If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Hugo Chavez opens his socialist piehole and compares Israel's Lebanon fighting to Hitler   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 292
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

251 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Aug 2006 at 9:38 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-08-25 09:44:16 AM
And except for scope, he is wrong because.....?
 
2006-08-25 09:50:48 AM
Alright I'll take a stab at it...

Because Poland wasn't lobbing rockets into Germany and kidnapping German soldiers prior to WWII?

/I can't believe I'm doing this
//Bored mostly
///slashy slashy
 
2006-08-25 09:51:36 AM
tandkquinn And except for scope, he is wrong because.....?

The correct questions "he is right because?" Saying that it is a matter of scope is like comparing getting a little bit of icing on your nose from a cuppycake to being Peter Northed. It's not even in the same league.
 
2006-08-25 09:55:09 AM
because:
1)the nazis never dropped leaflets on civilians telling them to get out of the way
2)I don't remember reading about Lebanese concentration camps
3)The Jew left without being military beaten (they did lose the PR war)
4)The Jew did not loot the place while they were there.
 
2006-08-25 09:56:13 AM
tandkquinn

And except for scope, he is wrong because.....?

You see no difference between conquering Europe and a border war with a terrorist militia? Fine, I get it. You don't like Israel, whatever.

But gain some farking perspective already.
 
2006-08-25 09:57:51 AM
Will someone cap submitter's tube?
 
2006-08-25 09:58:08 AM
tandkquinn, don't you think equating the nation of jews with the man who gassed 6 million jews is a tad bit, well, how should i put it, evil?
 
2006-08-25 10:05:54 AM
Chavez is a douchenozzle, and anyone who actually agrees with his brilliant assessment is at the very least mildly retarded. There are so many historical and political differences between Israel's actions and the Nazis' actions, that it's completely pointless to compare the two.
 
2006-08-25 10:08:50 AM
Yea, because accidentally killing a few civilians is exactly the same as intentionally murdering millions. Moron.
 
2006-08-25 10:09:55 AM
that hombre is loco
 
2006-08-25 10:10:44 AM
Mmmm, pie.
 
2006-08-25 10:15:55 AM
Is a several-decades-long extremely brutal illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and forced colonization morally superior to Hitlerian mass murder? I don't think it could reasonably be argued as worse, but a case that it is on par could certainly be made.

Or are we forgetting that many Lebanese are actually Palestinian?
 
2006-08-25 10:37:27 AM
mrexcess: Is a several-decades-long extremely brutal illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and forced colonization morally superior to Hitlerian mass murder? I don't think it could reasonably be argued as worse, but a case that it is on par could certainly be made.

on par.

I suppose the March to the Sea is on par with the Rape of Nanking in your book.

Or are we forgetting that many Lebanese are actually Palestinian

And we care because? Does that make it better? Or worse? Death is death.
 
2006-08-25 10:43:23 AM
mrexcess: Is a several-decades-long extremely brutal illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and forced colonization morally superior to Hitlerian mass murder?

Yes, except for the ethnic cleansing part.

Geez, that was easy.
 
2006-08-25 10:47:06 AM
PC LOAD LETTER
I suppose the March to the Sea is on par with the Rape of Nanking in your book.

You would be wrong. Ethnic cleansing is comparable to ethnic cleansing, though.

Finnley Wren
Yes, except for the ethnic cleansing part.

So then, what you're saying is, the Israeli occupation taken as a whole package, "no".
 
2006-08-25 10:47:43 AM
mrexcess: Is a several-decades-long extremely brutal illegal occupation, ethnic cleansing, and forced colonization morally superior to Hitlerian mass murder?

Probably not, but I thought we were talking about Israel here. Who are you talking about?
 
2006-08-25 10:48:36 AM
Nice troll mrexcess. I especially like the "illegal occupation". well played sir
 
2006-08-25 10:48:39 AM
mrexcess: You would be wrong. Ethnic cleansing is comparable to ethnic cleansing, though.

Yes, it is - that's why I can't understand why anyone would support the Arab League/Palestinians here. Farking ethnic cleansers.
 
2006-08-25 10:49:32 AM
mrexcess: So then, what you're saying is, the Israeli occupation taken as a whole package, "no".

No, I'm saying that Israel is and has been doing what any sovereign nation would do to defend itself against lunatics who pine for their destruction.
 
2006-08-25 10:54:23 AM
Vetinari: Nice troll mrexcess. I especially like the "illegal occupation". well played sir

That's no troll. It's a giant space station.
 
2006-08-25 10:54:29 AM
Vetinari
Nice troll mrexcess. I especially like the "illegal occupation".

Troll? Kofi Annan has called Israel's actions in the occupied territories illegal. Building civilian settlements in a warzone is a violation of Geneva. UNSC 242 spells out pretty clearly that the occupation is wholly illegitimate:

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security

I'd like to know how you consider that a troll. Facts are facts.

Sloth_DC
Probably not, but I thought we were talking about Israel here.

We are, and you know it.

Yes, it is - that's why I can't understand why anyone would support the Arab League/Palestinians here. Farking ethnic cleansers.

Yes and while we're at it we need to tell Jordan to stop occupying the West Bank. You're a riot, Sloth_DC. Not altogether in touch with reality, but a riot nonetheless.

Finnley Wren
No, I'm saying that Israel is and has been doing what any sovereign nation would do to defend itself against lunatics who pine for their destruction.

Sorry, occupation and annexation of foreign territory in clear violation of international law, and ethnic cleansing of the indiginous populace to achieve the colonization is not what any sovereign nation would do to defend itself.
 
2006-08-25 10:55:59 AM
mrexcess,

If you are talking about the goals of Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah, and militant Palestinians, then you are right on. They are very close to Nazi goals, and atrocities.

You see the lands that Israel is occupying were captured in wars started by those who used to rule these lands. And they continue to be held as a buffer between Israel and her enemies, and a bargaining chip for later negotations. Not saying that it makes the occupation morally superior - just pointing out how very different it is from the Nazi's in WWII

Forced colonization is a bit much - these are jews moving out into lands where Muslims live. Are you saying that Jews have no right to live on Muslim land? That sounds pretty morally inferior to me, since plenty of Muslims and Arabs live on Jewish land in Israel.

Ethnic Cleansing? Here is where you go waaaaaaay overboard. Ethnic cleansing happened in Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Serbia, GERMANY! - not in Palestine. The ATTEMPTED removal of militant factions (who wish harm on your citizens) and the citizenry that supports them is far different from "Ethnic Cleansing".

Israel does not and has never shown that it wants to kill all muslims or arabs, or even remove them from Israel. However, nearly all Islamofascist groups including Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah - proclaim that the killing of all Jews, the elimination of Israel, and the global implementation of Sharia Law are there stated goals. THAT sounds a lot more like "Ethnic Cleansing" or the more appropos "GENOCIDE" to me.
 
2006-08-25 10:57:36 AM
mrexcess: Sorry, occupation and annexation of foreign territory in clear violation of international law

upload.wikimedia.org

Oops.

/Yes, I know there wasn't that sort of international law at the time
 
2006-08-25 10:57:58 AM
mrexcess: Sorry, occupation and annexation of foreign territory in clear violation of international law

Don't much care for "international law" myself. Nice idea, in theory. In practice, not so much.

And I think you and I need to define "ethnic cleansing" before we proceed down that path.
 
2006-08-25 11:03:53 AM
Elchip always the best graphics to make a point.. kudos.

Now make one for 'not particularly effective against ethnic cleansing'.
 
2006-08-25 11:03:56 AM
bigmatty87
You see the lands that Israel is occupying were captured in wars started by those who used to rule these lands.

Every conquorer claims they conquor in the name of defense. That argument holds no water when it comes to international law.

And they continue to be held as a buffer between Israel and her enemies, and a bargaining chip for later negotations.

That makes no sense on the face of it. The occupation, which pretty much everyone acknowledges is horrifically brutal, does not serve as an effective bargaining chip or a buffer. In fact, it acts in exactly the opposite fashion, provoking more furor and new attacks each and every day. And anyway, what good is a "buffer" composed of civilian settlements, anyway? If you wanted an effective buffer to protect your civilian populace, you'd station troops, not build condos.

It should also be noted that Israel has never once offered the land back, and they've given every indication that they plan to keep at least parts of the occupied territory forever, regardless of negotiations.

Forced colonization is a bit much - these are jews moving out into lands where Muslims live. Are you saying that Jews have no right to live on Muslim land?

When they use military force to evict the Muslim residents of the land, demolish their homes, and build new Jewish-only settlements on top of them? I am saying nobody has a right to do that, and international law agrees with me.

The ATTEMPTED removal of militant factions (who wish harm on your citizens) and the citizenry that supports them is far different from "Ethnic Cleansing".

Please supply me a reasonable definition of "ethnic cleansing" that would not include forcible population transfers based on ethnicity.

elchip
Yes, I know there wasn't that sort of international law at the time

So, what's your point exactly?
 
2006-08-25 11:04:45 AM
Finnley Wren
Don't much care for "international law" myself.

Irrelevant. Israel is a bound signatory and is obligated to follow international law.
 
2006-08-25 11:05:32 AM
And I think you and I need to define "ethnic cleansing" before we proceed down that path.

yeah, and if it doesn't involve things like Einsatzgruppen or places like Babi Yar, i don't want to hear any more comparisons of israel to hitler or the nazis
 
2006-08-25 11:06:31 AM
I predict that at some point in this thread, will post.

" Well, I think you're confused, in the 1850's the maraduke empire disolved trans Jordain sub mass. Even as I speak a filthy tide of bolshevism issues from the dives of Egypt.
In short the world is a subterranean playground for brown skinned terrorists from every sphere of idleness and crime who shout "Death to America!" Their pockets a-jingle with Moscow/Bagdad money go unchecked about their evil liberal business.
Take china, the filty swine are plotting! cathedrals ransacked churches turned into terra schools!
I have seen the finest laundries in the world converted into bordellos for the gratification of the lumpenproletariat what with the drink trade on its last legs and the land running fallow for the want of artificial manures I leave you with this thought The ottomans! The OTTOMANS!...Its all the fault of the PALESTIANS!

/or something like that. Maybe less rational and tad bit less convincing and more like John Clarke the insane fantasist of Madchester (retired)
 
2006-08-25 11:07:11 AM
mrexcess:

Sorry to horn in here, BigMatt

Every conquorer claims they conquor in the name of defense

No they don't.

The occupation, which pretty much everyone acknowledges is horrifically brutal

I don't.

I am saying nobody has a right to do that, and international law agrees with me.

There we agree, international law be damned.
 
2006-08-25 11:07:49 AM
Lard_Baron: You forgot something about how Jordan is occupying the West Bank, and therefor the Palestinians should take their greivances up with them. I'm veritably on the egde of my seat waiting for Sloth_DC to whip that gem out again.
 
2006-08-25 11:07:54 AM
mrexcess: UNSC 242 spells out pretty clearly that the occupation is wholly illegitimate:

Run that by me again? UNSCR 242 calls for a lot of things, but it's hard to say that it requires Israel to withdraw from Jordanian and Egyptian territories which were subsequently disclaimed by those countries. I do find it interesting that you focus on this one narrow misinterpreted requirement of UNSCR 242, while ignoring the requirement, in the same resolution, for Syria to recognize Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon...
 
2006-08-25 11:08:24 AM
mrexcess: When they use military force to evict the Muslim residents of the land, demolish their homes, and build new Jewish-only settlements on top of them?

I'm pretty sure most Israeli settlements were not built over demolished Palestinian settlements. Well, unless they already left. Yeah, that Refugee Annexation Act (or whatever it was called) wasn't very nice.

So, what's your point exactly?

A combination of (1) Being a smartass (2) Noting that we're holding the Israelis to a higher standard than what we've held ourselves to in the past (3) Neglecting to mention that progress in higher standards for human decency is a noble goal, which leads to (4) Basically, being a smartass in general.
 
2006-08-25 11:08:38 AM
Finnley Wren
There we agree, international law be damned.

That's a dangerous and hypocritical road you want to drag us all down.
 
2006-08-25 11:08:52 AM
Lard_Baron: . . . in the 1850's the maraduke empire disolved trans Jordain sub mass . . .

Man, that still makes my blood boil!

/not really
//got a life
 
2006-08-25 11:10:55 AM
mrexcess: That's a dangerous and hypocritical road you want to drag us all down.

I would argue that "international law" as presently constituted is far more dangerous.

And I don't see any hypocrisy. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
 
2006-08-25 11:11:11 AM
elchip
I'm pretty sure most Israeli settlements were not built over demolished Palestinian settlements.

You're pretty wrong. Mostly.

A combination of (1) Being a smartass (2) Noting that we're holding the Israelis to a higher standard than what we've held ourselves to in the past

We're holding everyone to higher standards than we've held ourselves to in the past...that's true. But this is a different and far more deadly world, and conquest and the resultant strife is now too dangerous to allow to continue. That's the whole purpose of the UN, to prevent another war between great powers, the kind that results when you allow territorial conquest.

We hold ourselves to exactly the same standards as I'm suggesting we hold Israel to. And moreover, Israel has voluntarily agreed to abide by these same standards.
 
2006-08-25 11:12:06 AM
mrexcess: You forgot something about how Jordan is occupying the West Bank, and therefor the Palestinians should take their greivances up with them. I'm veritably on the egde of my seat waiting for Sloth_DC to whip that gem out again.

Jane, you ignorant slut - how can you expect people to believe that you understand history, when you clearly can't understand what people are telling you in this very forum? To reiterate, I pointed out that Jordan, in 1948, invaded and formally annexed the West Bank to prevent the creation of a (third) Palestinian State and to expand the domain of the Hashemite Kingdom. I never said that they are *currently* occupying the West Bank - that's merely your stunning lack of reading comprehension coming to the fore yet again.
 
2006-08-25 11:12:51 AM
Finnley Wren
I would argue that "international law" as presently constituted is far more dangerous.

I'd love to (or at least, be entertained to) hear such an argument. So feel free to make it...until then I think that's pretty laughable.

And I don't see any hypocrisy. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

We justified the invasion of Iraq in large part because they refused to comply with international law. We punish other nations all the time for failing to follow international law. Trade relationships would get very complicated, very fast, without international law.
 
2006-08-25 11:14:07 AM
mrexcess: Irrelevant. Israel is a bound signatory and is obligated to follow international law.

Nobody is obligated to follow international law. And if so, I suppose harsh sanctions are in order!

Or we can threaten to hold our breath until we turn blue.
 
2006-08-25 11:14:23 AM
Sloth_DC
I never said that they are *currently* occupying the West Bank

Your wording was ambiguous, and you stated that the Palestinians should take up their grievances with Jordan rather than Israel. Your entire debate strategy when it comes to this issue seems to be ignoring the obvious in favor of the bizarrest of tangents.
 
2006-08-25 11:15:43 AM
Finnley Wren
Nobody is obligated to follow international law.

That's simply false. Dunno what else to tell you. If you sign on the dotted line, you're obligated to follow the terms of the document. Israel signed on the dotted line. Israel herself would not exist without the force and legitimacy of international law.
 
2006-08-25 11:15:52 AM
mrexcess: You're pretty wrong. Mostly.

Okay, let's say Amnesty International is right (but we all know they're an evil America-hating organization (just kidding)).

But evicting the 400,000 Israelis now living in the West Bank would also be pretty cruel (some of them may be crazy-ass Palestinian-hating fundies, but that's certainly an overgeneralization... punishing all Israelis living in the West Bank would not be nice) and two wrongs don't make a right.

So, what should happen? Let the biggest settlements in the West Bank stay, put Jerusalem under joint control, and pull out of the rest of the West Bank?
 
2006-08-25 11:16:37 AM
Sloth_DC: how can you expect people to believe that you understand history, when you clearly can't understand what people are telling you in this very forum? To reiterate, I pointed out that Jordan, in 1948, invaded and formally annexed the West Bank to prevent the creation of a (third) Palestinian State and to expand the domain of the Hashemite Kingdom. I never said that they are *currently* occupying the West Bank - that's merely your stunning lack of reading comprehension coming to the fore yet again.


lol. I knew it was coming!.....
Its the Jordians! ITS the JORDAINS! and the Hashemites, how could we forget those.
 
2006-08-25 11:17:08 AM
mrexcess: We justified the invasion of Iraq in large part because they refused to comply with international law. We punish other nations all the time for failing to follow international law. Trade relationships would get very complicated, very fast, without international law.

And we repudiated the ABM treaty in violation of international law. And we may have justified the invasion of Iraq on international law, our invasion was clearly in violation of international law.

/hate to burst your bubble
//wish there really was such a thing
 
2006-08-25 11:19:01 AM
Sloth_DC: I never said that they are *currently* occupying the West Bank - that's merely your stunning lack of reading comprehension coming to the fore yet again.

I believe when Jordan relinquished its claims to the West Bank and Egypt relinquished its claims to the Gaza Strip, they did so with the condition that they be used as part of a Palestinian state... but I could be wrong (hey, I'm willing to admit it).
 
2006-08-25 11:19:51 AM
mrexcess: Israel herself would not exist without the force and legitimacy of international law.

Yeah, I remember the armies of the UN coming to her defense in 1948 and 1967.

Israel was gonna happen anyway. The UN simply acknowledged what had already occurred in 1948.
 
2006-08-25 11:20:24 AM
elchip
But evicting the 400,000 Israelis now living in the West Bank would also be pretty cruel

The cruelty was on the part of Israel for using their civilians as pawns in a game of territorial conquest, not in the international community restating, as they consistantly have for decades, that such games are illegal, illegitimate, and should be stopped forthwith. By ignoring international law and the constant warnings proceeding forth from the Security Council (among others), Israel has a lot of explaining to do to its citizens. I agree. But the responsibility belongs with Israel, not with the ethnically cleansed Palestinians.

two wrongs don't make a right.

I look at it like this. Let's say I rob a bank, and I use part of the money to fund a charity. Guess what? When I get convicted of the crime, that money will have to be given back. Does it suck for the charity? Absolutely. Is it the fault of the law that it sucks for the charity? No. It's the fault of the criminal.

So, what should happen?

Withdrawl to Israel's legal borders, enforcement of the borders via international troops, Jerusalem being a shared city, and Israeli citizens demanding explanations from their leadership about what on earth they were thinking.
 
2006-08-25 11:23:36 AM
mrexcess: I look at it like this. Let's say I rob a bank, and I use part of the money to fund a charity. Guess what? When I get convicted of the crime, that money will have to be given back. Does it suck for the charity? Absolutely. Is it the fault of the law that it sucks for the charity? No. It's the fault of the criminal.

This is a much, much bigger scale though. The misery and pain caused by a total withdrawal from the West Bank would be much greater than that caused by taking money back from a charity.

/Sigh
//Stupid mess
 
2006-08-25 11:23:59 AM
Finnley Wren
And we repudiated the ABM treaty in violation of international law.

The ABM treaty was just that, a treaty, not itself international law. Did we break it? Yes. Does that suck? Yes. Is it particularly germane to this discussion? No.

And we may have justified the invasion of Iraq on international law, our invasion was clearly in violation of international law.

So clearly we at least ostensibly care about international law, and would be hypocrites to say "the hell with international law". Right?

elchip
I believe when Jordan relinquished its claims to the West Bank and Egypt relinquished its claims to the Gaza Strip, they did so with the condition that they be used as part of a Palestinian state... but I could be wrong (hey, I'm willing to admit it).

You're not wrong there.
 
Displayed 50 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report