• 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!

Trump: It is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel's Sovereignty over Golan

Apocalypse said:
Calling your support for aggression and for warmongering a support for peace doesn't change what this 'peace' of yours really means.
Click to expand...

Tell me, what does peace to me mean?

Apocalypse said:
Take note of the fact that you're arguing here that an act of war is not an act of aggression and the one defending against it has no right to defend at all.
Click to expand...

I already said the blockade was a bad decision, but I defend my stance; Israel's correct course of action would have been to get the un and nato and the us involved for diplomatic resolution or a joint operation, which would have resulted in one thing you don't want, Israel stealing land. hence why you don't support that method, right?

Apocalypse said:
When a country imposes a naval blockade on another sovereign country that's an act of war.
Click to expand...

Not the same as firing rockets, bombs and bullets.

Apocalypse said:
So Israel did not attack out of aggression, it attacked preemptively in self-defense, which is entirely legitimate, you have no way to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

When you take territory, it's expansion, which is illegal under the Geneva convention. Attack is the opposite of defend. Do you understand the definition of these terms?

Apocalypse said:
Finally, that you're unable to recognize that which doesn't present Israel as the perfect evil you wish to paint it as is no concern of mine.
Click to expand...

When did I call Israel a "perfect evil?"

Define what "perfect evil" means to me?
 
Obscurity said:
You're trying to sell me a watermelon by insisting it's a banana. I'm in the right here. Nowhere have I said Israel has no right to defend itself.
Click to expand...

You said Israel had no right to defend itself when a naval blockade threatening to collapse its economy was placed. Seems clear enough.
 
Obscurity said:
Tell me, what does peace to me mean?



I already said the blockade was a bad decision, but I defend my stance; Israel's correct course of action would have been to get the un and nato and the us involved for diplomatic resolution or a joint operation, which would have resulted in one thing you don't want, Israel stealing land. hence why you don't support that method, right?



Not the same as firing rockets, bombs and bullets.



When you take territory, it's expansion, which is illegal under the Geneva convention. Attack is the opposite of defend. Do you understand the definition of these terms?



When did I call Israel a "perfect evil?"

Define what "perfect evil" means to me?
Click to expand...

Look, you're jumping through hoops to defend your claim that Israel was wrong in stopping the aggression against it.
UN? NATO?? The US? None would fight in Israel's name and none should really, Israel is an independent country.
Whataboutism at its finest.

The perfect evil means you're trying to attribute to Israel every crime possible and claim it's wrong on everything it does.
Hence why you jump through hoops just so not to recognize that Israel had acted defensively and had every bit of legitimacy in its defensive actions.
 
Apocalypse said:
You said Israel had no right to defend itself when a naval blockade threatening to collapse its economy was placed. Seems clear enough.
Click to expand...

Why do you consistently misconstrue and smear posters on this forum by putting words in their mouths?
 
Apocalypse said:
Look, you're jumping through hoops to defend your claim that Israel was wrong in stopping the aggression against it.
UN? NATO?? The US? None would fight in Israel's name and none should really, Israel is an independent country.
Whataboutism at its finest.

The perfect evil means you're trying to attribute to Israel every crime possible and claim it's wrong on everything it does.
Hence why you jump through hoops just so not to recognize that Israel had acted defensively and had every bit of legitimacy in its defensive actions.
Click to expand...

So UN Resolutions are meaningless and 'anti-Semitic', in your opinion. The rule of law is only to be ignored, in your opinion. Hypocrisy and the cynical abrogation of legal responsibility is fine, in your opinion.
These are all common factors in your futile attempts at defending Israeli criminality.
 
Apocalypse said:
Look, you're jumping through hoops to defend your claim that Israel was wrong in stopping the aggression against it.
UN? NATO?? The US? None would fight in Israel's name and none should really, Israel is an independent country.
Whataboutism at its finest.

The perfect evil means you're trying to attribute to Israel every crime possible and claim it's wrong on everything it does.
Hence why you jump through hoops just so not to recognize that Israel had acted defensively and had every bit of legitimacy in its defensive actions.
Click to expand...

1. What does peace mean to me?
2. Why is war the only solution you support?
3. That is not what a perfect evil means to me, in fact, I don't even recognize the term. So please, spare me the achtung.
 
snakestretcher said:
So UN Resolutions are meaningless and 'anti-Semitic', in your opinion. The rule of law is there to be ignored, in your opinion. Hypocrisy and the cynical abrogation of legal responsibility is fine, in your opinion.
These are all common factors in your futile attempts at defending Israeli criminality.
Click to expand...

To the poster you quote, supporting diplomacy is supporting pan-Arabian supremacy and an elimination of Israel as a nation state.
 
Obscurity said:
1. What does peace mean to me?
2. Why is war the only solution you support?
3. That is not what a perfect evil means to me, in fact, I don't even recognize the term. So please, spare me the achtung.
Click to expand...

The war was unavoidable and it was clear that they were going to attack, Israel decided to attack first so to have the upper hand.
Had it not attacked first I seriously doubt Israel would even exist today.

When you label Israel not attacking then as "peace" you ignore the fact that war was already started by the blockading of the straits of Tiran.
As such peace to you appears to be a situation where Israel suffers yet cannot act to defend itself.
 
Apocalypse said:
You said Israel had no right to defend itself when a naval blockade threatening to collapse its economy was placed. Seems clear enough.
Click to expand...

No, the poster didn't say that at all. That's your interpretation-just as you interpret any criticism of Israel as 'anti-Semitism', however justified that criticism may be.
 
Apocalypse said:
The war was unavoidable and it was clear that they were going to attack, Israel decided to attack first so to have the upper hand.
Had it not attacked first I seriously doubt Israel would even exist today.

When you label Israel not attacking then as "peace" you ignore the fact that war was already started by the blockading of the straits of Tiran.
As such peace to you appears to be a situation where Israel suffers yet cannot act to defend itself.
Click to expand...

So peace to me means Israel suffers while everyone else prospers? IS that what you contend?

:lamo

Thank you for admitting Israel did attack first. Do you seriously think the world would sit idly by and allow arabs to completely eradicate Israel?

This is the most absurd form of self-denigrating nonsense I've ever seen written on this forum, folks.
 
I detest the Assad regime, but I cannot support the illegal occupation/annexation of sovereign Syrian land.
 
Obscurity said:
So peace to me means Israel suffers while everyone else prospers? IS that what you contend?

:lamo

Thank you for admitting Israel did attack first. Do you seriously think the world would sit idly by and allow arabs to completely eradicate Israel?

This is the most absurd form of self-denigrating nonsense I've ever seen written on this forum, folks.
Click to expand...

It isn't doubted that Israel landed a first preemptive strike on the Egyptians. The war however was started by the Egyptian aggressors.
 
Apocalypse said:
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "After 52 years it is time for the United States to fully recognize Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which is of critical strategic and security importance to the State of Israel and Regional Stability!"



A historic day.
Click to expand...

Trump is pandering to the apocalyptic end-timers of his base. Maybe he thinks he'll get a primo hotel location along with Likud money for building it.

Trump is about Trump. At least he's exposed what a lot of folks who constantly want to claim the moral upper hand are REALLY like.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Trump is pandering to the apocalyptic end-timers of his base. Maybe he thinks he'll get a primo hotel location along with Likud money for building it.

Trump is about Trump. At least he's exposed what a lot of folks who constantly want to claim the moral upper hand are REALLY like.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the end-timers and their fantasy 'Rapture'. They should be retired to Disney World as a quaint exhibit and an example of human stupidity and gullibility. I'll probably go to hell now:lamo
 
Trump should be indicted for meddling in Israeli elections, attempting to help a known criminal and his criminal wife win the office of pm.

Disgusting charade.
 
noonereal said:
Ouch!

That is a low blow.
Click to expand...

I said it because it is demonstrably true

Anyone who thinks that the use of civilians as human shields is acceptable , if the ones using them happen to be Jewish , is not credible

Anyone that thinks if I punch you in the face ,you were the one that started the fight, is not credible

Anyone that supports ongoing violence over a long term truce but claims to want to see people enjoying greater security and threat of violent death, has no credibility.

Anyone that thinks the whole world is antisemitic has no credibility

Anyone that thinks you should be allowed to enjoy immunity from a crime if a certain amount of time has passed since you commited it , has no credibility

The list just goes on and on and the call is evidently the right one
 
Apocalypse said:
You said Israel had no right to defend itself when a naval blockade threatening to collapse its economy was placed. Seems clear enough.
Click to expand...


wiki said:
In the United Nations General Assembly debates after the war, the Arab states and their supporters argued that even if international law gave Israel the right of passage, Israel was not entitled to attack Egypt to assert that right, because the closure was not an "armed attack" as defined by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Supporting this view in a letter written to the New York Times in June 1967, lawyer Roger Fisher argued that

The United Arab Republic had a good legal case for restricting traffic through the Strait of Tiran. First it is debatable whether international law confers any right of innocent passage through such a waterway.... [Secondly]... a right of innocent passage is not a right of free passage for any cargo at any time. In the words of the Convention on the Territorial Sea: 'Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal state... taking the facts as they were I, as an international lawyer, would rather defend before the International Court of Justice the legality of the U.A.R's action in closing the Strait of Tiran than to argue the other side of the case...
Click to expand...

Origins of the Six-Day War - Wikipedia
 
oneworld2 said:
I said it because it is demonstrably true

Anyone who thinks that the use of civilians as human shields is acceptable , if the ones using them happen to be Jewish , is not credible

Anyone that thinks if I punch you in the face ,you were the one that started the fight, is not credible

Anyone that supports ongoing violence over a long term truce but claims to want to see people enjoying greater security and threat of violent death, has no credibility.

Anyone that thinks the whole world is antisemitic has no credibility

Anyone that thinks you should be allowed to enjoy immunity from a crime if a certain amount of time has passed since you commited it , has no credibility

The list just goes on and on and the call is evidently the right one
Click to expand...

I see you're repeating the "you want force to be used against terrorists" accusation.

And spare me the nonsense, you openly support the arming of Islamist terror groups.
 
Apocalypse said:
It isn't doubted that Israel landed a first preemptive strike on the Egyptians. The war however was started by the Egyptian aggressors.
Click to expand...

Apocalypse:

If the war was started by Egypt on May 22, 1967, then why is the war not dated and called so? It's start date is June 5th, 1967 and its end date is June 10, 1967. It's called the Six-Day War and not the Twenty-Day War. The start date was never the 22nd or the 24th of May because the world realised that the Straits of Tiran blockade was a tepid and ineffective act which never prevented any ship bound for Israel from reaching its destination. In order for something to be an act of war, there must be an actual act, not an empty declaration of bombast by a puffed-up Egyptian leader. Your attempts to cover-up Israel's aggression as the attacker of first-instance in the Six-Day War are not very convincing to most readers here so far. So is History itself involved in a revisionist plot against Israel and is History itself anti-Semitic since it contradicts your version of the Six-Day War?

A final question for you. If Israel was legitimately making a defensive preemptive strike against Egypt and its treaty partners then why did it lie to the world on June 5th and claim that its attacks were in fesponse to air attacks out of Egypt which it turned out never happened?

Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Apocalypse:

If the war was started by Egypt on May 22, 1967, then why is the war not dated and called so? It's start date is June 5th, 1967 and its end date is June 10, 1967. It's called the Six-Day War and not the Twenty-Day War. The start date was never the 22nd or the 24th of May because the world realised that the Straits of Tiran blockade was a tepid and ineffective act which never prevented any ship bound for Israel from reaching its destination. In order for something to be an act of war, there must be an actual act, not an empty declaration of bombast by a puffed-up Egyptian leader. Your attempts to cover-up Israel's aggression as the attacker of first-instance in the Six-Day War are not very convincing to most readers here so far. So is History itself involved in a revisionist plot against Israel and is History itself anti-Semitic since it contradicts your version of the Six-Day War?

A final question for you. If Israel was legitimately making a defensive preemptive strike against Egypt and its treaty partners then why did it lie to the world on June 5th and claim that its attacks were in fesponse to air attacks out of Egypt which it turned out never happened?

Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Because the six-days war refers to the exchange of fire, not to the act of war that started that exchange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom