• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US fails to win UN condemnation of Hamas militants in Gaza

I have to ask, what difference does it make? Does a UN 'condemnation' actually mean anything or is it just a chance to see who's on which side?
I guess in Trump's case it might be a chance to see where foreign aid will or won't be offered.
 
oneworld2 said:
You are misrepresenting what they voted on and tried to make out that they all considered the rocket attacks on Israel to be terrorism instead of the indiscriminate attacks within an armed conflict that they obviously fall under

You misrepresent by compulsion it would appear

Recall too , that the EU block vote only supported it if a reference /commitment to peace was included , the inclusion of previous UN resolutions on the conflict. That they had to insist on this inclusion showed just how skewed and biased the original draft must have been

There was an Irish vote that secured a massive majority but was voted against by the US and Israel. Standard practice that has ensured that this conflict has gone on for decades longer than it might have

Either way , your claim on this is false. Like most of your claims are
Click to expand...

All that blather only to say "I have no idea what I am talking about"
 
Grand Mal said:
I have to ask, what difference does it make? Does a UN 'condemnation' actually mean anything or is it just a chance to see who's on which side?
I guess in Trump's case it might be a chance to see where foreign aid will or won't be offered.
Click to expand...

After 400 condemnations against Israel it would be nice to see one for Hamas' terrorism.
 
Fledermaus said:
All that blather only to say "I have no idea what I am talking about"
Click to expand...

You have been shown to be a serial misrepresenter of information and then , childishly , resorting to attempted smears of people who call you out on it on every occasion

You claimed the UN countries voted that the rocket attacks were " terrorism " and have made ZERO attempt to refer to the text of the paper in order to substantiate your nonsense . I took the time to show the exact reference and confirmed it hadn't said what you claimed

There is only one conclusion , it is you that has no idea of what they are talking about but has the amazing capacity to try to fool others that you do

You are being outed in multiple threads for the same nonsense , time and again lol
 
oneworld2 said:
You have been shown to be a serial misrepresenter of information and then , childishly , resorting to attempted smears of people who call you out on it on every occasion

You claimed the UN countries voted that the rocket attacks were " terrorism " and have made ZERO attempt to refer to the text of the paper in order to substantiate your nonsense . I took the time to show the exact reference and confirmed it hadn't said what you claimed

There is only one conclusion , it is you that has no idea of what they are talking about but has the amazing capacity to try to fool others that you do

You are being outed in multiple threads for the same nonsense , time and again lol
Click to expand...

What is the definition of Terrorism?
 
Fledermaus said:
What is the definition of Terrorism?
Click to expand...

There is obviously something wrong with your ability to debate properly..................... your references to definitions of terrorism have been thoroughly addressed already

The text of that paper didn't come close to what you claimed it did.......................accept it and realize that your attempt to deceive people here has failed again
 
oneworld2 said:
There is obviously something wrong with your ability to debate properly..................... your references to definitions of terrorism have been thoroughly addressed already

The text of that paper didn't come close to what you claimed it did.......................accept it and realize that your attempt to deceive people here has failed again
Click to expand...

What is the definition of Terrorism.

The UN definition will do.

Did not the document mention terrorist acts by Hamas?

Why yes it did.
 
JoanDavis said:
Oh looky - trump's best friends Russia and Saudi Arabia voted AGAINST this. Once again trump FAILS.
Click to expand...

Pretty dumb comment. At least Trump never bowed to the Saudi King, unlike the previous man holding the job. Also, anyone who knows anything is not shocked by their vote. They are the world's leading source of global terrorism.

The Russian vote is a little bit of a surprise, seeing as how they have no love for Islamic terrorists, but I'm guessing that's them just thumbing their noes at us in response for all that we've done against them and their allies.

This lesson in geopolitics was pro bono.
 
Rogue Valley said:
US fails to win UN condemnation of Hamas militants in Gaza



I think everyone should see who voted yes/no/abstain concerning condemning the Hamas terrorist organization.....

DtzruAqWoAA0efk.jpg
Click to expand...

Not many shocks here in this vote.
 
Fishking said:
At least Trump never bowed to the Saudi King, unlike the previous man holding the job.
Click to expand...

:lol:

It's tool time with your host, Fishking.
 
Fledermaus said:
What is the definition of Terrorism.

The UN definition will do.

Did not the document mention terrorist acts by Hamas?

Why yes it did.
Click to expand...

You specifically stated that the UN endorsed the opinion that the rocket attacks themselves are acts of terrorism, yet when the rocket attacks themselves were referenced there was no mention of them being classed as terrorism

In fact the whole paper was a blanket condemnation of ALL acts of violence committed by Hamas but it still didn't state what you claimed it did. It included acts of terror without defining what those acts would consist of

Everyone , including , in the UN fact finders and all the human rights groups describe them as indiscriminate attacks/war crimes during an armed conflict because they understand the correct application of the laws of war

You argue otherwise because of your desire to shout terrorist wrt Palestinians

People , imo , would be wiser to take their view on it over yours. They are experts and you are nothing but a completely biased partisan hack
 
oneworld2 said:
You specifically stated that the UN endorsed the opinion that the rocket attacks themselves are acts of terrorism, yet when the rocket attacks themselves were referenced there was no mention of them being classed as terrorism
Click to expand...

451679287-e1398975930484.jpg

What is the UN definition of Terrorism again?
 
oneworld2 said:
Some interesting points that were not cited from the article in the OP

1. It appears the US was forced to make an amendment that it would ......... "support a comprehensive peace agreement “bearing in mind relevant United Nations resolutions.” " in order to get 28 votes from EU members

2. An Irish resolution calling for a " “Comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East " enjoyed enormous global support being " overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 156-6, with 12 abstentions.

Those that are the least bit clued up about UN GA votes on the conflict will not be surprised to learn that the 6 votes against it were as follows .........Australia, Israel, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, United States

Thus confirming both the Israeli and US sophistry wrt UN voting and claims of wanting a peaceful and just resolution of the conflict. Recall the US amendment to collect the 28 EU votes for their own proposition ( point 1 above )

Be sure the US veto is what has stopped the resolution of this conflict for decade after decade , ongoing
Click to expand...

I have some unicorns to sell you if you think that resolutions for "comprehensive peace agreement" will be anything but something that risks the lives and safety of the Jews living in Israel.
 
ecofarm said:
Don't forget the tan suit!

Or is that chapter 2 in How to Be a Tool.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be able to pull off a tan suit, like Obama did.
 
Fishking said:
I have some unicorns to sell you if you think that resolutions for "comprehensive peace agreement" will be anything but something that risks the lives and safety of the Jews living in Israel.
Click to expand...

It's almost like you're under the impression that this isn't something he desires.
 
Fishking said:
I have some unicorns to sell you if you think that resolutions for "comprehensive peace agreement" will be anything but something that risks the lives and safety of the Jews living in Israel.
Click to expand...

Their lives are already at risk , if you hadn't noticed. So you might say " more at risk " and I will say that if things carry on as they are there will be no Israel to speak of in the future. Also , there are the lives of the other people involved /affected by the conflict , in case you hadn't noticed that too. Sure they are waaaay down the list for many people here but they are people whose lives are just as valuable as anyone else
 
Apocalypse said:
It's almost like you're under the impression that this isn't something he desires.
Click to expand...

Recall , you were the one that wished to see the rockets , shells , bombs and bullets continue to fly and I wasn't

There will have to be a JUST and comprehensive resolution to the conflict for it to stand any chance of longevity . You most likely wish to see a bum deal foisted on the Palestinians , so everyone can cheer and will forget about them.
 
Fledermaus said:
What is the definition? Do not the rocket attacks fill the definition to a tee?
Click to expand...

Everything fills the definitions you gave " to a tee " and that's what's wrong with them , you are just not savvy enough to understand that. For an obvious example , recall how you used those same definitions to frame kids throwing stones at soldiers as " terrorists " ?

There is an armed conflict going on and thus the laws of war are applicable to the vast majority of violent acts committed by combatants on both sides.............. that , as I have shown you a million times is why the HR groups and others that are referring to those laws classify the rockets as war crimes and not terrorism.

Your persistent resistance to this easy enough to understand qualification is born not out of logic or reason , but is an obvious and concerted attempt to smear people on one side of the conflict only
 
oneworld2 said:
Recall , you were the one that wished to see the rockets , shells , bombs and bullets continue to fly and I wasn't

There will have to be a JUST and comprehensive resolution to the conflict for it to stand any chance of longevity . You most likely wish to see a bum deal foisted on the Palestinians , so everyone can cheer and will forget about them.
Click to expand...

You don't argue for the sake of a peace agreement you argue for the sake of murderers as your ideology is based on the murder of innocents.
 
Fledermaus said:
What is the definition? Do not the rocket attacks fill the definition to a tee?
Click to expand...

Lemme help you out here, Fledermaus:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

So...either both Palestine AND Israel are terrorists, or neither are. Which would you like to go with?
 
OlNate said:
Lemme help you out here, Fledermaus:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

So...either both Palestine AND Israel are terrorists, or neither are. Which would you like to go with?
Click to expand...

I'll go with the people defending from terrorism...

The would be the IDF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom