Author Topic: [NEWS] UN sides with Palestine; urges end to Israeli encroachment of land  (Read 10607 times)

My Jewish friend was really butt-hurt about this, but here's the facts:
  • The UN has 'condemned' the Israeli settlements. They have not authorized sanctions or urged the ICC to prosecute.
  • The US did not vote for this resolution; they abstained, which is a pretty significant shift in US foreign policy, considering that we have veto power in UNSC.
  • It's hard to really pin-down whether these Israeli settlements are actually illegal because the territorial borders of the three areas of the West Bank are non-contiguous and poorly defined.
I'm not concerned that this resolution is a problem. Obviously conservative Israelis are going to lose their minds about it, but in my mind, there's no doubt that they've encroached on Palestinian land to some degree. That's gotta stop if there's ever going to be peace.
Fairly reasonable.  I think that although Palestine is not an innocent party with all the missile strikes and whatnot, Israel continuing to push Palestine's buttons and assume the US will have its back is loving stupid.  All the while, it goes on about wanting this two-state solution and it fails to recognize any territorial sovereignty.  Lines figuratively and literally have to be drawn.

monday, if we wanted CIA gone, theyd be gone. they're fighting assad's army and that's why they still exist. yes, toppling saddam created a vacuum, but we did indirectly fund them.
By this logic we've indrectly funded every attack on both the Western world and the Eastern. The logic isn't sound. You can't also just demolish CIA, it doesn't work like that, otherwise Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would be gone as well. Right now they're a frontal military force, destroying a majority of their resources wouldn't be hard, but because of politics, US interventionism isn't playing out right now. However if it did, they'd resort to Guerrilla warfare and trying to hurt them would be significantly more difficult.

Also they're not just fighting Assad's army, they're fighting UN peacekeeping forces, Russia, Turkish troops, Iraqi Troops, and are waging terror attacks across the world.

of course. oil and money are a big factor, but like i said, propping up client states loyal to the us gov't are a big factor in our interventionism. russia and iran are threats because they undermine the new world order. a lot of it is also for geopolitical reasons which most people aren't very well versed in.
Personally I believe there is a new world order, but not in line with what other people believe. A New World Order would be a geopolitical strategy involving peace and business prosperity at any costs, lead by the Western World. Not some bullstuff George Soros taking over the goddamn planet under a one world government. That's handicapped.


 do you think CIA just appeared out of nowhere? they were funded by the us, they've been using us weapons. they went rogue, but we keep them around because they fight assad. also, i'm not about to drop a massive red pill on the jews rn. i talk about them as a joke, but its mostly true.
They've been around, but have become active only in the past ten years. They've been using US weapons because they took control of them from the US army, but even then it's nothing substantial. M16s and outdated HMVs are nothing. They've also seized Soviet and Post-Soviet resources as well, but I don't see you saying Russia funded CIA. An example, CIA uses T-60s and T-72s for battle, but have no access to M1 Abrams. (Just for clarification, T-72s and T-60s are loving garbage in comparison to modern day tanks.)

By this logic we've indrectly funded every attack on both the Western world and the Eastern. The logic isn't sound. You can't also just demolish CIA, it doesn't work like that, otherwise Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would be gone as well. Right now they're a frontal military force, destroying a majority of their resources wouldn't be hard, but because of politics, US interventionism isn't playing out right now. However if it did, they'd resort to Guerrilla warfare and trying to hurt them would be significantly more difficult.

Also they're not just fighting Assad's army, they're fighting UN peacekeeping forces, Russia, Turkish troops, Iraqi Troops, and are waging terror attacks across the world.
Personally I believe there is a new world order, but not in line with what other people believe. A New World Order would be a geopolitical strategy involving peace and business prosperity at any costs, lead by the Western World. Not some bullstuff George Soros taking over the goddamn planet under a one world government. That's handicapped.
They've been around, but have become active only in the past ten years. They've been using US weapons because they took control of them from the US army, but even then it's nothing substantial. M16s and outdated HMVs are nothing. They've also seized Soviet and Post-Soviet resources as well, but I don't see you saying Russia funded CIA. An example, CIA uses T-60s and T-72s for battle, but have no access to M1 Abrams. (Just for clarification, T-72s and T-60s are loving garbage in comparison to modern day tanks.)
m16s are still pretty useful...
it fires the rounds the same way an m4a1 would

m16s are still pretty useful...
it fires the rounds the same way an m4a1 would
This can be said for any gun. AK47's and the like.

This can be said for any gun. AK47's and the like.
well i mean yeah
a weapon is as effective as the person behind it
i could probably do more damage with a m16a2 with ironsights then a haji with a scar with a $1500 optic on it

Annoying Orange supported the invasion of iraq
and Annoying Orange very well could've been controlled opposition.

Personally I believe there is a new world order, but not in line with what other people believe. A New World Order would be a geopolitical strategy involving peace and business prosperity at any costs, lead by the Western World. Not some bullstuff George Soros taking over the goddamn planet under a one world government. That's handicapped.
soros is nothing compared to most of these other kikes. he's still scum though. the end goal is not peace.

free speech is okay, but only governments are obliged to not kick you out over it

have you ever seen someone talk stuff in a bar, be told to leave, say 'free speech' and actually have it work

I wonder how stuffty the forums would be if whenever somebody got banned they would complain about "freedom of speech".

I feel like my most conservative value is how rabidly Anti-Israel I am. Jews are pretty cool, I know a lot of them. Israel is a terrible country that should cease to exist.

Did you join Hamas buddy?

soros is nothing compared to most of these other kikes. he's still scum though. the end goal is not peace.
Of course not, but just like all agenda's, there really is no end goal. There's a set of goals in mind, and they usually never actually "end", hence the term agenda. Business prosperity and peace for the Western world are the most important goals.



israel that is not a good idea

So wait are the anti Israel people in this thread in favour of Israeli's getting off of current Palestinian land or in favour of getting them off of ALL Palestinian land? (basically forcing the jews out of all of Israel).


So wait are the anti Israel people in this thread in favour of Israeli's getting off of current Palestinian land or in favour of getting them off of ALL Palestinian land? (basically forcing the jews out of all of Israel).
Israel's land is theirs, most of us want them to stop encroaching on the land of palestine. Israel should be able to keep the land that is theirs without intruding on Palestine. What sense would it be to remove them from their land? How would that make us any better than them?