Morch

11 minutes ago, dexterm said:

A poster claimed that Hamas had sent the OP nurse "against Israeli snipers." You hijacked his post. You liked his post, and supported him at #164 "What responsible leadership puts its own people in harm's way like that?"
Pure speculation, and worse, undermines the young woman's bravery, as though she were some sort of zombie obeying someone's else's commands rather than her own conscience.

 

The only cowards are the IDF who cold bloodedly singled her out and pulled the trigger and the people who make excuses for them.

Deflect all you like. Make up whatever irrelevant nonsensical accusations. Doesn't change facts. Not even when you do your best to twist words.

Once more - that you keep pushing some unverified version of events, doesn't make it true. What I am talking about is not an "alternative version" but questions the responsibility of a leadership which had the power to prevent this.

Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. Not a theory.

Hamas leadership encouraged the people do charge the border fence, confront soldiers and whatnot. Not a theory.

Hamas leadership demonstrated it could control the protests effectively. Not a speculation.

Hamas leadership in the face of mounting casualties, egged its people on, while being aware of the consequences. No theory, no speculation.

If Hamas would have wished it, there would have been no protests, or no violent protests, or no futile attempts to rush the border fence, or no young medics on the field. They have already demonstrated their power to shut down the protests when they wished for it.

That you pretend to see no connection, and refuse to acknowledge any semblance of accountability or responsibility related to the Hamas leadership is disingenuous, at best. Particularly after posts criticizing the other side (and other posters) for such supposed denials. About as inconsistent and dishonest as can be expected.

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 The word "veto" is nowhere to be found in the U.N. Charter. the charter requires "  a rule known as "great power unanimity."" So, if permanent members China, Russia, France, Great Britain, and the United States aren't unanimous in supporting a resolution, the measure dies.

There is a seldom used measure to get around the de facto veto  that if a case can be made that the issue threatens global peace the issue can be taken up by the General Assembly  

The Status Quo I refer to is the preservation of the current power structure. 

If the UN did not exist I am sure another structure  would be created to help countries deal with each other. Now it is possible that what comes next would be worst , though I fail to see how.

Countries may abstain or be absent from a vote, and it would still pass. Whatever. Most times members would try to avoid going there, by engaging in political maneuvers resulting in resolutions being withdrawn or "killed" due to not enough support anyway.

Once again, no clear explanation of what the "status quo" is. The "current power structure" is just another label. And while you may be "sure" another structure would have existed or will emerge, that doesn't make it so. It is quite possible to imagine chaos, or countries grouping along blocs, or an even more restrictive system replacing the existing one. Imagining how things could get worse is easy. Coming up with viable alternatives is much harder. Which is why most people stick to "I'm sure" and "it couldn't get worse" etc.

There is no particular reason to imagine that countries, especially stronger ones, would willingly adopt and support a system which ignores their advantage. Looking at relevant world leaders its hard to imagine what this hope is based upon.

8 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Basically I hit the "like" button for those whose point of view I agree with-even you sometimes Morch:)

I don't like to type long posts so that is why I don't include POV's from other posters.

My point was that you don't seem to have much issue with extreme points of view or language when they are directed the other way. This would include both your own posts and those you click "like" to. I think the word I was looking for is "hypocrisy".

2 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

Unpredictible fluctuations may hit major currencies, with good or nasty outcomes.

I think i got the same fortune cookie...

9 minutes ago, Elfin said:

Her mother has been shown on the television showing her blood stained white garment with the medical emblem on it and the hole that the bullet created.

I find your language when you type posts to be very extremist, radical and often inhuman. You need help.

Yeah, be that as it may - it still doesn't provide an insight as to the circumstances or support the dramatic versions some posters dabble in. You sensitivities do not seem to include similar posts supportive of your own views.

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I agree but (5555 there's always a but) If it can't address such important issues as the one at hand, then what good is it?? other than a meeting place for diplomats.  By the way there is no such thing as a Veto, there simply needs to be unanimity among the five permanent members.  IMO a bankrupted institution designed to maintain the status quo , and an impediment to global progress unless one believes that the status quo is desirable..

IMO  Its elimination would not be a negative thing , it will simply be replaced by a more viable institution or mechanism.

I think we can also agree that votes in the UN (or the UNSC etc) often exhibit bloc voting or countries voting according to other interests other than the matter at hand. If so - then a veto power may also serve to block resolutions which may be dangerous, irresponsible or impractical. In other words, it acts as a balancing tool, and it helps preventing stronger countries from getting into conflicts among themselves.

I've no idea why you think that there is no such thing as a veto - there doesn't have to be a unanimity of opinion among the five permanent members. Some resolutions are passed despite objections, it's not like the veto power is exercised in each and every instance.

You can rile against the "status quo" (whatever that means), but offering to eliminate the current system, without a clear notion of what "more viable institution or mechanism" would replace it is folly. Interestingly enough, this echos quite a bit of Trump's decisions and statements...

1 minute ago, nobodysfriend said:

Right ... and that would only be fair ... I would like the sniper who killed the nurse yesterday to be shot as well ... you really got me there , 555

Thanks for confirming what I originally posted.

11 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Learn to read ... what I said is ; "the palestinians pay the much higher price because they do not have the means to retaliate proportionally ... ( I sometimes wish they had ...)

' Sometimes ' means when something like the  "dead nurse"  yesterday happens .

That is different from what you "presume " .

Ok, so you're sometime a peace loving guy, and sometimes want to see some dead on the other side. Gotcha.

21 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

Veto power at the UN is a joke. It's routinely abused. 

And if there wouldn't be a veto power, do you imagine the US, China or Russia simply going along with whatever resolution was on offer? Even those not in line with their interests?

The UN is not a world government, and it doesn't have a world army. If it was, and if it did - posters would complain about loss of national sovereignty or something.

The veto system may be flawed, and the UN perhaps not living up to the ideals imagined - but it's still a ways better than not having any such global institution in place.

7 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Your theory is pure speculation straight out of the Israeli apologist playbook. Something that could perhaps be investigated in an independent and transparent inquiry, something that Israel has refused to co-operate with, actually doing itself a disservice, if what you continually surmise is true.

On the other hand there is no doubt at all that an IDF sniper pulled the trigger killing a defenseless non threatening female medic completely unnecessarily.

What "theory" and what "speculation"?

Is it a "theory" Hamas rules the Gaza Strip? Is it "speculation" that Hamas leadership encouraged people to charge the fence? Is it a "theory" that Hamas demonstrated it can call off protests when it suits? Or is it, perhaps, a "theory" that a leadership is expected to act for the benefit of its people?

5 minutes ago, nobodysfriend said:

Wrong - I do not want to go  down on that level - I want nobody dead , but justice ...

You are supposing again , when will you realize that your ' point of view ' is not the only one ... and do not waste my time with your always same rhetoric , it does not lead to anything constructive

I'm not "supposing" anything. What you posted is pretty clear. Wishing that the Hamas would have the means to "retaliate proportionately" is rather obvious.

Here's a timeline of related events:

Islamic Jihad tried one of the IED thing. It didn't work out, Israel retaliated, killing 3 of their men. The Islamic Jihad vowed revenge, and initiated mortar attacks on Israel. Hamas soon followed suit. Israel retaliated in force, and Egypt mediated a ceasefire. The OP is what the next episode.  All in a span of a few days.

IDF shells Islamic Jihad post, killing 3, after attempted IED attack

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-reportedly-shells-hamas-post-killing-1-after-bomb-attack-on-gaza-border/

Islamic Jihad vows revenge after 3 terror group members said killed by IDF

https://www.timesofisrael.com/islamic-jihad-vows-revenge-after-two-terror-group-members-killed-by-idf/

Gaza militants launch barrages across border, Israel hits back with air strikes

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1040481-gaza-militants-launch-barrages-across-border-israel-hits-back-with-air-strikes/?tab=comments#comment-13029424

1 minute ago, dexterm said:

She bravely volunteered to help her fellow injured Palestinians. Your phrase "sent her against Israeli snipers" implies that it was some sort of foregone conclusion that she would be killed. No mention of course that the Israeli sniper had a choice to unnecessarily pull the trigger or not, even though she was absolutely no threat to him.

So in your opinion, the Hamas leadership is not accountable in any way for the casualties? What responsible leadership puts its own people in harm's way like that? Even if you wish to say Israel's response was OTT - what can be said about a leadership which ignores (if one is charitable) this, and eggs people on?

3 hours ago, nobodysfriend said:

And Palestine is not a country ... so they do not have that right ... ok . got it ...

Do tell. Is your imaginary Palestine ruled by the Hamas or by the PA?

20 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

I find it extraordinary that they apply an extra fee on top of the ticket price just for using the local office.

Eh?

10 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Besides your far fetched fantasy of her being a terrorist disguised as a medic at the point she was cold blooded singled out and shot in the chest 100 yards from the fence, she would also have to have been a combination of Usain Bolt and Wonder Woman so that before the heavily armed and protected IDF were remotely threatened, she could sprint to and cross the double razor wire fence, leap across a defensive ditch, and mount the IDF raised entrenchment.

 

Your theory does not hold water, and does no favors for Israel, because everyone can see through it.

 

A normal army or police force's rules of engagement in a crowd control situation involve use of lethal force only as a last resort when their lives are threatened. That's why this is a war crime.

You keep calling other poster's versions "fantasies", and yet your own "version" is hardly verified as well. Not expecting much consistency or honesty in your posts, but still...

And, of course, while you keep spewing "expert" opinion about "use of lethal force", "crowd control" and "rules of engagement" - you do not actually support your view with much. Not helped much by denying and ignoring every relevant fact which doesn't conform with your narrative.

That you announce something to be a war crime, doesn't make it so.

I've used Qatar airways, but never set foot in one of their offices. Most things can be handled online or by phone.

On the couple of occasions I actually had to contact the airline, their Phuket office proved more helpful than others (and you deal with pretty much any of them, no restriction), even bothering with followup calls to make sure things were sorted. Generally speaking, I find it one of the easier airlines to deal with.

7 hours ago, Dave67 said:

TAT constantly equating Tourist numbers with money speaks volumes  

"TAT officials said speaking volumes will not effect tourist arrivals...."

1 hour ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Trump's lawyers worst nightmare would be an hours long interview of Trump by Mueller.  They know that it would be almost impossible for Trump to tell the truth for any extended period of time!  Mueller doesn't need to prove that Trump was guilty of conspiracy, he can just get Trump to perjure himself.

 

?

Quote

It takes a lot for a lawyer to call one of his own clients a liar. But that's how Donald Trump's attorneys felt about him.

 

According to a deposition from Trump's 1992 bankruptcy hearing, his lawyers said that they would always meet with the real estate mogul in pairs, so he couldn't backtrack on them.

Even Donald Trump’s lawyers think he’s a habitual liar

https://www.salon.com/2016/10/07/even-donald-trumps-lawyers-think-hes-a-habitual-liar/

Commentary: My lawyers got Trump to admit 30 times, under oath, that he lied

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-lies-under-oath-20170612-story.html

2 minutes ago, car720 said:

Sorry but the collateral damage thing just doesn't work for me.  We are often told just how elite these guys are supposed to be.  A chest shot doesn't sound like collateral damage to me.

You're going on about memes, which is fine for some, I guess.

Assuming Trump is out of the White House in a couple of years, and half-way reasonable candidate wins the next elections - what long term damage/effects would these "trade wars" have? Both in terms of respective economies and relations between countries?

Short term, obviously some chaos and possibly worse (although maybe not on major war level). Undoing some of that will take a while, and some things maybe can't be fully mended.

Some say that the short term effect will snowball (regardless of Trump leaving the stage) into a whole new different array of global powers. Could be. But IMO, it would be harder to cement global cooperation without the US's participation. At least on some issues. That, and countries not actually ready to step up and completely fill the supposedly vacant post of world leader.

Russia is neither trusted nor sets an example in pretty much anything. It's economy isn't a superpower's. China? China cannot be overly invested in global politics the way the US is, because of the way it is governed.

57 minutes ago, dexterm said:

The case is simple: a young female medic hands raised clearly identifiable in uniform 100 yards within Gaza trying to help an injured person is shot dead in cold blood. Readers aren't dumb. They can see exactly what happened.

Simple also to admit it was wrong and perhaps investigate the chain of command to find out who has ordered this cold blooded murder policy rather than more non lethal crowd control weapons usage, and change that policy because it is morally indefensible and massively bad PR for Israel.

 

But instead there is a mixture of logical acrobatics, nitpicking over terminology, muddying the timeline, streams of turgid deflections and trolls, even the musings of sadistic weirdos... all of which are not doing Israel any favors. Counter productive. In fact Israel's and its apologists' excuses have actually created a greater global awareness of the injustice Israel perpetrates against the Palestinians. If Israel and its apologists wanted to stifle that awareness, their silly antics have in fact done the opposite.

Simple is as simple posts.

You do not know the actual details. You parrot an unverified version, treating it as gospel.

Admitting wrongs comments are, again, rather disingenuous coming from someone routinely refusing admitting any wrongs committed by Palestinians.

The IDF already announced that there will be an investigation (which you will dismiss regardless).

You parrot phrases like "non lethal crowd control weapons usage", and yet ignore the fact that these aren't actually readily available, and their effectiveness in this situation questionable. We've been over this one, and you're still dodging.

As for "a mixture of logical acrobatics, nitpicking over terminology, muddying the timeline, streams of turgid deflections and trolls, even the musings of sadistic weirdos..." - that would pretty much describe your posting style, both on this topic and others. Pot. Kettle. Black.

1 hour ago, Elfin said:

Send off?

Your minority view (Israel's IDF was justified in shooting her.) is repulsive.

Those who think like you are a big part of the problem.

Whereas those that think the Palestinians (and especially the likes of Hamas and Islamic Jihad) can do no wrong, are part of the solution? How about posters justifying Israelis being killed and murdered by Palestinians? Are they repulsive as well?