Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double standards in how we cover Saudi Arabian and Iranian behavior and statements

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Again you continue to argue that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. Egypt had been warned that closing the Straights of Tiran would be an act of war. Nasser called the Israelis bluff and lost. The Arabs had been planning to drive the Jews into the sea, presumably your preferred outcome.
    Jordon, Syria et al then attacked Israel and suffered the consequences.
    It is you who have the double standards.
    My preferred outcome is the avoidance of wars, something that Israel had the opportunity to at least try to accomplish before starting a new war. If you want to talk about "defending yourself" then you should accept that the Arabs had every right to defend themselves when they attacked a new state in 1948 which was created after massive immigration of Jews from other pars of the world (notice that all Israeli prime ministers for decades after the establishment of Israel were born and raised in Europe). This is another example of your double standards. The Arabs had many opportunities in previous centuries to drive the Jews (there was always a small number of them in Palestine, mostly near Jerusalem) to the sea. Not only did not they do it, but they often were willing to accept European Jews who escaped the persecutions in Europe and came to the Ottoman (then) Empire and established new communities in its different parts. The problem was not the Jews.It was their demand to establish a Jewish state in a place that had a clear Palestinian majority (based among other things on Ottoman and British demographic data at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century when Palestine came under the British control).

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Last year the Kurds in Iraq hold a referendum about independence;immediately the commander of the Iranian occupation forces in Iraq threatened the Kurds with total war :the presence of these forces in Iraq proves an Iranian invasion .
    You are aware that the US also opposed the Kurdish independence and supported the Iraqie government, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Because the Iraqi government has not the means to expel the Iranians and the Turks ,who also occupy a part of Iraq .
    Then it isn't a real government if they're so powerless. Iranians and Turks deserve to be there.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post

    Iran is an ally of Iraqi government. They are legally present there.
    Because the Iraqi government has not the means to expel the Iranians and the Turks ,who also occupy a part of Iraq .

    Leave a comment:


  • Emtos
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Last year the Kurds in Iraq hold a referendum about independence;immediately the commander of the Iranian occupation forces in Iraq threatened the Kurds with total war :the presence of these forces in Iraq proves an Iranian invasion .
    Iran is an ally of Iraqi government. They are legally present there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Pointing at the double standards of what justifies violence is not a deflection. Israel had the responsibility to at least try to resolve the situation diplomatically before starting any war, especially when tensions in the region were not uncommon (including army mobilizations) and had been resolved in the past without an all out war.If one wants to find a reason to start a war, then there are plenty of opportunities most of the time to start one. Here is one from that time as a result of an Israeli invasion in Jordan which was condemned by the UN SC a few months before the blockade and the 1967 war
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Resolution_228

    Right now, we can start a war against China because of its actions that blockade naval passage in the Chinese Sea.
    Again you continue to argue that Israel does not have the right to defend itself. Egypt had been warned that closing the Straights of Tiran would be an act of war. Nasser called the Israelis bluff and lost. The Arabs had been planning to drive the Jews into the sea, presumably your preferred outcome.
    Jordon, Syria et al then attacked Israel and suffered the consequences.
    It is you who have the double standards.
    Last edited by Surrey; 16 Aug 18, 01:05.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You have a unique interpretation of the concept of "aggressive war"" When Iraq was the one which attacked Iran , the counterattack that led Iranians at some point inside Iraq is not an aggressive war. As for ISIS, you make things up without providing evidence, as usual.. As for Yemen, Iran did not start the civil war there. Same with Syria.
    Last year the Kurds in Iraq hold a referendum about independence;immediately the commander of the Iranian occupation forces in Iraq threatened the Kurds with total war :the presence of these forces in Iraq proves an Iranian invasion .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Deflection.

    So in short you are saying that Israel did not have the right to defend itself by breaking the blockade?
    Pointing at the double standards of what justifies violence is not a deflection. Israel had the responsibility to at least try to resolve the situation diplomatically before starting any war, especially when tensions in the region were not uncommon (including army mobilizations) and had been resolved in the past without an all out war.If one wants to find a reason to start a war, then there are plenty of opportunities most of the time to start one. Here is one from that time as a result of an Israeli invasion in Jordan which was condemned by the UN SC a few months before the blockade and the 1967 war
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samu_Incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...Resolution_228

    Right now, we can start a war against China because of its actions that blockade naval passage in the Chinese Sea.
    Last edited by pamak; 15 Aug 18, 20:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Invasion of Iraq, attacks on Israel ......,help for ISIS....,invasion of Yemen,...
    You have a unique interpretation of the concept of "aggressive war"" When Iraq was the one which attacked Iran , the counterattack that led Iranians at some point inside Iraq is not an aggressive war. As for ISIS, you make things up without providing evidence, as usual.. As for Yemen, Iran did not start the civil war there. Same with Syria.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stonewall_Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Emtos View Post
    Still no pno proofs that USSR acted on purpose.
    To Emtos and Snowshovler,

    Hopefully you both can realize that the Soviet Jews were the greatest and bravest of all Jewish history so far. Soviet Jews were very emotional and courageous and played a massive role in defeating the Third Reich on the battlefield.

    The Soviet Union was needed in order for modern Israel to form. Just to remind you both, without the USSR support of Israel there is no Israel whatsoever today.

    Many of those Soviet Jews formed Israel after WW2, there are millions of Russian and Israel Jews in our world living in either Russia or Israel. Specifically because I have real world experience here meeting ex Soviets...the Russia/Soviet Jews of Israel are the liberals those are the ones to agree with whether you are Emtos or Snowshovler.

    Its unfortunate that in all of its existence the modern day Israel, Iran and Saudi have been a impediment to justice and equality among man...but its the peoples of these countries that are soon going to make change for the better.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    So you say...but you just posted the bucket list for the entire Muslim Middle East.
    Syria, Egypt, KSA do not want to dominate the ME, to destroy Israel, to attack Iran, to attack Europe and the US and to start WWIII.
    That there are a lot of Wahabites in KSA,is irrelevant, as ISIS is not a fight between Sunnites/Wahabites against Shia : most of those who fight against ISIS are Sunni: example : the Kurds, the Turks.Isis has also attacked KSA .
    A good source is : Does ISIS really follow the Salafi version of Islamic Law and Theology ?( by the Washington Institute )

    Last point : I like very,very strongly to warn for the belief in the US/Europe by the Liberals and neocons that non Salafi Muslims would be less hostile to the West . This is not so .
    Salafism has nothing to do with Muslim hostility to the West .Erdogan is not a salafi, but very hostile to the west .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    Look up the history of the Bush oil dealings to learn their close ties to the bin Laden's. And remember the bin Ladens being allowed to fly out of America on the evening of 9/11, which was authorized by Lil' Bush himself, the only man who could do so.
    If the family of Bin Laden was involved in 9/11, they would not be in the US on 9/11.As there is no connection between their presence and the attack, there was no reason to prevent them of leaving the US : most of them were youngsters going to school in the US,who did not even know that there was some one as Bin Laden:Bin Laden was banned from kSA and excluded by his family in 1994 .
    And , I like to see the proofs that they left the US on 9/11:the 9/11 commission said that there are no proofs that they left the US during the period that the air space was closed,and , even the Hillary propaganda site Snopes was forced to say that the whole story was a myth .
    The ultra liberal Vanity Fair said that it was Richard Clarke, not Bush ,who authorized the departure of the Bin Ladens and the even more liberal NYT said that the Bin Ladens left on September 14, when the air space was reopened .
    If the Bin Ladens left the US on 9/11, the Democrats in Congress and their Liberal media allies would have used this against Bush. They did not, thus the Bin Ladens did not leave on 9/11 .Besides, even if they could, it would have been technically impossible .

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    Bin Laden was an ethnic Yemenite who was stripped of his Saoudi citizenship in 1994 .Since 1994,he was stateless .
    The danger is Iran : Iran wants dominate the ME, Iran wants destroy Israel, Iran wants to attack Europe and the USA, Iran wants to start WWIII.
    So you say...but you just posted the bucket list for the entire Muslim Middle East.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Those who attack KSA ,keep silent about Iran .
    And, where is your proof that the Bush's and Trump have welcomed the 9/11 attackers in their family ?
    Look up the history of the Bush oil dealings to learn their close ties to the bin Laden's. And remember the bin Ladens being allowed to fly out of America on the evening of 9/11, which was authorized by Lil' Bush himself, the only man who could do so.

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post


    Even the Tories are pro muslim in the UK. Whilst other civilized countries want ban the burka, the Tories want to ban free speech.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-45185931

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X