic, their is no such thing as a "fake" republic. From Wikipedia: Iran's government is described as a "theocratic republic". Iran's head of state, or Supreme Leader, is an Islamic cleric appointed for life by an elected body called Assembly of Experts.The Council of Guardians, considered part of the executive branch of government, is responsible for determining if legislation is in line with Islamic law and customs (the Sharia), and can bar candidates from elections, and greenlight or ban investigations into the election process. Seems like a lot voting goes on there, don't ya think?
[quote]
Let's look at Jordan, one of the most democratic and politically advanced Arab countries, which you call a "constitutional monarchy".
From Wikipedia: "Jordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitution promulgated on 8 January 1952. Executive authority is vested in the king and his council of ministers. The king signs and executes all laws.[/quote] So does the US .[quote] His veto power may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the National Assembly.[/quote] So does the US[quote] He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces[/quote] So does the US.[quote] Cabinet decisions, court judgments,[/quote] So does the U.S.[quote] and the national currency are issued in his name.[/quote] That's not true, its called the Jordanian Dinar. [quote] The council of ministers, led by a prime minister, is appointed by the king[/quote] So does Poland, (US doesn't have a council of ministries), [quote]who may dismiss other cabinet members at the prime minister's request.[/quote] So does the U.K. [quote]The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a 50% or more of vote of "no confidence" by that body."[/quote] Extremely democratic.
[quote]
So yes, there is a prime minister and a cabinet, and also a parliament which isn't included in this paragraph, but the truth is that the King holds most of the power, he can veto any law and is the highest authority of the state.
Let me ask you, in the UK, Norway, Japan, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand, does the king or queen hold power even remotely close to this? No.[/quote] I am not sure about the other nations, I only know about the U.S, (The U.K and the Poland reference was after a simple Google search) but I'm sure its the same for them. Also you're [B]very [/B]misinformed, you didn't even read your source the king cannot veto any law (according to your source), it can be overridden by a two thirds majority (Like the US)
You seem to lack knowledge on this subject.
[editline]01:36PM[/editline]
You really got to research your facts before you say shit like this, some people might think something is wrong with you.
This is the one time I'm hoping for the US to intervene and finally stop those fucking Israelis.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]
Your source says Iran is a republic, yet you deny this fact. According to the CIA world fact-book, Iran is a republic not a dictatorship. Just because you like to believe that it is a dictatorship, doesn't mean it is.[/quote]
According to the CIA world fact-book, Iran is a theocratic republic, which isn't even close to a democracy.
[url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[/url]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]I like how you excluded Arab or Palestinian. What? So now they don't have a right to return to their rightful homeland? Also, that Zionism definition you gave is extremely vague and is missing the main point today.[/quote]
I excluded the Arabs since they have many, many countries and I was thinking of single countries for a single nation. The Palestinians deserve their own country, of course, but we can't just give them the West Bank and hope everything will be fine, I've explained why it can't be done several times now.
Also, the main point today of Zionism is supporting Israel if you are not Israeli or just another name for Israeli patriotism if you are. Again I see nothing wrong with this, just like a person supporting Iran isn't "evil", that's just his opinion. Supporting Iran over Israel is another thing, but still doesn't make a person "evil".
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]I thought Israel was a 'democracy'. Do you know why the real reason Israel fears losing a Jewish population? They don't want the majority to be Arabs that can reject discriminatory laws.[/quote]
Yes, that's what I've said. An Arab majority means that Israel would no longer be Jewish by definition, I don't see why should the Arabs get another state (I'm not talking about the Palestinian state here), and the Jews would lose their only state, what is right about this?
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]Becuase nations Like Poland, Hungry, India, Brazil, China a few Arab states and a bunch of European states make the idea of the resolution wrong?[/quote]
Because nations like the Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federal States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zambia later revoked the resolution, does it make the idea of the resolution right?
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]Nice try trying to hide the context of the revocation. Israel refused to participate in any peace coference unless the resoltuion was removed. No shit the world would revoke the resolution, they'll do anything to get Israel serious about peace.[/quote]
Nice try trying to make an excuse as to why the resolution was passed. The truth is that the first resolution was passed under Arabic and soviet support, with Western-world rejection, (without something like the Madrid peace conference to motivate them to do this), and the second resolution to revoke the first was passed with West-world support together with former soviet bloc states, along with many other nations which didn't even participate in the previous vote, against an Arab-world rejection of the resolution.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]Unfortunately, Israel does not allow this to happen for Arabs, as we all know.[/quote]
Well, the western world also didn't let many Jews to immigrate to it, before WWII. Not because they were racist or anti-semitic, but because they feared that an influx of Jewish immigration would make the population anti-semitic.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]You got your history mixed up and your reasoning was pretty bad. The British Imperialists took control of Palestine, (Which for some reason, people think that's why Israel is valid, it was 'Britain's' land.) The British promised Arabs independece from British rule and a [B]nation of their own[/B] if they assisted the fight against the Ottomans. The Arabs were obviously deceived. The fighting that broke and the results out was extremely understandable since the dream to finally gain independence and a nation of their own was all a lie and was to be given to the Jews instead. Think of it this way: Ottomans controlled Arabs then it was the British. The Arabs never had a form of independence.[/quote]
The British also promised independence to the Jews, and the Arabs got their sovereign state in Palestine, Jordan. As you know the British mandate of Palestine included the region of Jordan, so you see the Arabs got a nation of their own. They were actually given two states, but rejected the second on the claim that the Jews don't deserve a state of their own.
It is you who mixed up his history: You are forgetting that the Arabs had many chances to live with the Jews in peace, with a country controlled by a majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews, but the Arabs rejected this. The Jews never rejected the right of an Arab country in Palestine.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417] Because when someone dissents with you, they are biased? I seen a a lot of neutral people jump in this thread and point out that you are refusing to accept evidence. [/quote]
No, both of us are biased, this is something you can't decline. About the people jumping in this thread and pointing out that I am refusing to accept evidence, I don't know much about their neutrality either, but I didn't see many people saying this. (Most people jumping in just say stuff like "death to Israel or Palestine")
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417] No its not, I already explained it.[/quote]
Yes, it is.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21920417]Iran never threatened to attack Israel and explicitly said [B]they will not use force on Israel.[/B][/quote]
Words =\= actions.
[editline]03:56PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21939840]Iran is not a "fake"republic, their is no such thing as a "fake" republic. From Wikipedia: Iran's government is described as a "theocratic republic". Iran's head of state, or Supreme Leader, is an Islamic cleric appointed for life by an elected body called Assembly of Experts.The Council of Guardians, considered part of the executive branch of government, is responsible for determining if legislation is in line with Islamic law and customs (the Sharia), and can bar candidates from elections, and greenlight or ban investigations into the election process. Seems like a lot voting goes on there, don't ya think?[/quote]
If the head of state is elected for life, then it's no longer a democracy.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21939840]So does the US . So does the US So does the US. So does the U.S. So does Poland, (US doesn't have a council of ministries), So does the U.K. Extremely democratic.[/quote]
Except the US doesn't have a king, the US elects their president, the Jordinians don't.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21939840]That's not true, its called the Jordanian Dinar.[/quote]
I think what they meant is that he determines when to issue the currency and stuff.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21939840]I am not sure about the other nations, I only know about the U.S, (The U.K and the Poland reference was after a simple Google search) but I'm sure its the same for them. Also you're [B]very [/B]misinformed, you didn't even read your source the king cannot veto any law (according to your source), it can be overridden by a two thirds majority (Like the US) [/quote]
I don't know much about the other countries but I imagine the king doesn't hold such a vast amount of power, I know for example that in the UK the queen has very little power and she doesn't even use it. About the veto, sorry, I read it too fast and didn't notice.
People who jump into the thread aren't neutral, they're uninformed. No-one has the effort to read everything so they just skim through reading only the basics. Things like "Israel killed civilians", "Israel declared war on Iran", "Israel used incendiaries on children", they're going to stand out and influence people more than any counter-argument.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21939598]Most of them are constitutional monarchies, but not in a sense like the western-world nations you mentioned. They don't have elections, they can't vote for their government.
Also I know the USA is a republic, but Iran is a fake republic, which claims to be democratic. Let's look for example at the CIA's world factbook, which calls Iran a "Theocratic Republic": [url]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[/url]
Theocracy is clearly not a democratic government, and you can't deny this.
Let's look at Jordan, one of the most democratic and politically advanced Arab countries, which you call a "constitutional monarchy".
From Wikipedia: "Jordan is a constitutional monarchy based on the constitution promulgated on 8 January 1952. Executive authority is vested in the king and his council of ministers. The king signs and executes all laws. His veto power may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the National Assembly. He appoints and may dismiss all judges by decree, approves amendments to the constitution, declares war, and commands the armed forces. Cabinet decisions, court judgments, and the national currency are issued in his name. The council of ministers, led by a prime minister, is appointed by the king, who may dismiss other cabinet members at the prime minister's request. The cabinet is responsible to the Chamber of Deputies on matters of general policy and can be forced to resign by a 50% or more of vote of "no confidence" by that body."
So yes, there is a prime minister and a cabinet, and also a parliament which isn't included in this paragraph, but the truth is that the King holds most of the power, he can veto any law and is the highest authority of the state.
Let me ask you, in the UK, Norway, Japan, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand, does the king or queen hold power even remotely close to this? No.
I'll respond to starpluck's and Ho Chi Min's earlier posts soon.[/QUOTE]
I love how he provides sources for the most mediocre shit.
"Norway is a country, HERE'S PROOF!"
and when he makes such outrageous claims, he doesn't.
lol
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21940029]According to the CIA world fact-book, Iran is a theocratic republic, which isn't even close to a democracy.
[URL]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html[/URL][/QUOTE]Iran is not a "fake"republic, their is no such thing as a "fake" republic. From Wikipedia: Iran's government is described as a "theocratic republic". Iran's head of state, or Supreme Leader, is an Islamic cleric appointed for life by an elected body called Assembly of Experts.The Council of Guardians, considered part of the executive branch of government, is responsible for determining if legislation is in line with Islamic law and customs (the Sharia), and can bar candidates from elections, and greenlight or ban investigations into the election process. Seems like a lot voting goes on there, don't ya think?
[quote]
I excluded the Arabs since they have many, many countries and I was thinking of single countries for a single nation. The Palestinians deserve their own country, of course, but we can't just give them the West Bank and hope everything will be fine, I've explained why it can't be done several times now.[/quote] Except you forgot the part where they're even denied to visit their homeland.
[quote]
Also, the main point today of Zionism is supporting Israel if you are not Israeli or just another name for Israeli patriotism if you are. Again I see nothing wrong with this, just like a person supporting Iran isn't "evil", that's just his opinion. Supporting Iran over Israel is another thing, but still doesn't make a person "evil".[/quote] Zionism =/= Nationalism.
[quote]
Yes, that's what I've said. An Arab majority means that Israel would no longer be Jewish by definition, I don't see why should the Arabs get another state (I'm not talking about the Palestinian state here), and the Jews would lose their only state, what is right about this? [/quote] You don't get it. Israel claims itself to be a democracy, this isn't a democracy.
[quote]
Because nations like the Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Federal States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Spain, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire and Zambia later revoked the resolution, does it make the idea of the resolution right?[/quote] Which only did it to make Israel serious about peace.
[quote]
Nice try trying to make an excuse as to why the resolution was passed. The truth is that the first resolution was passed under Arabic and soviet support, with Western-world rejection, (without something like the Madrid peace conference to motivate them to do this), and the second resolution to revoke the first was passed with West-world support together with former soviet bloc states, along with many other nations which didn't even participate in the previous vote, against an Arab-world rejection of the resolution.[/quote] It was a mix between all nations throughout the world. You refuse to acknowledge that the resolution is invalid by saying "Oh it was all between Soviets and Arabs.
[quote]
Well, the western world also didn't let many Jews to immigrate to it, before WWII. Not because they were racist or anti-semitic, but because they feared that an influx of Jewish immigration would make the population anti-semitic.[/quote] Your point?
[quote]
The British also promised independence to the Jews,[/quote] The Jews were never dependent. :rolleyes: [quote]and the Arabs got their sovereign state in Palestine, Jordan. As you know the British mandate of Palestine included the region of Jordan, so you see the Arabs got a nation of their own. They were actually given two states, but rejected the second on the claim that the Jews don't deserve a state of their own.[/quote] I don't see how that is a problem. "Hey, yeah we are going to take your land, mmkay? OK guess what, we are going to give you your land back but, to some other people as well since their ancestors claimed to have live here thousands of years ago based on some fairytale that was later disproved by science?" See the problem here? Its not the Jews land you dolt.
[quote]
It is you who mixed up his history: You are forgetting that the Arabs had many chances to live with the Jews in peace[/quote] Which they did until Zionism formed[quote], with a country controlled by a majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews, but the Arabs rejected this.[quote] Because foreigners shouldn't be in control of a country that isn't theirs.[quote] The Jews never rejected the right of an Arab country in Palestine.[/quote] Are you fucking serious? Of course they wouldn't and shouldn't it wasn't even their land to begin with
[quote]
No, both of us are biased, this is something you can't decline.[/quote] I said dissenting opinions doesn't mean bias, which you called all of Facepunch [quote]About the people jumping in this thread and pointing out that I am refusing to accept evidence, I don't know much about their neutrality either, but I didn't see many people saying this. (Most people jumping in just say stuff like "death to Israel or Palestine")[/quote] Nope, only one did.
[quote]
Yes, it is.
[/quote] We all already explained it to you why, I'm sorry but I am not going to waste my time any further trying to convince a rock.
[quote]
Words =\= actions.[/QUOTE]You're point?
BurnEmDown, just give up already. You're a nationalist who can't admit defeat.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21920556]um... you didn't actually read that, did you? It states why the Egyptians were pissed off. You know, the whole... coalition invasion thing. You never read your sources, and you always link to Wikipedia.[/quote]
"During May and June the Israeli government had worked hard to keep Jordan out of any war; it was concerned about being attacked on multiple fronts, and did not want to have to deal with the Palestinian West Bank. However, Jordan's King Hussein got caught up in the wave of pan-Arab nationalism preceding the war;[24] and so, on May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. The move surprised both Egyptians and foreign observers, because President Nasser had generally been at odds with Hussein, calling him an "imperialist lackey" just days earlier.[96] Nasser said that any differences between him and Hussein were erased "in one moment" and declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."[96]
At the end of May 1967, Jordanian forces were given to the command of an Egyptian general, Abdul Munim Riad.[97] On the same day, Nasser proclaimed: "The armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria are poised on the borders of Israel ... to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not of more declarations."[98] Israel called upon Jordan numerous times to refrain from hostilities. According to Mutawi, Hussein was caught on the horns of a galling dilemma: allow Jordan to be dragged into war and face the brunt of the Israeli response, or remain neutral and risk full-scale insurrection among his own people. Army Commander-in-Chief General Sharif Zaid Ben Shaker warned in a press conference that "If Jordan does not join the war a civil war will erupt in Jordan".[99] However, according to Avi Shlaim, Hussein's actions were prompted by his feelings of Arab nationalism.[24]
On June 3, days before the war, Egypt flew to Amman two battalions of commandos tasked with infiltrating Israel's borders and engaging in attacks and bombings so as to draw IDF into a Jordanian front and ease the pressure on the Egyptians. Soviet-made artillery and Egyptian military supplies and crews were also flown to Jordan.[100]
Israel's own sense of concern regarding Jordan's future role originated in the Jordanian control of the Palestinian West Bank. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well-coordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour.[100] Hussein had doubled the size of Jordan's army in the last decade and had US training and arms delivered as recently as early 1967, and it was feared that it could be used by other Arab states as staging grounds for operations against Israel; thus, attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence.[100] At the same time several other Arab states not bordering Israel, including Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait and Algeria, began mobilizing their armed forces."
What's the problem with sourcing from Wikipedia?
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21920556]Deir Yassin never happened.[/quote]
Why do you have to act like a troll, I was simply asking for sources for what you claimed.
The massacre was executed by Zionist terrorist organizations, the Lehi and the Irgun. The main Zionist leadership condemned the event, and no on except these terrorist groups supported it.
Just like you can't blame Islam for terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, you can't blame Zionism for terrorist groups like the Lehi and the Irgun.
[QUOTE=Ho Chi Minh;21920556]Would you like the picture of the child burned by WP? The video of the blindfolded peaceful protester shot in the leg? The picture of Israel firing WP on a hospital? The causlty reports of hundreds of children killed? The countless cases of rape and murder? I can go on and on and on.
You must be fucking naive as fuck if you think Israel never committed war crimes.[/quote]
I never said never. Also these pictures, while depicting unfortunate events, don't prove anything regarding Israel's innocence.
The problem with people like you is that you see a picture, get filled with horror, and then let this horror decide for you what to believe in. You need to understand that it's not a "who suffers more" contest, but a discussion about facts and evidence.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21940029]
[quote]
If the head of state is elected for life, then it's no longer a democracy.[/quote] He is elected still. And he barley uses his power, the last time he used it is when he demanded an election recount.
[quote]
Except the US doesn't have a king, the US elects their president, the Jordinians don't.[/quote] The only difference is that Jordainain king isn't elected, but he is still as powerless as the U.S president.
[quote]
I think what they meant is that he determines when to issue the currency and stuff.[/quote] This is bad why?
[quote]
I don't know much about the other countries but I imagine the king doesn't hold such a vast amount of power, I know for example that in the UK the queen has very little power and she doesn't even use it. About the veto, sorry, I read it too fast and didn't notice.[/QUOTE]What vast amount of power?
These arguments on Facepunch are hilarious - not because they can be (not always) one sided, stupid or repetitive, but because people don't realise that arguing on an internet forum is a waste of time.
Unless you guys are politians and have some sort of political say, I would slowly start to stop lol
[QUOTE=DogGunn;21940243]These arguments on Facepunch are hilarious - not because they can be (not always) one sided, stupid or repetitive, but because people don't realise that arguing on an internet forum is a waste of time.
Unless you guys are politians and have some sort of political say, I would slowly start to stop lol[/QUOTE]
Thought the same thing, I haven't bothered to respond to tons of rebuttals for this reason. But when someone says something extremely dumb I feel the urge to jump out and correct him/her. However, currently, I am pretty much trying to convince a rock.
oh, my mistake, he uses sources. But from wikipedia alone.
I have never seen him use anything else.
he also strategically doesn't use quote tags to make his posts bigger.
jesus christ he denies all evidence except for wikipedia
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940218]
He is elected still. And he barley uses his power, the last time he used it is when he demanded an election recount.[/QUOTE]
Democracy is also not only about elections. Democracy is about giving basic rights to the citizens, which Iran doesn't fulfill. It restricts rights to women and homosexuals. Guess what, the Nazis also got voted to power, but they are still not democratic.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940218]
The only difference is that Jordainain king isn't elected, but he is still as powerless as the U.S president. [/quote]
The US president isn't powerless, he has more power than most country's heads of government, he has more power than Israel's prime minister for example.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940218]This is bad why?[/QUOTE]
A single person gets to decide when a the country issues money, seems like too much power to me.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940218]What vast amount of power?[/QUOTE]
Quite a vast amount, he signs and executes all law, decides when to issue money and how, his veto power can only be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of the national assembly, he appoints and dismisses judges, declares war, commands the army, the council of ministers (the cabinet) is appointed by the king, only the prime minister isn't.
Don't know what about you but this sounds like too much power vested in one man, who isn't even elected, to me.
[QUOTE=BurnEmDown;21940324]Democracy is also not only about elections. Democracy is about giving basic rights to the citizens, which Iran doesn't fulfill. It restricts rights to women and homosexuals. Guess what, the Nazis also got voted to power, but they are still not democratic.[/QUOTE] The Germans barley had any options or who to vote for, Germany was ruined, everyone was poor and Germany was in extreme debt.
[quote]
The US president isn't powerless, he has more power than most country's heads of government, he has more power than Israel's prime minister for example.
[/quote] Lol you nothing about U.S Government. He barley has power at all. Guess who his boss is; the People.
[quote]
A single person gets to decide when a the country issues money, seems like too much power to me.[/quote] You really aren't making sense. Just because he has the power to issue money doesn't make it a "authoritarian regime".
[quote]
Quite a vast amount, he signs and executes all law, [/quote] So does the U.S :rolleyes:[quote] his veto power can only be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of the national assembly,[/quote] So does the U.S :rolleyes:[quote] he appoints and dismisses judges, declares war, commands the army,[/quote] So does the U.S :rolleyes: [quote] the council of ministers (the cabinet) is appointed by the king, only the prime minister isn't.[/quote] So does the U.K.:rolleyes:
Don't know what about you but this sounds like too much power vested in one man, who isn't even elected, to me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]
Except you forgot the part where they're even denied to visit their homeland.[/quote]
Only the Palestinians can't, and that's temporary, until they'll get their own state.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]Zionism =/= Nationalism.[/quote]
It does, it's the Jewish version of nationalism, the need for a Jewish country.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]You don't get it. Israel claims itself to be a democracy, this isn't a democracy.[/quote]
It is.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]Which only did it to make Israel serious about peace.[/quote]
Zionism still doesn't equal racism.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]It was a mix between all nations throughout the world. You refuse to acknowledge that the resolution is invalid by saying "Oh it was all between Soviets and Arabs.[/quote]
And you refuse to acknowledge that the second resolution is invalid by saying "Oh it was only to make Israel serious about peace".
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]Your point?[/quote]
Sorry I forgot to explain how is that related:
The Jews were mostly only allowed to immigrate to Palestine, it's not like they could do whatever they want. It's not like Israel is now being hypocritical, relying on rights given to them to immigrate to Palestine and now blocking the Arab's entrance to Israel. If the western world had accepted to let Jews immigrate to it from countries with strong anti-semitic populations like Germany, Poland, Russia, and many other eastern European countries, this conflict could have been avoided.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]The Jews were never dependent. :rolleyes:[/quote]
What do you mean by this?
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]I don't see how that is a problem. "Hey, yeah we are going to take your land, mmkay? OK guess what, we are going to give you your land back but, to some other people as well since their ancestors claimed to have live here thousands of years ago based on some fairytale that was later disproved by science?" See the problem here? Its not the Jews land you dolt.[/quote]
The British promised 90% of the mandate to the Arabs and later they were offered even more, they rejected this because they didn't want one single Jew in the middle east. This can't be justified.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]Which they did until Zionism formed, "with a country controlled by a majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews, but the Arabs rejected this." Because foreigners shouldn't be in control of a country that isn't theirs. Are you fucking serious? Of course they wouldn't and shouldn't it wasn't even their land to begin with[/quote]
So I guess that by your logic the Arabs shouldn't be allowed into Israel since foreigners shouldn't be in control of a country that isn't theirs.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940174]You're point?[/QUOTE]
That he may say one thing but in the future he might act differently.
I can't wait for good ol amurika to step in and bomb the fuck out of them all.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940401]The Germans barley had any options or who to vote for, Germany was ruined, everyone was poor and Germany was in extreme debt.[/QUOTE]
In the elections of 1933 when the Nazis got into power, they only had a little over 50% of the votes, the people had who to vote for, they voted wrong.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940401]Lol you nothing about U.S Government. He barley has power at all. Guess who his boss is; the People.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but in Jordan's case, the people aren't the bosses of the king.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940401]You really aren't making sense. Just because he has the power to issue money doesn't make it a "authoritarian regime".[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but along with the rest of his abilities, it does.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21940401]So does the U.S :rolleyes: So does the U.S :rolleyes: So does the U.S :rolleyes: So does the U.K.:rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Except one crucial detail, the president in the US gets elected into his position, not born into like a king.
About the UK I don't know much to tell you the truth but I really don't believe that their queen appoints the cabinet, or even has any role in politics.
I thought the Nazi's pretty much rigged the elections? But also, why do Jews have to have their own country? Gypsies dont. Can we please make a country for the gypsies??????
You people do know that pretty much every western country has used terrorism at one point in their history.
The US did with its carpet bombing campaign in WWII for example.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;21940889]You people do know that pretty much every western country has used terrorism at one point in their history.
The US did with its carpet bombing campaign in WWII for example.[/QUOTE]
Keyword: At one point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.