Amos Yadlin + why bombing Damascus is important to Israel.

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)t . Ancient "Israel" is just another biblical myth, No reliable evidence that it exist, and if it did , its existence was extremely short lived, when after the those religious maniacs CIVIL WARS - it broke up into warng factions.

GO read y hstory or bieble -= Go learn.

;;

...

 

this all least his statement is logical , your statements about this false flag attack are completely irrational

[video=youtube;JlzGZanCZDw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlzGZanCZDw[/video]

 

True.

I would imagine you have done many things like this.

 

Iran will not be weakened if Syria falls. How dumb is this.
No, the Druse population will never support Israel. That's ridiculous.
And no the Kurdish national movement is not supporting Israel.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and anything that causes them problems, I'm in favor of. So while I doubt this is true, I don't care either way.

Quite frankly I'm against going into Syria. Let the terrorists kill themselves. If we don't help, you'll claim Israel didn't want the US to help the poor defenseless Syrian people. If we do help, you'll claim Israel wanted us to do so for these garbage reasons you made up here.

No matter what happens you'll blame Israel, and complain about the US. So honestly, I don't give a crap what you think, or what happens. I take it back... I think we should support Israel just to tick you people off.

 

This cabal of monsters, gangsters, liars, and cheats do not know the meaning of the word 'help'.

They can SHOVE their 'help' and keep themselves to themselves.

How about that for a change? Their behaviours are the most abnormal and sick thing that I have ever seen. All they have done since the end of WW2 is murder masses of people.

They disgust me, and in a cleaned up World such people would be hanging from rope, along with all those that helped contaminate the Republic, and by extension the World. Bankers would be near the front of the line.

 

Actually I have not moved the goal posts at all but rather you have. The UN Security Council is made up of 15 members, 5 permanent and ten rotating. IN order to vote, they all must vote or, be on record as abstaining. In order to pass a SC resolution nine affirmatives and no veto has to be the case.

You can read about this information here (italics mine) where it states;

." The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations."

Not five permanent members but 15 members.

" Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.
"

Five permanent members in an informal meeting do not decide anything on behalf of the Security Council.

So, now that we know the five permanent members could not be construed as the Security Counsel as they don't hold enough votes to either approve or cancel any resoluton pertaining to Syria, we have the following exchange;

So even now, you contend that five members make up the entire UN Security Council. I have cited the UN Charter which is the authorization for the UNSC a well as it's definition of what is the makeup of the council and then, cited your own article to show that the members that met did not have the numbers to make a quorum to vote on any resolution yea or nay yet you still contend that they were the Security Council voting on something.

Please explain how a council of fifteen is now five I'm sure the rest of the forum will be very interested to hear your bizzaro take on how the UN has suddenly been changed.

 

What on earth are you rambling on about now Jack?

 

only if you suffer from encephalitis.

no doubt the world is grateful.

once again you demonstrate your inability to follow a thread. It was you that brought up the dead and monuments etc. not me.
Consistency of thought does not appear to be a talent you possess.

Okay directly contradict yourself without noticing.

And as for Israel being engaged in industrialized murder and ethnic cleansing - it would appear you do not have a clue as to what transpired in ww2 and cannot fathom what "industrialized murder" actually means. Using the anti-zionist propaganda glossary doesn't do much for your credibility nor intelligence.

Why do you insist on making idiotic claims? You consistently mischaracterize my position despite my direct statements. Either you have a problem with comprehension or you are engaging in the lying that you claim to abhor.

what is that purpose?

yes this is the rag I was referring to. Where exactly is Judea?

Imagine one of the guys that was promoting the boycott actually promoting the boycott. Beggars belief wot?

Oh look another person who saw the clouds of war coalescing in Europe and Asia in the 30's.

And did Wilson or Roosevelt or Truman "declare war" on Germany in the 30's? did any of those presidents enact a trade boycott or engage in a trade war with germany in the 30's?




"This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'. This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion, to her destruction" (Diese Erklärung nannte den Krieg gegen Deutschland, der nun beschlossen sei, einen heiligen Krieg. Dieser Krieg müsse gegen Deutschland bis zu dessen Ende, bis zu dessen Vernichtung, geführt werden). - Dr. Franz J. Scheidl, Geschichte der Verfemung Deutschlands. [/quote]

Yes nothing like quoting a nazi and holocaust denier who is rejected even by other holocaust deniers.
BTW, he was referring to ww2.

Yes war was inevitable. I guess you are totally ignorant of the politics of the day. particularly with what was going on in Germany in contravention of the ww1 peace treaty.

You really shouldnt go rooting around in denialist/jew hating sites for your "facts". It's too easy to get shot down.

Personally I prefer actual evidence. Not crappy "stuff" that shows exactly how ignorant and stupid the content of jewhating denialist sites to be.

yet another churlish attempt at wit.


But I see that you claiming you don't lie and hate liars was a lie. Honesty at last.

 

I noticed this right off the bat in his post but allowed you to articulate first without my interference.

He does just that to me as well. A cute trait.

I want to know what the order of battle in the Judean military was that threatened poor Hitler so much that he then had to kill six million defenseless Jews across Europe. What it's navy was and how many destroyers it had. Total ircraft strength and so on and forth.

Perhaps Bishadi can inform us of this information seeing as how he seems to think that first, Jews declared war on Hitler was not just a sensational headline in a newspaper which was merely trying to show that Jews the world over were angry at Hitlers policies towards Jews and never rally declared an official war against anybody as they could not but rather a real one in which he believes the nation of Israel actually existed a decade prior to it existing.

Not just me huh? He still has nine of them on the US Servicemen thread he seems to be too afraid to tackle.

 

http://www.un.org/en/sc/

THE 5 members that can veto, already met because 2 (china/russia) already said no. Unless BOTH China and Russia, turn, then NO is what the answer is on military strike.

i like it that your reading, finally.

You hang onto my belt loop cuz ive got hopes for ya.

 

Oh, so now you are acknowledging the Security Council never met and voted on this matter, just five members informally talking about it. Isn't that sort of what I said after you said the Security Council already voted on it?

 

she likes to bring up the dead and i know how

I know how to dance with bigots

because they were cute, smart and just happy people, and that might have made him jealous.

But instead, you'll hear, evil, cruel, even 'anti christ'. When anyone can be just as nasty.

The sobs destroyed SS Patria

about like gaza's

Actually it was the breaking of the versailles treaty that i think created the divide. Pollitically speaking.
Bigots will claim that 'he' is just evil, nasty, cruel and the other side were just trying to be sweet and innocent just like 'god' chose them to be.

You make it seem like the terrorist gang are just sweethearts, in all matters. i bet Osama said the same thing about his religious wingnut gang.

There's a lie!

 

They did meet and how the chemical diagnosis funding was made. Ahhhhhh derrrrrrr

But only the 5 met, directly on the attack proposal, because if them 5 didnt agree, there was no immediate strike. They did meet and you are just a whinner and incapable of being honest about being wrong.

waaaaaaa waaaa

Edit/Unnecessary comment/baiting

 

That's right, the Security Council never, ever ever met on this matter much less voted on it.

Thank you, I believe you have finally admitted you lied- in a fashion anyways.

 

Simple. Those who conspire for or even argue for these evil actions, they need rounded up, tried, and hung. However many that is. They are demons. Sick and twisted demons. Therefore, the only thing to do with demons is to eliminate them. Like one would eliminate a virus. To save the rest of the body, you must eliminate the virus.

 

Oh I see. These evil actions potentially being to minimize an evil dictators ability to kill tens of thousands of his own people in horrible ways so he can continue to oppress them. Strange how it is not so evil when facts are changed a bit but then again, right now, we don't now all the facts which probably has a lot to do with why nothing has happened as yet but, to call any action evil when you don't really now is a bit premature.

 

Prove that he is 'evil'.

Then prove your allegation.

 

Wow........ So in your eyes, the 5 that met, just did not happen? That US British French China Russia did not meet and talk about August 21 2013 event and make a determination that russia and china are against ANY strike?

Yes or No

I know that you can offer the UNSC publication list

Here is one that I found
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/s_pv_7020.pdf

United Nations S/PV.7020 ��������Security Council
Sixty-eighth year
7020th meeting
Tuesday, 20 August 2013, 10 a.m.
New York

 

check your shorts as you just did the 'premature.

You dont have all the facts but you still condemn assad. Funny. I can witness war crimes, by video feed of israelis under Netanyahu's watch most any day of the week, and you dont condemn them. Why is that?

Assad aint the bad guy. He has a secular society that has worked for years.

Saudi arabia is by far worse as a dictatorship while assads people LOVE HIM.

Syria offers more diversity by combining freedom of secular belief and business without imposing a 'religious state' or ' full captialism' or 'communism'............... in a single society.

Assad is perhaps right now on a humanitarian-aid line, filling boxes with food, with his bare hands. Problem is, he cant get much done because people are hugging him, and giving him lines of support, no matter the religious belief.

Is your face turning colors right now?

 

Don't have to Jack for two reasons, one is that I said 'potentially.' A 'what if' and second, you didn't say the magic word and I certainly don't kow tow to rude people, particularly on the internet.

 

Then if you have no proof of anything, what do you have?

Nowt.

 

Five members as we know do not make up the Security Council and, as we also know, do not have the capacity to vote as a Council, approve or defeat a resolution hence, the Security Council did not meet and vote on a tabled resolution authorizing force against Syria as you contend.

Uh huh. The Security Council met and discussed ....

"The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question"

Not sure what your point is with this..

You are right and seem to agree with me on this. We don't know that Assad is evil so can only wait and see. BTW, this is why I said 'potentially' meaning we don't know so are awaiting a determination.

- - - Updated - - -

Same as you, nothing. We are discussing others actions, plans and such.

 

The Right to Veto

The creators of the United Nations Charter conceived that five countries — China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) [which was succeeded in 1990 by the Russian Federation], the United Kingdom and the United States —, because of their key roles in the establishment of the United Nations, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security. They were granted the special status of Permanent Member States at the Security Council, along with a special voting power known as the "right to veto". It was agreed by the drafters that if any one of the five permanent members cast a negative vote in the 15-member Security Council, the resolution or decision would not be approved.

All five permanent members have exercised the right of veto at one time or another. If a permanent member does not fully agree with a proposed resolution but does notwish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required number of nine favourable votes

http://www.un.org/en/sc/meetings/voting.shtml

i didnt bold that part.

I bolded and enlarged a key point.......

The mission will contemporaneously investigate the alleged
use of chemical weapons reported by the Government of
Syria in Khan Al-Asal ...

So people can WITNESS who told the UN about the chemical weapons use; Assads government!

good job

but why didnt you comment on the best part?

 

And your point is?

My point is that fifteen members need to meet in order to have a council and vote on anything. Having one or two, or even five meet 'informally' is not a Security Council quorum so your contention that it was is either a lie.

You are of course correct, I did as it was the title of the UN doc you linked to. It certainly was not a Security Council meeting to discuss attacking Syria.

Simply because it is not news. We knew who reported the attacks when we learned of them.

" The mission will contemporaneously investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons reported by the Government of
Syria in Khan Al-Asal and two other allegations of the use of chemical weapons reported by Member States. "

 

them five met and china and russia said no.

It's all over the news. i posted it a long time ago in the thread but you're being obtuse, because you can't find an authority of UN recognizing their MEETING ............................. .......................... of THE FIVE.

'that it was it either a lie."

was it either a quack....!

Have you wondered if Assad DID NOT use the chemicals?

Is it possible that you're so mad, you're turning green?


.