placeholder

So, it's okay for Pakistan to attack terrorists in Iran but not okay for Iran to attack terrorists in Pakistan?

If you can't see the contradiction between your support of Pakistan's statement on the one hand, and the right of Iran to retaliate against terrorists harbored in Pakistan on the other, I don't know what there is that I can say to help you understand. By the way, I'm not defending Iran's decision. I think it was stupid and self destructive. But that's a different question than whether or not it's legally justifiable.

What the ignoramus failed to note that there was an agreement in place to raise the level of funding to a certain level by, I believe, 2026

I'm sure you think that this statement is reconcilable with your support for the Pakistani statement. But how you got there is mysterious.

What do you expect Stoltenberg to say? Enrage Trump who may well be elected again?

Good to know that you condemn any nation should it retaliate against terrorists in any country where they are harbored. I'll keep this in mind for the future.

I'm not referring to Israel's current engagement. I am referring to its attacks on what it calls terrorist groups harbored in, say, Syria and Lebanon. You don't think a nation has the right to defend itself from attacks by retaliating against groups that find safe harbor in another nation?

Ah the irony. Why is it a violation of international law for Iran to attack terrorist groups in a sovereign nation but not for Israel to do the same against a sovereign nation?

What's not so much interesting as bizarre is that your obsession with Biden leads you to believe that because I'm not criticizing Biden here, then I should be elsewhere criticizing him and not criticizing Truss here. I don't see any reference to Biden in the subject line of this thread. Apparently, as is the way of obsessives, you do. For what it's worth, and to repair your ignorance, I have criticized Biden and the US very strongly in the appropriate threads, for their unmitigated support for Israel.

Can you spare us the "jeez"s. Are you doing a Jimmy Steward impersonation. So you agree that Israel should have prioritized what Hamas should do over the welfare of the hostages? I believe that Israel should prioritize the welfare of the hostages over any side issues.

Your lack of basic understanding saddens me. You think it's okay for Liz Truss to okay the sale of materiel that will help China invade Taiwan. The defensive material that Truss okayed isn't about protecting civilians. It's about protecting Chinese troops when they invade. As for my "boy Biden", not only is invoking him irrelevant, but I challenge you to find an instance of me defending his over-the-top support of Israel.

But the deal that was just concluded had no provisions for Red Cross visits. So, I repeat my question. What took Israel so long to agree to this deal?

Well, Pakistan is harboring groups that do launch attacks on the Iranians. Iran Targets Terror Outfit Jaish Al-Adl Inside Pakistan https://www.voanews.com/a/iran-targets-terror-outfit-jaish-al-adl-inside-pakistan/7444873.html Are you claiming that Iran doesn't have the right to defend itself from terrorists?

Anti-missile systems also actually help to save lives and prevent horrific injuries, often in children. By your lights, it would have been OK for Truss to allow UK business sell those to the Chinese as well. Apparently, to your way of thinking. being equipped with materiel that would reduce damage to the Chinese armed forces and make success more likely, would in no way make it more likely that the Chinese would launch an invasion. It is to laugh.

What is this about Red Cross visits? This is about medicines for the hostages in exchange for medicines for Gazans. That's what the deal was. I have seen nothing about red cross visits. Or the red crescent, for that matter, Is denying any such stipulation exists is your idea of pedantry? In fact, Israel authorities admit they have no way of knowing for sure if the medicine will reach the hostages: "However, the Israeli military said it does “not have the ability to guarantee” that medicine will reach the hostages. Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said the military will work with Qatar to ensure medicine gets to the captives." https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/18/middleeast/medicine-israel-hostages-gaza-hamas-qatar-intl-hnk/index.html

You're missing the crucial part: when did Israel ask for this in exchange for more aid to Gaza?

Here's why I posted this "nonsense"? From the article: Last week Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said David Barnea, head of Israel's national intelligence agency Mossad, had approached Qatar to secure a deal for providing the medicines needed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68000227

Well, you seem to be putting the onus on the UN and/or the Red Cross. Israel says one of the 2 reasons it's fighting is to rescue the hostages. Presumably it wants them to stay healthy. Why did it take Israel so long to make this proposal?

Why didn't Israel try to do this before? Last week Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu said David Barnea, head of Israel's national intelligence agency Mossad, had approached Qatar to secure a deal for providing the medicines needed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68000227

You want to make it illegal to sell rubber boats etc to them? That kind of measure is always so effective.

The upper link will take you there. https://archive.ph/Kvojt https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-16/insurers-seek-to-exclude-us-uk-ships-from-red-sea-cover?embedded-checkout=true

“The Houthis may well calculate that, having withstood seven years of Saudi aerial bombardment over the course of the Yemeni civil war, it’s unlikely that a U.S. air assault on Yemeni targets would inflict more substantial damage or that any damage to its equipment or facilities could not be quickly repaired or replaced,” observed Gerald Feierstein, a former U.S. ambassador in Yemen. “Moreover, a U.S. (or other) attack on Houthi military targets would validate, from the Houthi perspective, their propaganda that they are fighting on the front lines in support of Palestinians and that their operations are succeeding in threatening U.S. and allied interests,” he added. Indeed, the Gaza war and its repercussions, noted the International Crisis Group, have “provided the Houthis with an opportunity to deflect mounting public pressure over their governance practices in the areas under their control, and enabled them to quell opposition to their rule by arresting opponents in those areas on charges of collusion with Israel and the U.S.” https://archive.ph/Cew6z https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/01/16/houthi-yemen-red-sea-strikes-what-gained-won/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_todayworld&utm_campaign=wp_todays_worldview

I don't dispute that. But it's entirely besides the point raised by Hanaguma which I replied to.

There's a preponderance of evidence on one side of the issue. Basically it's COGAT against the world.

what does "dismissing United Nations reports of widespread starvation" mean to you?