Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 18:42:12 GMT -5
About as many as before someone tags several people here walking in the blindass kool-aid dark as idiots.
|
|
Loopdilou
Well-Known Member
AKA Mrs. Dark Honor
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:41:33 GMT -5
Posts: 1,365
|
Post by Loopdilou on Feb 24, 2011 18:46:26 GMT -5
LOL! That was actually almost witty, Krick. Or it would have been if it weren't coming from the tin foil queen.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 24, 2011 20:53:27 GMT -5
Well, we can have the political argument about Zionism, and Israeli government policy, but to the best of my knowledge there are no Israeli terror cells operating all over the world trying to blow up trains, buses, cars, and flying airplanes into buildings full of civilians on suicide missions. There's a difference between Israeli state policy matters and islamofascist murder-suicide.
And then of course, there's the obvious: If Israel is so bad, and Judaism such a global threat-- why are there any Arab / Islamic states left? Do you really think Israel couldn't phsyically eliminate its neighbors if that's what it set out to do? Do you think Israel fears the US, Russia, or China woul stop them militarily if they did?
The don't do these things because the lack the ability-- same as us. They don't do these things because they desire to live in peace. Unfortunately their enemies have no desire to live in peace, they have stated as much, and they squander every opportunity to have peaceful relations because when you get right down to it, the islamists do not believe in Israel's right to exist, and in their interpretation of islam, Israel and the Jews must cease to exist.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 21:09:59 GMT -5
I owe you an exalt, paul. Very simply and eloquently put.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 21:21:34 GMT -5
Do you think Israel fears the US, Russia, or China woul stop them militarily if they did?
Did you mean stop them militarily? Or stop financially supporting their military?
I was actually pissed we didn't support the recent UN action... those settlements are not legal...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 24, 2011 21:27:19 GMT -5
Do you think Israel fears the US, Russia, or China woul stop them militarily if they did? Did you mean stop them militarily? Or stop financially supporting their military? I was actually pissed we didn't support the recent UN action... those settlements are not legal... Why aren't they?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 21:36:52 GMT -5
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.[51]
International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[52] major organs of the United Nations,[53] the European Union, and Canada,[54] regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[55] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State reached the same conclusion.[56][57]
Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100[9] small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts.[57][58][59]
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 24, 2011 21:39:44 GMT -5
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.[51] International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[52] major organs of the United Nations,[53] the European Union, and Canada,[54] regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[55] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State reached the same conclusion.[56][57] Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100[9] small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts.[57][58][59] What the heck - under Obama rules the government can just deem the rule unconstitutional or irrelevant and ignore them
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 24, 2011 21:39:44 GMT -5
I am waiting to see how the Tulsa arm of the PBA handles it. I am familiar with Tulsa and I can tell you the Street officers are a very tight nit group. Don't mess with a brother in blue. When a Islamic masque holds a police appreciation day my antenna automatically go up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 21:42:53 GMT -5
What the heck - under Obama rules the government can just deem the rule unconstitutional or irrelevant and ignore them
Do you even know how to read? No one said they would ingore the law... they said specifically it would continue to be enforced for as long as it is a law... but that there would be no more active attempts to defend ... do you have no comprehension skills?
And how would a question of a domestic law be similar to ignoring international law? I don't understand? You really see no difference between those two thing? Honestly? i'm asking...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,127
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 24, 2011 21:44:53 GMT -5
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel is in breach of international law by establishing settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. The Court maintains that Israel cannot rely on its right of self-defense or necessity to impose a regime that violates international law. The Court also ruled that Israel violates basic human rights by impeding liberty of movement and the inhabitants' right to work, health, education and an adequate standard of living.[51] International intergovernmental organizations such as the Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention,[52] major organs of the United Nations,[53] the European Union, and Canada,[54] regard the settlements as a violation of international law. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination wrote that "The status of the settlements was clearly inconsistent with Article 3 of the Convention, which, as noted in the Committee's General Recommendation XIX, prohibited all forms of racial segregation in all countries. There is a consensus among publicists that the prohibition of racial discrimination, irrespective of territories, is an imperative norm of international law."[55] Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have also characterized the settlements as a violation of international law. In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State reached the same conclusion.[56][57] Under Israeli law, West Bank settlements must meet specific criteria to be legal. In 2009, there were approximately 100[9] small communities that did not meet these criteria and are referred to as illegal outposts.[57][58][59] What the heck - under Obama rules the government can just deem the rule unconstitutional or irrelevant and ignore themSeriously?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 24, 2011 22:16:19 GMT -5
<<< when you get right down to it, the islamists do not believe in Israel's right to exist, and in their interpretation of islam, Israel and the Jews must cease to exist. >>> ...and us... <<< I am waiting to see how the Tulsa arm of the PBA handles it. >>> <<< When a Islamic masque holds a police appreciation day my antenna automatically go up. >>> ...agreed on both...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 24, 2011 22:20:59 GMT -5
What the heck - under Obama rules the government can just deem the rule unconstitutional or irrelevant and ignore them Do you even know how to read? No one said they would ingore the law... they said specifically it would continue to be enforced for as long as it is a law... but that there would be no more active attempts to defend ... do you have no comprehension skills? And how would a question of a domestic law be similar to ignoring international law? I don't understand? You really see no difference between those two thing? Honestly? i'm asking... Yes - and Obamacare was ruled unconstitional be a federal judge and is being totally ignored International law does not automatically trump a countries' law - if it did, our constitution is null and void
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 22:32:54 GMT -5
No... its going through the process... it will end up in the supreme court and then it will be decided... i'm sure you are familiar with the process?
International law trumps a country's laws when its not your land... and when your behavior impacts the international community... And if you read what i posted, even under ISRAILI law there are settlements classified as illegal...
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 24, 2011 22:36:37 GMT -5
No... its going through the process... it will end up in the supreme court and then it will be decided... i'm sure you are familiar with the process? International law trumps a country's laws when its not your land... and when your behavior impacts the international community... And if you read what i posted, even under ISRAILI law there are settlements classified as illegal... Or you are the other 1/2 the world that totally ignore it and get away with it
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 22:37:34 GMT -5
Who are you talking about exactly vonnie? Thanks.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Feb 24, 2011 22:41:30 GMT -5
Who are you talking about exactly vonnie? Thanks. Well for starters Iran
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 21:04:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2011 22:51:07 GMT -5
Iran is being sanctioned... and the last i heard, we were not supplying them with 3 Billion dollars a year...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 10:09:23 GMT -5
Israel has settlements it began on land captured after 7 of its neighbors attacked them after they were declared a nation once again in 1948. The settlements are not "illegal". Attacking Israel was illegal, and when you attack another country-- you get what you get. Was the Soviet occupation of East Germany "illegal"? Maybe, but I don't recall the "international community" railing about that for 50 years. Because "international community" is just code for anti-israel, anti-semetic in my opinion. It seems that the listless United Nations that has served no actual useful purpose since it was created, if it has a mission at all-- it is to destabilize and eventually eliminate the nation of Israel. I know it created Israel- declared it a nation in 1948- but I honestly don't think they planned for it to last. I think the UN planned for exactly what happened-- but they didn't foresee Israel prevailing in the fight.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 10:11:53 GMT -5
International law does not automatically trump a countries' law - if it did, our constitution is null and void Oh, wouldn't they just love that? I think they already think it-- but if they could get enough Americans to agree with that, they'd be tickled pink. It will probably dawn on the fringe, kook, nut job left that believes in all this internationalism that they are going to be the first to be eaten by the beast they created during digestion.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 25, 2011 10:20:15 GMT -5
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 25, 2011 10:46:40 GMT -5
Not sure why they'd need permission.... Particularly since they would not be there during religious services....We visited mosques when we were in Egypt. We didn't have to get permission. They only asked us to remove our shoes or wear little covers over them...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 10:49:30 GMT -5
Living in a country where everything is decided by a black robed council of nine is to me not far from living in a country where everything is decided by the Mullahs.
Either we have rule of law, and we agree that the Constitution is law- or we don't.
It's clear that this officer's attendance wasn't required in the performance of his essential duties, it was only required because the police department wanted to make a political / PC statement very likely under the pressure / threat from this group that if they didn't the islamists that run this mosque would stage a "you're all muslim hating racists" finger-pointing session / protest. When it was clear that the police department leadership's plan to appease the islamists had no voluntary support from the rank and file- out went the "order" to attend.
From start to finish, this has been a waste of departmental resources, an assault on officer Wood's natural rights, and has done nothing to serve peaceful muslims, or the wider community. And the chaos that has resulted would have resulted one way or another because that's the plan of these islamists. And they have been given the tools to do what they did by a decades long construction of a false system of "laws" and the perception of "laws" by the far left in this country.
This kind of thing should not be permitted to go on, but it's going to take a determined local community ready for a long and expensive legal fight, and it's going to take state's attorneys general, and a Justice Department keen on weeding out islamists- separating wheat from chaff, sheep from wolves, and it's going to take cooperation of truly peaceful muslims (if there are any-- and I don't say that lightly. I think it's an open question, because to be truly peaceful-- you can't be silent in the face of those who are not. And the silence from the wider muslim community in America is deafening right now.)
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Feb 25, 2011 11:00:10 GMT -5
Any chance of you taking on Alcee Hastings?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 25, 2011 11:03:02 GMT -5
IM(not so)HO this whole thing is just BS. This situation could have so easily been handled without any problem. Someone was an ass. Either the one guy got on his high horse or the supervisor got into a power trip.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Feb 25, 2011 11:17:27 GMT -5
It might be looked on from several perspectives. The first knee-jerk, (mine), is that it was a set-up and the police could not win, no matter how they responded.
To say the mosque visit was for community relations is fine, until the mosque includes in their "invitation" the bit about having a prayer session as part of the agenda.
After that knowledge was circulated the "invitation" took on a completely different aura, and my vote is with the Captain who refused to attend. Beyond that the guy who made the decision that the "visit" was mandatory becomes a complete, first order jerk.
Just like whoever it was that took the sixth grade class to a mosque and the students were "invited" to take part in a prayer session.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 11:18:36 GMT -5
IMHO, the supervisor was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He's got to get officers to volunteer to appease the islamists, and when he can't he issues the "order" and hopes nobody questions the order. The islamists instigated this very situation deliberately -- and we need to more and more call them out on these kinds of stunts.
We need to keep a sharp eye on groups like this-- just as we would any organized crime syndicate, or street gang. We need to investigate the organizations that invite police to things like this prior to agreeing to attend, and if they retaliate as I believe this group would have with protests and what not-- we need to identify the members and what they're up to to our communities. Let people know, this is who they are, and this is what they're about. Let the PEOPLE the police WORK FOR judge for themselves and forget about what MSNBC and CNN are going to say about it to the five audience members they have left between the two of them.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,386
|
Post by billisonboard on Feb 25, 2011 11:26:32 GMT -5
It might be looked on from several perspectives. The first knee-jerk, (mine), is that it was a set-up and the police could not win, no matter how they responded. To say the mosque visit was for community relations is fine, until the mosque includes in their "invitation" the bit about having a prayer session as part of the agenda. After that knowledge was circulated the "invitation" took on a completely different aura, and my vote is with the Captain who refused to attend. Beyond that the guy who made the decision that the "visit" was mandatory becomes a complete, first order jerk. Just like whoever it was that took the sixth grade class to a mosque and the students were "invited" to take part in a prayer session. If it was a set-up, how to handle it? Minimal number of volunteer officers for minimal time they could get away with being there arriving in unmarked cars without fanfare? [glow=red,2,300]OR[/glow] National headlines? I vote for the first.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 25, 2011 11:27:02 GMT -5
It might be looked on from several perspectives. The first knee-jerk, (mine), is that it was a set-up and the police could not win, no matter how they responded. To say the mosque visit was for community relations is fine, until the mosque includes in their "invitation" the bit about having a prayer session as part of the agenda. After that knowledge was circulated the "invitation" took on a completely different aura, and my vote is with the Captain who refused to attend. Beyond that the guy who made the decision that the "visit" was mandatory becomes a complete, first order jerk. Just like whoever it was that took the sixth grade class to a mosque and the students were "invited" to take part in a prayer session. I thought it was made very clear that the time of religious services was stated so anyone (police officers included) could avoid them if they so chose. This situation could have so easily been handled without any problem. Someone was an ass. Either the one guy got on his high horse or the supervisor got into a power tripSecond that. A needless tempest in a teacup.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 25, 2011 13:31:06 GMT -5
All they had to do was ask for voluteers. would have made it much simplier.
|
|