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

  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post
    Wow, your knowledge is sooooo limited. That area has changed hands several times, and it is a small area of the country, please try again.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    Under nominal Iraqi control :the Iranian commander behaves as if he was the commander of the occupation forces ,which he is .
    Besides : there is no reason for the Turks and Iran to be in Iraq, as ISIS is defeated in Iraq,and it was not defeated by Iran /Turkey .
    I do not care about your unsubstantiated claims since you have lost any credibility as a commentator in this forum. Show me the facts...I gave you a link with the battle of Kirkuk in 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kirkuk_(2017)

    No Iraqie politician will simply offer Iranians the freedom to act like they are commanders within Iraq's territory.
    If the Iraqis WANT the Iranians help in Iraq against the Kurds then Iran has a reason to be at this stage in Iraq, especially since an independent Kurdist state may create problems in Iran. The same is true with Turkey! Both countries have Kurdish populations near their borders with Iraq.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Kurdistan

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Turkey

    Last edited by pamak; 17 Aug 18, 06:09.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    They let the Iraqies allies do it.
    By the way, Iran does not have occupation forces in Kurdistan. The territory is still under Iraq's government control.
    Under nominal Iraqi control :the Iranian commander behaves as if he was the commander of the occupation forces ,which he is .
    Besides : there is no reason for the Turks and Iran to be in Iraq, as ISIS is defeated in Iraq,and it was not defeated by Iran /Turkey .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by 101combatvet View Post

    Only on paper and from afar.
    Nope!

    For example

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kirkuk_(2017)


    The Battle of Kirkuk (2017), also referred to as the Kirkuk Crisis,[15][16] was a military deployment by the Iraqi Security Forces to reclaim Kirkuk Governorate from Peshmerga forces, which sparked clashes between the two forces.[17] The advance began on 15 October 2017.[7] The international coalition described the events as "coordinated movements, not attacks",[5] with most of the Peshmerga withdrawing without fighting.[18]

    The battle followed the 2017 Iraqi Kurdistan independence referendum when voters overwhelmingly supported (93%) "the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistani areas outside the administration of the Region" to become an independent state. The Kurdish Regional Government considered the referendum binding, while the Iraqi government regarded it as illegal.


    ...


    On 16 October,
    The Guardian posted video footage showing streams of ethnic Kurdish refugees fleeing Kirkuk in cars.[31] Many of the displaced returned after Iraqi President Haider el-Abadi promised on television that their lives and property would be preserved.[32] On 19 October, Nawzad Hadi, governor of Erbil, the capital of the Kurdistan Regional Government, told reporters that around 18,000 families from Kirkuk and the town of Tuz Khurmatu had taken refuge in Erbil and Sulaimaniyah, inside KRG territory.[33]

    ...

    On 25 October, Reuters reported that humanitarian organizations estimated that the number of Kurds displaced from the city of Tuz Khurmato was 30,000 out of a total population of around 100,000;
    [43]Amnesty International noted that "satellite images, videos, photos and dozens of testimonies indicate that hundreds of properties were looted, set on fire and destroyed in what appeared to be a targeted attack on predominantly Kurdish areas of the city of about 100,000 people."[43] According to an Oxfammanager, Kurdish refugees from Tuz Khurmatu were staying in the open and in public places such as mosques and schools, and were in dire need of emergency aid and psychological support due to the traumatic incidents they had witnessed.[43] Amnesty International said that at least 11 people had been killed, citing the testimony of those who had escaped from the city, and said they had been attacked by Turkmen Shiite militiamen.[43]

    Leave a comment:


  • 101combatvet
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    They let the Iraqies allies do it.
    By the way, Iran does not have occupation forces in Kurdistan. The territory is still under Iraq's government control.
    Only on paper and from afar.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Again you reinforce your view that Jews should not have the right of self determination. You must be a member of the Labour Party.

    The start of the conversation was your claim that Israel was the aggressor and thus acting illegitimately when they went to war in 1967. Israel was responding to Egytian and wider Arab aggression in the form of Egyptís closure of the Straits, cutting off Israelís oil supply, along with the Egyptian mobilisation and preparation for war. A blockade is an act of war and has been used as a tactic in countless wars. Israel was morally and legally entitled to go to preempt an Arab attack.
    Your going on about populations in 1921 or land ownership in 1945 in the British Mandate is utterly irrelevant.
    I do not follow what the labor party say:

    My conversation with YOU is about YOUR double standards when you do not criticize Israel for starting a war in 1967 and argue that it had a legitimate reason to defend itself. If you want to accept this line of reasoning then you have to substitute the Israel aggression in 1967 with that of 1948. But predictably, you want to put the whole blame on Arabs for starting a war for legitimate reasons to defend themselves and their land after they were provoked in 1948 while you refuse to do the same when Israel started a war after it was provoked in 1967! It was within this context that I used the statistics from the British Mandate to show that the Arabs were the ones who were provoked in 1948. If you cannot dispute the statistics, then do not start a conversation about which nation has provoked wars in the region!
    Last edited by pamak; 17 Aug 18, 06:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I say they DID NOT (past tense) have that right as fresh immigrants in Palestine in 1948 to unilaterally declare any state.

    By the way, here is another map to show that the partition plan was against the Palestinians. In every sub-district, the Arab controlled land was actually more than the Jewish controlled one (not that it would have made any difference if this had not been the case, since immigrants who purchased land there did not purchase "self-determination" rights to establish their own country in Palestine).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945




    vozNdQ-_vNFRGL3miXREqDRZr_ZnD4e-iu_4ylmYdLg.jpg?s=0715e8b8d4506c16af2d86c51f1ba507.jpg


    And all the above have everything to do with the issue of who is aggressive in the region or not which is what started this conversation in the first place. In order to make such evaluations, you need to establish common standards which should apply to every nation, something that you apparently find "irrelevant" to the discussion because you want to arbitrarily decide which causes are legitimate to start a war and which ones are not, and thus show "aggression."
    Again you reinforce your view that Jews should not have the right of self determination. You must be a member of the Labour Party.

    The start of the conversation was your claim that Israel was the aggressor and thus acting illegitimately when they went to war in 1967. Israel was responding to Egytian and wider Arab aggression in the form of Egyptís closure of the Straits, cutting off Israelís oil supply, along with the Egyptian mobilisation and preparation for war. A blockade is an act of war and has been used as a tactic in countless wars. Israel was morally and legally entitled to go to preempt an Arab attack.
    Your going on about populations in 1921 or land ownership in 1945 in the British Mandate is utterly irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    You really don't like Jews . Are you perhaps a member of the Labour party? Now you are saying that the Jews don't have the right of self determination.

    Again irrelevant comments. None have anything to do with 1967 and most don't even deal with 1948.
    I say they DID NOT (past tense) have that right as fresh immigrants in Palestine in 1948 to unilaterally declare any state.

    By the way, here is another map to show that the partition plan was against the Palestinians. In every sub-district, the Arab controlled land was actually more than the Jewish controlled one (not that it would have made any difference if this had not been the case, since immigrants who purchased land there did not purchase "self-determination" rights to establish their own country in Palestine).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Statistics,_1945




    vozNdQ-_vNFRGL3miXREqDRZr_ZnD4e-iu_4ylmYdLg.jpg?s=0715e8b8d4506c16af2d86c51f1ba507.jpg


    And all the above have everything to do with the issue of who is aggressive in the region or not which is what started this conversation in the first place. In order to make such evaluations, you need to establish common standards which should apply to every nation, something that you apparently find "irrelevant" to the discussion because you want to arbitrarily decide which causes are legitimate to start a war and which ones are not, and thus show "aggression."
    Last edited by pamak; 17 Aug 18, 02:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You do not know things well.

    The state of Israel was not set by the UN! The UN General Assembly made a Recommendation about the Partition

    Read the Resolution here!

    https://undocs.org/A/RES/181(II)

    "...Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future govemment of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economie Union set out beIow;"


    A recommendation is not binding, especially when it is about the self-determination of people. It was obvious that without an agreement between the communities a recommendation meant NOTHING. Thus, a unilateral declaration by the Jews in Palestine for the establishment of an Israeli state was a legitimate reason to have a war. That was clear to everybody! So, stop creating double standards regarding which causes of war are legitimate and which ones are not. You do the same thing some Israeli supporters do. When somebody criticizes Israel, they argue that he is antisemitic. This is the usual line of those who want to exploit the Holocaust and use it as a substitute for their poor arguments in order to justify their double standards.

    And you are wrong that the plan split the Mandate along ethnic lines. The vast majority of the Jews came to Palestine in the last couple of decades. This is like saying that if we draw lines separating immigrants from natives, we are somehow fair.

    from BRITISH sources

    https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unisp...2565E90048ED1C


    There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

    The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.

    ...


    HERBERT SAMUEL,

    High Commissioner
    and Commander-in-Chief.

    30th July, 1921.

    /...



    Yes, there were more Christians than Jews in the Palestinian region just two decades before the foundation of Israel!

    The thing is that at the time, everybody wanted the Palestinians to pay for the German atrocities, Even the antisemitic elements in western country wanted to see a land somewhere in ME which could attract the Jews from other countries. This is why everybody at the time was supporting a solution that was against the Palestinian interests.






    You really don't like Jews . Are you perhaps a member of the Labour party? Now you are saying that the Jews don't have the right of self determination.

    Again irrelevant comments. None have anything to do with 1967 and most don't even deal with 1948.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Again deflection.

    you are treating Israel different from other countries in that you deny them the right of self defence. This meets the generally accepted definition of anti semitism which explains your motivation.

    The state of Israel was set up in 1948 by the UN. They split the old British Mandate along ethnic lines.
    The Arabs attacked the new state of Israel and lost. Woe to the vanquished.
    You do not know things well.

    The state of Israel was not set by the UN! The UN General Assembly made a Recommendation about the Partition

    Read the Resolution here!

    https://undocs.org/A/RES/181(II)

    "...Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future govemment of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economie Union set out beIow;"


    A recommendation is not binding, especially when it is about the self-determination of people. It was obvious that without an agreement between the communities a recommendation meant NOTHING. Thus, a unilateral declaration by the Jews in Palestine for the establishment of an Israeli state was a legitimate reason to have a war. That was clear to everybody! So, stop creating double standards regarding which causes of war are legitimate and which ones are not. You do the same thing some Israeli supporters do. When somebody criticizes Israel, they argue that he is antisemitic. This is the usual line of those who want to exploit the Holocaust and use it as a substitute for their poor arguments in order to justify their double standards.

    And you are wrong that the plan split the Mandate along ethnic lines. The vast majority of the Jews came to Palestine in the last couple of decades. This is like saying that if we draw lines separating immigrants from natives, we are somehow fair.

    from BRITISH sources

    https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unisp...2565E90048ED1C


    There are now in the whole of Palestine hardly 700,000 people, a population much less than that of the province of Gallilee alone in the time of Christ.* (*See Sir George Adam Smith "Historical Geography of the Holy Land", Chap. 20.) Of these 235,000 live in the larger towns, 465,000 in the smaller towns and villages. Four-fifths of the whole population are Moslems. A small proportion of these are Bedouin Arabs; the remainder, although they speak Arabic and are termed Arabs, are largely of mixed race. Some 77,000 of the population are Christians, in large majority belonging to the Orthodox Church, and speaking Arabic. The minority are members of the Latin or of the Uniate Greek Catholic Church, or--a small number--are Protestants.

    The Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.

    ...


    HERBERT SAMUEL,

    High Commissioner
    and Commander-in-Chief.

    30th July, 1921.

    /...



    Yes, there were more Christians than Jews in the Palestinian region just two decades before the foundation of Israel!

    The thing is that at the time, everybody wanted the Palestinians to pay for the German atrocities, Even the antisemitic elements in western country wanted to see a land somewhere in ME which could attract the Jews from other countries. This is why everybody at the time was supporting a solution that was clealry against the Palestinian interests.






    Last edited by pamak; 17 Aug 18, 02:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Not irrelevant at all. I am saying that Israel should be judged just like others are judged. So, if someone thinks that the Arabs started an aggressive war in 1948, then he should use the same standards to say the same thing about Israel in 1967. If you think that only the blockade of the Straits of Tiran qualifies for a legitimate Casus Belli but not the unilateral declaration of the establishment of a new Israeli state in Palestine in 1948, then we will disagree. My issue is with those Israelis and their supporters who spread propaganda and try to establish double standards.
    Again deflection.

    you are treating Israel different from other countries in that you deny them the right of self defence. This meets the generally accepted definition of anti semitism which explains your motivation.

    The state of Israel was set up in 1948 by the UN. They split the old British Mandate along ethnic lines.
    The Arabs attacked the new state of Israel and lost. Woe to the vanquished.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post

    They did not threaten the Kurds and they had no occupation forces in Kurdistan .
    They let the Iraqies allies do it.
    By the way, Iran does not have occupation forces in Kurdistan. The territory is still under Iraq's government control.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    You are aware that the US also opposed the Kurdish independence and supported the Iraqie government, right?
    They did not threaten the Kurds and they had no occupation forces in Kurdistan .

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post

    Irrelevant.

    Again you are saying that Israel does not have a right to defend itself.

    You do seem t have an issue with Jews for some reason.




    Not irrelevant at all. I am saying that Israel should be judged just like others are judged. So, if someone thinks that the Arabs started an aggressive war in 1948, then he should use the same standards to say the same thing about Israel in 1967. If you think that only the blockade of the Straits of Tiran qualifies for a legitimate Casus Belli but not the unilateral declaration of the establishment of a new Israeli state in Palestine in 1948, then we will disagree. My issue is with those Israelis and their supporters who spread propaganda and try to establish double standards.
    Last edited by pamak; 16 Aug 18, 18:53.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    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).
    Irrelevant.

    Again you are saying that Israel does not have a right to defend itself.

    You do seem t have an issue with Jews for some reason.





    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X