stevenl

"Trump's shambolic war of choice triggering anti-Americanism in Asean"

Just as nethanyahu's shambolic war is triggering anti-israeli sentiment around the world.

3 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

But Iran announced already that they would let tankers go that were not involved in the war or helping the countries that attacked Iran...

So anutin called and got confirmed thai tankers sre allowed to pass. So he secured the deal.

Just now, unblocktheplanet said:

Which is exactly why Trump should declare victory, withdraw and leave Israel holding the bag.

Agree, but he somehow has to find a way to control Israel and prevent them from continuing attacking Iran.

2 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

it's been hell unleashed on the terroist regime.. not the country and citizens of Iran

Huge difference !

Ah, thanks, that's why all the terrorists are dead and no civilians were hurt or killed.

2 hours ago, Luuk Chaai said:

I see the Iranian gov/propoganda machine has got you believing them

Sure mate, if thinking that makes you happy. Carry on.

9 hours ago, TedG said:

This translates to "I JimCM defends HAMAS and Hezbollah at all and lies about my love of these two organizations".

You make an accusation, can't back it up so double down on it, again without a shred of evidence.

But I'm sure in your mind what you're saying is the holy truth.

4 hours ago, ChipButty said:

I'll ask my wife she goes to the cinema quite a lot, So here in Phuket people do stand Thai and Farang, even Farang kids, she just told me

Yes, on Phuket I'd say 80 percent stands.

See here,

He seems competent, not really busy on the road as well. Much ado about nothing, if it was not for the second one was. Moving to the right to do a wheelie right in front of an HGV is not smart.

Changed again, up 6 baht from today.

12 hours ago, baansgr said:

Oh, I suppose they will make songran water free or at least one day only

With the exception of patong, songkran is always 1 day only on Phuket.

5 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

It is not revelant to the main point of our discussion, which is whether or not the UN established the extent of Israel's borders. In an earlier post, you stated (I bolded the text):

I say that is not true. The UN has never established Israel's borders. The text I left out from the quote in no way stated, suggested or implied the UN had done so. It didn't mention the UN at all.

It did say most of the borders disputes had their roots in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, which of course is true but in no way supports your claim that Israel's borders were well established by the UN.

And again narrowing the discussion to suit your narrative. The quote you omitted indicates the borders were recognised before the 1967 war.

37 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

Nothing dishonest about it. The board has limits on how much text can be quoted. I believe it is three sentences. I leave out parts which are not relevant to the main point. I have in no way changed or distorted the meaning of source material.

But by all means, please quote any sentences from the sources I give or any other sources which say the Green Line is a permanent internationally recognized border.

I have given the sources which say it isn't. What are your sources that it is?

Right. So "the majority of its border disputes are rooted in territorial changes that came about as a result of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, which saw Israel occupy large swathes of territory from its rivals." is not relevant to the main point. I agree it doesn't fit your narrative.

2 hours ago, save the frogs said:

Because when you have wealth, you have options.

Having class and having money are not the same.

6 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

You are confusing lines of demarcation with internationally recognized borders.

"The Green Line, or 1949 Armistice border, is the demarcation line set out in the 1949 Armistice Agreements between the armies of Israel and those of its neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. "

"The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Line_(Israel)

The two internationally recognized permanent borders (Egypt-Israel and Jordan-Israel) were set through bilateral treaties.

Which countries recognize the Green Line as permanent borders?

As usual dishonest posting by removing text from your own link that doesn't suit your narrative, followed by only posting about the parts you agree with.

33 minutes ago, BexMan said:

Victim blaming is disgusting too.

No victim blaming at all in his post, just some questions. But maybe the victim was to blame?

43 minutes ago, Evil Penevil said:

That's not true. "Only two of Israel's five total potential land borders are internationally recognized and uncontested, while the other three remain disputed ..." The borders with Egypt and Jordan have been formally set through bilateral treaties, while the borders with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories (State of Palestine) "remain internationally defined as contested."

https://everything.explained.today/Borders_of_Israel/

My bold text in the following quotation:

"The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence)[that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that 'the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question.'"

https://everything.explained.today/Green_Line_(Israel)/#Ref-5

I wonder why you left out this part of your link.
"the majority of its border disputes are rooted in territorial changes that came about as a result of the 1967 Arab–Israeli War, which saw Israel occupy large swathes of territory from its rivals."

Israel occupied and it looks like intends to keep it. So disputed by Israel, recognised by the rest of the world. Even stronger, Israel is expending all the time as we speak.

If the US stops its attacks on iran, how can they control Israel? Imo the US has made itself dependent on Israel here.

9 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Because when you have wealth, you have options.

Which is admitting the point made by 1tooth.

Can someone give a clear explanation what the referendum was about? The explanation in the OP doesn't do that.