Bent the United Nations General Assembly has failed to define terrorism, because Organization of the Islamic Conference have demanded and got exceptions for terror gangs like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the head-hacking Al Qaeda holy warriors in Iraq. So they keep passing these worthless hate memos.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp
Funny....unlike the resolutions about iraq....These condemn, regret and admonish.....but do not authorize the use of military force.
Let's see if I can simplify this enough for ya blown:
The difference is kinda like your mom saying "I'm ashamed of you Billy for being a pothead" versus dad stomping a mudhole in your a$$ and then stomping it dry for stealing cars or mugging people.
Just like anyone who can't deal with the facts, Blown once again changes the argument and defaults back to Jew hating...Talk about knee jerk reactions...
Just like anyone who can't deal with the facts, Blown once again changes the argument and defaults back to Jew hating...Talk about knee jerk reactions...
Would you die for israel??
would you die for stupidity?
How'd you ever come up with the combination of Jew-hater & zionist blown (you already admitted to being a supporter of Israel's survival). Most folks wanty to pick 1 side of the fence to stand on, you want to lay over the top and straddle both sides.
how deep you wanna dig this hole?
How'd you ever come up with the combination of Jew-hater & zionist blown (you already admitted to being a supporter of Israel's survival). Most folks wanty to pick 1 side of the fence to stand on, you want to lay over the top and straddle both sides.
how deep you wanna dig this hole?
Wow, you really miss everything don't you?
How'd you ever come up with the combination of Jew-hater & zionist blown (you already admitted to being a supporter of Israel's survival). Most folks wanty to pick 1 side of the fence to stand on, you want to lay over the top and straddle both sides.
how deep you wanna dig this hole?
Not that I agree with all Blown has said, but he has stated that he doesn't hate Jews and even said he supports an Israel. He just points out the hypocrisy of the two sides i.e... why invade Iraq over UN resolutions and not Israel for the same.
That being said I personally would rather not see a world of Islamic rule and the chaotic and barbaric world that follows it, but I also think they should be able to have land just like everyone else and a right to Islamic faith. Unfortunately they want to destroy all other religions and force Islamic rule over the world. Which i believe to be their ultimate goal.
Would you die for israel???????????
Not that I agree with all Blown has said, but he has stated that he doesn't hate Jews and even said he supports an Israel. He just points out the hypocrisy of the two sides i.e... why invade Iraq over UN resolutions and not Israel for the same.
That being said I personally would rather not see a world of Islamic rule and the chaotic and barbaric world that follows it, but I also think they should be able to have land just like everyone else and a right to Islamic faith. Unfortunately they want to destroy all other religions and force Islamic rule over the world. Which i believe to be their ultimate goal.
big, it's not the fact of UN resolutions, it's the CONTENT of the resolutions. The resolutions against Israel complain and chastise for
deporting palistineans:
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.
Defending itself:
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Holding a military parade:
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
now, nowhere in ANY resolution blown cited are there ANY THREATS TO USE FORCE to insure compliance. In several of the resolutions against Iraq1, THERE ARE THOSE THREATS, spelled out specifically, not implied.
Where's the hipocrisy big? WHERE?
IRAQ - Force was warned as an option to insure compliance, and was used, and you don't like it.
ISRAEL - Force WAS NOT WARNED as an option, but you think it should have been used, and was not, and you do not like it.
You are the one wanting it both ways just to suit your agenda, and don't like it that you are not getting it but 1 way, the LEGAL WAY.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote