Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Israel/Palestine, how to find out the truth??

Page 7 of 8 [ 126 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Mar 2011, 10:36 am

pandabear wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I think if the Palestinians could actually make peace with the Israelis and attend Israeli schools, they would be in a much better condition economically.

Well, go there and make it happen, then. It would be much better than annoying Americans with teabagging.


:roll:

Stop with the dishonest Democrat Talking points already.


My apologies to the Democrats. I didn't know that I was using any of their "Talking Points."


For someone that claims they don't know the DNC's talking points you use them an awful lot.

pandabear wrote:
Quote:
Anyways, as soon as the Palestinians stop using children as human bombs or brainwashing children into wanting to slit the throat of the first Israeli they come across, I think this idea can be brought up, till then it would be foolish on the part of the Israelis to even entertain this idea.

Do you want Palestinian kids to attend Israeli schools, or not?


I would like them to attend Israeli schools, but I also don't want to jeopardize their safety, Hamas would love nothing better than to stick a bomb in a child's backpack so it goes off in a school.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2011, 10:39 am

Inuyasha wrote:
For someone that claims they don't know the DNC's talking points you use them an awful lot.


Really? Sending Inuyasha to Israel is a DNC talking point? Can you provide a link?



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

22 Mar 2011, 10:41 am

America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.



JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 10:51 am

Actually having gone to Israel multiple times, and volunteering with the IDF, along with assisting in a Palestinian refugee camp, I feel I have a good grasp of the situation. Along with studying the history at an academic level and with a history degree, I feel I have a good understanding. Its multi-faceted, complex, and not simplistic at all.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 10:52 am

ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

22 Mar 2011, 10:58 am

pandabear wrote:
Well, go there and make it happen, then. It would be much better than annoying Americans with teabagging.


What I have bolded is a DNC talking point, and a rather dishonest one at that.

Also, there is the scary prospect that Obama might use the Libya situation as a precident to attack Israel.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/g ... 32211.php3



JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

22 Mar 2011, 11:13 am

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Well, go there and make it happen, then. It would be much better than annoying Americans with teabagging.


What I have bolded is a DNC talking point, and a rather dishonest one at that.

Also, there is the scary prospect that Obama might use the Libya situation as a precident to attack Israel.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/g ... 32211.php3


Obama would seal his one term presidency if he ever did that. The Jewish and evangelical vote would come out in force against Obama. If the President ever tried to dictate the terms of what 30 years of negotiations have been spent on, he would look really bad. He would open himself to more criticism than he ever experiened.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

23 Mar 2011, 7:23 am

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Well, go there and make it happen, then. It would be much better than annoying Americans with teabagging.


What I have bolded is a DNC talking point, and a rather dishonest one at that.

Also, there is the scary prospect that Obama might use the Libya situation as a precident to attack Israel.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/g ... 32211.php3


This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
if you believe this ....

-Jake



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

23 Mar 2011, 7:33 am

ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Mar 2011, 7:46 am

jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

23 Mar 2011, 8:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn


The US is a signatory and has ratified the protocol related to the status of refugees. I agree though we should have more effective world governance and in theory should be able to Police international treaties. Otherwise they can be ignored easily by powerful countries.

As for your general rule. Your definitions of risk and danger are extremely over inflated and histrionic. Take your views on taxation. Are we expected to believe that if a more progressive taxation policy is put into force that it represents such a risk and danger to the Rich that it would be comparable to their own suicide? That would be patently false. However removing welfare systems may very well present such a risk and a danger to it's recipients. But in that case you're all for it!



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

23 Mar 2011, 8:38 am

jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


Eh no, the only law America is fully bound to is our Constitution. International law is not American law and we can ignore it whenever we wish, as we apparently have done to some of the Jewish in WW2?(Isn't that what started this line of conversation?)



JeremyNJ1984
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Oct 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 496
Location: Central New Jersey

23 Mar 2011, 8:41 am

jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn


The US is a signatory and has ratified the protocol related to the status of refugees. I agree though we should have more effective world governance and in theory should be able to Police international treaties. Otherwise they can be ignored easily by powerful countries.

As for your general rule. Your definitions of risk and danger are extremely over inflated and histrionic. Take your views on taxation. Are we expected to believe that if a more progressive taxation policy is put into force that it represents such a risk and danger to the Rich that it would be comparable to their own suicide? That would be patently false. However removing welfare systems may very well present such a risk and a danger to it's recipients. But in that case you're all for it!


Since it seems your from the UK, here in the United States...we had a war called the revolutionary war to break away from outside control..from foreign dictates. We are constitutionally required to follow our own laws rather than some abstract pie in the sky " world governance"...we don't want it here in the U.S nor do we care if you in another country want it. Its not our business having our national soverignty abridged for another countries sake.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

23 Mar 2011, 8:54 am

JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn


The US is a signatory and has ratified the protocol related to the status of refugees. I agree though we should have more effective world governance and in theory should be able to Police international treaties. Otherwise they can be ignored easily by powerful countries.

As for your general rule. Your definitions of risk and danger are extremely over inflated and histrionic. Take your views on taxation. Are we expected to believe that if a more progressive taxation policy is put into force that it represents such a risk and danger to the Rich that it would be comparable to their own suicide? That would be patently false. However removing welfare systems may very well present such a risk and a danger to it's recipients. But in that case you're all for it!


Since it seems your from the UK, here in the United States...we had a war called the revolutionary war to break away from outside control..from foreign dictates. We are constitutionally required to follow our own laws rather than some abstract pie in the sky " world governance"...we don't want it here in the U.S nor do we care if you in another country want it. Its not our business having our national soverignty abridged for another countries sake.


You don't speak for all 250 million Americans. Only the United states government can do that and it's a signatory to the international law on refugees. That suggests to me a strong will to protect the persecuted on behalf of your elected representatives. I wouldn't be suprised to find that those seeking political asylum in america are embraced -rather than sent home- in practice either.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

23 Mar 2011, 9:01 am

jamieboy wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn


The US is a signatory and has ratified the protocol related to the status of refugees. I agree though we should have more effective world governance and in theory should be able to Police international treaties. Otherwise they can be ignored easily by powerful countries.

As for your general rule. Your definitions of risk and danger are extremely over inflated and histrionic. Take your views on taxation. Are we expected to believe that if a more progressive taxation policy is put into force that it represents such a risk and danger to the Rich that it would be comparable to their own suicide? That would be patently false. However removing welfare systems may very well present such a risk and a danger to it's recipients. But in that case you're all for it!


Since it seems your from the UK, here in the United States...we had a war called the revolutionary war to break away from outside control..from foreign dictates. We are constitutionally required to follow our own laws rather than some abstract pie in the sky " world governance"...we don't want it here in the U.S nor do we care if you in another country want it. Its not our business having our national soverignty abridged for another countries sake.


You don't speak for all 250 million Americans. Only the United states government can do that and it's a signatory to the international law on refugees. That suggests to me a strong will to protect the persecuted on behalf of your elected representatives. I wouldn't be suprised to find that those seeking political asylum in america are embraced -rather than sent home- in practice either.


If we help and accept refugees it is not because we are a signatory to some silly international law. Neither America nor Americans will submit to a foreign authority we don't have to and we don't want to. If our actions coincide it is because it benefits us.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

23 Mar 2011, 9:08 am

ikorack wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
JeremyNJ1984 wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
ikorack wrote:
America is not obligated to take in refugees. No one is really.


That is correct.

ruveyn


It's incorrect. Every country has a legal duty to take in anyone fleeing persecution under international law.

http://www.adh-geneva.ch/RULAC/internat ... ee_law.php


There is no International Law. Why? Because there is no World Government to make or enforce it. Under the U.S. Constitution the only international agreements that are legally binding on the U.S. are treaties. The U.S. never signed a treaty with any nation to take in people from it. Any aid and comfort extended to foreigners by the U.S. government are purely the result of a political decision.

As a general rule or law, no human is required to aid another human if there is a risk or danger in doing so. There is no moral principle demanding suicide. The only strong obligations are that of parents to THEIR children. No parent is obliged to help another person's kids.

ruveyn


The US is a signatory and has ratified the protocol related to the status of refugees. I agree though we should have more effective world governance and in theory should be able to Police international treaties. Otherwise they can be ignored easily by powerful countries.

As for your general rule. Your definitions of risk and danger are extremely over inflated and histrionic. Take your views on taxation. Are we expected to believe that if a more progressive taxation policy is put into force that it represents such a risk and danger to the Rich that it would be comparable to their own suicide? That would be patently false. However removing welfare systems may very well present such a risk and a danger to it's recipients. But in that case you're all for it!


Since it seems your from the UK, here in the United States...we had a war called the revolutionary war to break away from outside control..from foreign dictates. We are constitutionally required to follow our own laws rather than some abstract pie in the sky " world governance"...we don't want it here in the U.S nor do we care if you in another country want it. Its not our business having our national soverignty abridged for another countries sake.


You don't speak for all 250 million Americans. Only the United states government can do that and it's a signatory to the international law on refugees. That suggests to me a strong will to protect the persecuted on behalf of your elected representatives. I wouldn't be suprised to find that those seeking political asylum in america are embraced -rather than sent home- in practice either.


If we help and accept refugees it is not because we are a signatory to some silly international law. Neither America nor Americans will submit to a foreign authority we don't have to and we don't want to. If our actions coincide it is because it benefits us.


Theres nothing silly about this particular law. It enshrines protection for those seeking asylum from persecution in countries the world over. If you are too reflexively jingoistic and nationalistic to embrace it then that's your problem.