Julian vs. Hillary

[Bomb#20]

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

When England does the same thing it's a fairy-tale, like when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar. England took control in 1833 but they didn't kick out the Argentine residents; the British persuaded them to stay -- by paying them the wages the Argentine government had stiffed them out of. Besides which, nobody is claiming England was a democracy in 1833. Why what a non-democracy did 180 years ago is relevant, you have not explained. The Falklands are a democracy now. And the current Falklanders aren't the people who drove Argentines off even in your fantasy history; for you to want to sentence them to a dictatorship for the crime of having unacceptable ancestors is your own moral blindness, not anyone else's.

As for Israel, according to you when a colonial power used force to settle a place with its own people, there is no legitimate claim in that. So going by your own principles, the Arabs have no legitimate claim to Israel, since they were a colonial power who occupied Israel in the 7th century and drove out and/or set up a foreign dictatorship over the local residents. Or is 180 years too short a time but 1300 years long enough to make squatters' rights legitimate, according to the Supreme Authority of untermensche's dictate?

 

[untermensche]

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

When England does the same thing it's a fairy-tale, like when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar. England took control in 1833 but they didn't kick out the Argentine residents; the British persuaded them to stay -- by paying them the wages the Argentine government had stiffed them out of. Besides which, nobody is claiming England was a democracy in 1833. Why what a non-democracy did 180 years ago is relevant, you have not explained. The Falklands are a democracy now. And the current Falklanders aren't the people who drove Argentines off even in your fantasy history; for you to want to sentence them to a dictatorship for the crime of having unacceptable ancestors is your own moral blindness, not anyone else's.

As for Israel, according to you when a colonial power used force to settle a place with its own people, there is no legitimate claim in that. So going by your own principles, the Arabs have no legitimate claim to Israel, since they were a colonial power who occupied Israel in the 7th century and drove out and/or set up a foreign dictatorship over the local residents. Or is 180 years too short a time but 1300 years long enough to make squatters' rights legitimate, according to the Supreme Authority of untermensche's dictate?

This is about an imperial power trying to maintain control of an island that the UN says is in Argentinian waters.

And if Israel had not been kidnapping people and torturing people and throwing people off their lands and killing people and imprisoning people and denying people their rights for the past 50 years based on claims to land the UN and the world, besides Israel and the US, does not recognize you might have a point. The world recognizes the 1967 borders. Anything beyond them is theft.

The violent taking of Israel by outsiders has been a huge gaping wound for over 50 years.

There is nothing about it that can be defended.

 

[Bomb#20]

This is about an imperial power trying to maintain control of an island that the UN says is in Argentinian waters.

And the Bible says God gave Palestine to the Jews; but we're freethinkers, so we don't accept argument from authority. We don't give a damn what the Bible says; why should we give a damn what the UN says? St. Pierre is a little piece of France that's twenty times closer to Canada than the Falklands are to Argentina, and the UN hasn't told France it's occupying Canadian waters. You should really try freethinking some time.

The world recognizes the 1967 borders. Anything beyond them is theft.

Theft? It can only be theft if the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land; and according to you, one's people having lived on the land for many generations does not confer a legitimate claim. The Palestinians got their land exactly the same way the Falklanders got theirs: by inheriting it from colonists who were settled there many generations ago by an imperial power. So for you to argue that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim and the Falklanders don't is yet more red-handed hypocrisy.

You're making your true criteria painfully self-evident: it's all about whose ox is gored. The Argentines and Palestinians are in your in-group; the English and Israelis are in your out-group. This is nothing but raw tribal loyalty on your part. And with you, tribal loyalty trumps considerations of dictatorship and democracy every time.

 

[untermensche]

The world recognizes the 1967 borders. Anything beyond them is theft.

Theft? It can only be theft if the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land; and according to you, one's people having lived on the land for many generations does not confer a legitimate claim.

This is what the UN is for.

And according to the UN any expansion of either side beyond the 67 borders is illegal.

But the US has vetoed every resolution to try to deal with this continual criminal activity by Israel.

And according to the UN the Falklands are in Argentinian territorial waters, not English.

 

[Bomb#20]

Theft? It can only be theft if the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to the land; and according to you, one's people having lived on the land for many generations does not confer a legitimate claim.

This is what the UN is for.

And according to the UN any expansion of either side beyond the 67 borders is illegal.

But the US has vetoed every resolution to try to deal with this continual criminal activity by Israel.

And according to the UN the Falklands are in Argentinian territorial waters, not English.

Even if we pretend that a UN opinion has the magical power to get you off the hook from being a red-handed hypocrite, and even if we pretend that a UN opinion has the magical power to confer legitimacy to territorial claims, what's your point? The UN didn't rule that the Falklands belong to Argentina. The UN didn't rule that Britain had no right to defend Falklanders right to self-determination. The UN didn't rule that subjection to Argentinian dictatorship is a fit punishment for the crime of being born to the descendants of English settlers. The UN didn't rule about a damn thing about the Falkland Islands. The UN issued a ruling about the seabed under the water around the islands. The UN said the offshore oil belongs to Argentina. You might as well claim the fact that Italy owns all the territory immediately around San Marino entitles it to occupy San Marino. Have you considered even trying to apply any critical thought to your own arguments?

 

[untermensche]

This is what the UN is for.

And according to the UN any expansion of either side beyond the 67 borders is illegal.

But the US has vetoed every resolution to try to deal with this continual criminal activity by Israel.

And according to the UN the Falklands are in Argentinian territorial waters, not English.

Even if we pretend that a UN opinion has the magical power to get you off the hook from being a red-handed hypocrite, and even if we pretend that a UN opinion has the magical power to confer legitimacy to territorial claims, what's your point? The UN didn't rule that the Falklands belong to Argentina. The UN didn't rule that Britain had no right to defend Falklanders right to self-determination. The UN didn't rule that subjection to Argentinian dictatorship is a fit punishment for the crime of being born to the descendants of English settlers. The UN didn't rule about a damn thing about the Falkland Islands. The UN issued a ruling about the seabed under the water around the islands. The UN said the offshore oil belongs to Argentina. You might as well claim the fact that Italy owns all the territory immediately around San Marino entitles it to occupy San Marino. Have you considered even trying to apply any critical thought to your own arguments?

The UN SC ruled that the matter should be settled diplomatically.

Britain immediately launched it's navy.

It took a while since England is so far away.

 

[Bomb#20]

The UN SC ruled that the matter should be settled diplomatically.

Britain immediately launched it's navy.

It took a while since England is so far away.

That would be Resolution 502.

"The Security Council,

Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 (S/14944) calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."​

You're condemning Britain for disobeying the exact same UN SC ruling that Argentina disobeyed first, and that you are not condemning Argentina for disobeying. Hypocrite.

Hey, aren't you the one who said "You cannot justify anything with double standards."? Double hypocrite.

 

[angelo]

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

When England does the same thing it's a fairy-tale, like when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar. England took control in 1833 but they didn't kick out the Argentine residents; the British persuaded them to stay -- by paying them the wages the Argentine government had stiffed them out of. Besides which, nobody is claiming England was a democracy in 1833. Why what a non-democracy did 180 years ago is relevant, you have not explained. The Falklands are a democracy now. And the current Falklanders aren't the people who drove Argentines off even in your fantasy history; for you to want to sentence them to a dictatorship for the crime of having unacceptable ancestors is your own moral blindness, not anyone else's.

As for Israel, according to you when a colonial power used force to settle a place with its own people, there is no legitimate claim in that. So going by your own principles, the Arabs have no legitimate claim to Israel, since they were a colonial power who occupied Israel in the 7th century and drove out and/or set up a foreign dictatorship over the local residents. Or is 180 years too short a time but 1300 years long enough to make squatters' rights legitimate, according to the Supreme Authority of untermensche's dictate?

This is about an imperial power trying to maintain control of an island that the UN says is in Argentinian waters.

And if Israel had not been kidnapping people and torturing people and throwing people off their lands and killing people and imprisoning people and denying people their rights for the past 50 years based on claims to land the UN and the world, besides Israel and the US, does not recognize you might have a point. The world recognizes the 1967 borders. Anything beyond them is theft.

The violent taking of Israel by outsiders has been a huge gaping wound for over 50 years.

There is nothing about it that can be defended.

The very same argument could be used against the conquests and executions of millions of infidels by islam since Mo's invasions of many Middle Eastern nations, which continues to this day!

 

[untermensche]

The UN SC ruled that the matter should be settled diplomatically.

Britain immediately launched it's navy.

It took a while since England is so far away.

That would be Resolution 502.

"The Security Council,

Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 (S/14944) calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."​

You're condemning Britain for disobeying the exact same UN SC ruling that Argentina disobeyed first, and that you are not condemning Argentina for disobeying. Hypocrite.

Hey, aren't you the one who said "You cannot justify anything with double standards."? Double hypocrite.

I'm condemning Britain for ignoring the process and just doing what it wanted.

It doesn't matter what other parties do. I am allowed to condemn this.

And only some fool would call condemning it a double standard since I have not defended the actions of anyone here, merely saying this was a matter of an imperial power trying to hold onto an illegitimate possession.

The US did not support Argentina here, so my condemnation means nothing.

The US supported some insane woman in England desperate to show she had balls.

 

[angelo]

Have you forgotten that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wished to remain British citizens?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You don't think that that Julian leaking the Clinton e-mails now, just as there's a tiny lull of e-mail gate is a coincidence??! I guaranty you that anytime there is a lull, or when Trump is having a bad day, there will be another e-mail story. You'd better get used to it. And it won't stop until after she is elected.

So Assange is part of the great right wing conspiracy too? It seemed a tad delusional when you were ranting that the FBI and the State department and intelligence inspectors general were in on it, but Assange is in on it too?

That's one helluva vast conspiracy.

Why do you imagine they'll stop when she's elected? Or are you in on it too?

There's an easier explanation. Julian Assange is a narcissist who thrives on attention. If he had had some incriminating e-mails of Trump, he would have posted them. But he doesn't. He's only got Hillary's. And since Hillary is the heir apparent all the more attention to Julian.

And besides, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Who cares what evils a Republican says. We expect evil from them. It's hardly news.

 

[dismal]

So Assange is part of the great right wing conspiracy too? It seemed a tad delusional when you were ranting that the FBI and the State department and intelligence inspectors general were in on it, but Assange is in on it too?

That's one helluva vast conspiracy.

Why do you imagine they'll stop when she's elected? Or are you in on it too?

There's an easier explanation. Julian Assange is a narcissist who thrives on attention. If he had had some incriminating e-mails of Trump, he would have posted them. But he doesn't. He's only got Hillary's. And since Hillary is the heir apparent all the more attention to Julian.

And besides, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Who cares what evils a Republican says. We expect evil from them. It's hardly news.

Maybe he's mad at Hillary because she said all rape accusers have a right to be believed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Have you forgotten that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wished to remain British citizens?

He hasn't forgotten. He says that's not democracy. And he says he'd have been okay with it if the Falklanders had voted for independence; but voting to stay in a colonial empire is right out. "Democracy", you see, is a word that means "the majority vote to do what untermensche approves of".

 

[Bomb#20]

You're condemning Britain for disobeying the exact same UN SC ruling that Argentina disobeyed first, and that you are not condemning Argentina for disobeying. Hypocrite.

I'm condemning Britain for ignoring the process and just doing what it wanted.

The correct process being what? Asking the UN for an extra resolution telling Argentina this time they really really have to withdraw? Protesting impotently when Argentina ignores that one too? Telling the Falklanders they're out of luck and they're on their own?

It doesn't matter what other parties do. I am allowed to condemn this.

Indeed you are; and I'm allowed to condemn your hypocrisy. Ain't free speech great?

And only some fool would call condemning it a double standard since I have not defended the actions of anyone here, merely saying this was a matter of an imperial power trying to hold onto an illegitimate possession.

Oh, you were merely saying that, were you?

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

That's you, dude, defending Argentina's actions, right here.

 

[angelo]

There's an easier explanation. Julian Assange is a narcissist who thrives on attention. If he had had some incriminating e-mails of Trump, he would have posted them. But he doesn't. He's only got Hillary's. And since Hillary is the heir apparent all the more attention to Julian.

And besides, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat. Who cares what evils a Republican says. We expect evil from them. It's hardly news.

Maybe he's mad at Hillary because she said all rape accusers have a right to be believed.

She said that? Obviously aimed the hairy brigades.

 

[Jayjay]

So what are these emails from wikileaks? Just the same stuff released by the State Department, or something that leaked, or did some hacker get into Hillary's mail server?

 

[Derec]

She said that?

Yes.

Of course, terms and conditions apply.

 

[angelo]

She said that?

Yes.

Of course, terms and conditions apply.

Behold your new el presidente!

 

[ZiprHead]

WTF?

 

[Harry Bosch]

She said that?

Yes.

Of course, terms and conditions apply.

A nice Trump story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...p-resurfaces-new-york-court-article-1.2681196