The US is not occupying dening their human rights and stealing Canada's lands either.
Nor is Israel taking land from, and denying rights to, Canadians.
Now let's see. Canada declares the USA has no right to exist and demands that it afford all rights of citizenship to all Canadians without Canada having to relinquish their Canadian citizenship or make any concessions of any kind in return. In order to force the USA to agree, suicide bombers are methodically sent into USA markets, schools, and places of worship.
The USA retaliates by closing the border to Canada.
Canada retaliates by firing rockets indiscriminately into northern USA cities in hopes of killing somebody, anybody, and they do a lot of property damage and kill and injure some people. The USA mitigates the risk to Americans by providing safe shelter when the rockets are coming in, but the situation becomes intolerable for the Americans.
The USA sends over fighter bombers to take out as many rocket launchers and weapon stockpiles as it can, and, because the Canadians intentionally do not provide protection for its citizens and intentionally place the rocket launchers where women and children will certainly be killed in a counter strike, many more Canadians are killed than Canadians have killed Americans.
But the USA is the villain.
I'm sorry, I just don't see the logic here. But I'm old enough to think that war is insane enough without including a rule that says one side is not allowed to kill any more than the other side kills no matter who starts it.
(And if you want to make land transfers the issue, substitute Mexico for Canada here as Mexico is sometimes portrayed as the victim when they lost territory to the USA.)
Foxfyre wrote:
(And if you want to make land transfers the issue, substitute Mexico for Canada here as Mexico is sometimes portrayed as the victim when they lost territory to the USA.)
No, Mexico is is no victim at all - it just gave Texas (1836), and after defeat in the war with the U.S. (1846-1848), it handed over the area that is now California, Nevada, and Utah, most of Arizona and New Mexico, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
Fox, well said! Regarding logic, our resident Israel-haters are immune to it.
Being "Israel haters" is better than "Palestinian haters." One is a country, after all, and we disagree with its apartheid policies. It's a fine point you'll probably miss.
cicerone imposter wrote:Being "Israel haters" is better than "Palestinian haters." One is a country, after all, and we disagree with its apartheid policies. It's a fine point you'll probably miss.
So apartheid policies are OK if the govt imposing them isnt a recognized country?
Advocate wrote:Nor is Israel taking land from, and denying rights to, Canadians.
Is this supposed to represent humor or did you make a mistake?
foxfrye; you analogy has so many strawmen it is not even worth going into completely. You can't tell me that every single loss of life from the palestinian side is just because Hamas or militant Palestinians are hiding behind civilians. Where in the world do you expect them to live except among civilians?
They want Hamas to wear all red uniforms to tell the world where they are.
cicerone imposter wrote:They want Hamas to wear all red uniforms to tell the world where they are.
If they want to be treated as soldiers, and want to be recognized as a legitimate fighting force, then they should wear uniforms.
After all, thats what the Geneva Convention says, and you seem to be demanding that Israel and the US abide by the GC.
So why shouldnt Hamas?
Unless you think Hamas is somehow exempt.
Nice dodge, but you didnt answer my question...
Do you think Hamas should be exempt from the Geneva Convention?
Hamas, to avoid your extinction, declare your conditions for recognizing Israel's right to exist!
mysteryman wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:They want Hamas to wear all red uniforms to tell the world where they are.
If they want to be treated as soldiers, and want to be recognized as a legitimate fighting force, then they should wear uniforms.
After all, thats what the Geneva Convention says, and you seem to be demanding that Israel and the US abide by the GC.
So why shouldnt Hamas?
Unless you think Hamas is somehow exempt.
MM; the GC don't say anything anything about uniforms. What it says is:
Quote:(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
So if Hamas is captured during an armed conflict by Israel they will not meet the conditions to be of POW status.
However; they are covered under International Humanitarian Law as is anybody in an armed conflict.
http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=70
They also have to abide by the IHL (above) but it is clear since they send rockets into Israeli civilian areas that they do not.
Hamas, to avoid your extinction, declare your conditions for recognizing Israel's right to exist!
Hamas, in the event you have no conditions that Israel can meet--other than agreeing to leave Palestine--that would get you to agree to recognize Israel's right to exist, then prepare for yourselves and the rest of the Palestinians not residing in Israel to suffer the consequences. Whatever happens to you and the rest of the Palestinians not in Israel is solely your responsibility.
Ican; you have delusions of grandeur; you do not have any kind of authority to pass such proclamations. In other words
revel wrote:Ican; you have delusions of grandeur; you do not have any kind of authority to pass such proclamations. In other words
What authority does Hamas have to say Israel has no right to exist?
