Apolyton season 3: The flag wars - Page 2

Goingonit · April 6, 2002, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Ah, the Manx flag (the three legged one).

That's the triskelion, and old Celtic symbol. Apparently, if it's pointing the other way, it's a symbol of hostility.

Quote:

'The triskelion (from the Greek "three-legged") is one of the oldest symbols known to mankind. The earliest representations of it were found in prehistoric rock carvings in northern Italy. It also appears on Greek vases and coins from the 6th and 8th centuries BC., and was revered by Norse and Sicilian peoples. The Sicilian version has a representation of the head of Medusa in the center. The Manx people believe that the triskelion came from Scandinavia. According to Norse mythology, the triskelion was a symbol of the movement of the sun through the heavens.'

mactbone · April 6, 2002, 22:20

Yes, well, I'm pretty sure they didn't have SPURS back then

MichaeltheGreat · April 6, 2002, 22:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

I don't agree. From the way I look at it, the Israeli state/military are acting like a bunch of thugs, and have done ever since the commencement of Sharon's leadership.

And how exactly did Sharon make the political comeback of a lifetime? Because despite the efforts of Rabin and Barak, the Palestinians kept ratcheting up the inflamatory rhetoric, looking the other way or actively working with Hamas other terror groups, and Arafat decided that since negotiation had got him as far as Oslo, just a little violent push would make Israel give more. It backfired. Sharon is a response to the Palestinian intifdada II, not the cause of it.

Quote:

When you corner an animal, it is going to fight back more viciously than ever.

The animal was already fighting.

Quote:

Israel's actions are throwing fuel on the fire, and is certainly not going to resolve the issue.

Oh, and let's of course not mention the poor innocent victim Palestinian actions - they haven't done a thing, it's all that big bad Zionist Entity's fault. If it had collapsed in 1948, 1967, or 10973, the Palestinians wouldn't have any Israeli civilians to murder.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:33

Quote:

Sharon is a response to the Palestinian intifdada II, not the cause of it.

Seeing as it started after his actions, this is a highly dubious claim to make.

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Seeing as it started after his actions, this is a highly dubious claim to make.

The PLO made it. Take it up with them.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:36

MtG isn't the PLO, as far as I know.

MichaeltheGreat · April 6, 2002, 22:37

Oh - you mean a visit to a holy site of his religion? Yes, nobody should have that freedom. And the poor, innocent, peaceloving Palestinians hadn't been doing anything prior to that, no, of course not. They were really cracking down on Hamas, and doing everything they could to abide by the terms they agreed to at Oslo.

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MtG isn't the PLO, as far as I know.

That's correct. Your reading comprehension is getting better but it isn't up to snuff yet.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:40

Of course if the leader of Hamas went to the Dome of the Rock with 1000 Hamas militants, Israel would say he was just worshipping like everyone else, right?

I like the double standards here.

mactbone · April 6, 2002, 22:42

Hamas, as in the terrorist organization? Well, I think they'd be glad to have a thousand of them gift wrapped, don't you think?

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:44

Yep... unfortunetly the war criminal Sharon deserves to be protected (no one thinks 1000 Israeli soldiers is a bit much?)

mactbone · April 6, 2002, 22:45

Has there ever been an actual military tribunal or other kind of trial to determine whether he is in fact a war criminal? And if he is, wouldn't he have been arrested by now?

MrFun · April 6, 2002, 22:47

I can accept a separate, independent Palestine state.

They just have to accept Israel's 1967 borders.

Just as Mexico has come to accept the border it has with United States from the Mexican War.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:48

There is a reason you haven't seen Sharon travel to Europe... he would have been arrested as soon as he set foot there.

And it is hard to declare someone a war criminal... since there is no International Criminal Court. However, Europe has gone ahead and declared him as such.

Though, I'd think a general in charge of a massacre of civilians, simply because of their ethnicity, could be considered a war criminal.

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There is a reason you haven't seen Sharon travel to Europe... he would have been arrested as soon as he set foot there.

Belgium is not Europe, Imran. IIRC, that case has been thrown out as well.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
I can accept a separate, independent Palestine state.

They just have to accept Israel's 1967 borders.

Just as Mexico has come to accept the border it has with United States from the Mexican War.

Isn't that what the Saudi Peace Plan said

See, that would be nice, but at Camp David, there wasn't any offer of 1967 borders, and there never really has been by Israel.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 22:57

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Belgium is not Europe, Imran. IIRC, that case has been thrown out as well.

Doesn't matter. Under international law he can be arrested for his acts in Lebanon in 1982... and he's afraid that European countries will do it if he goes there. And you know... they just might.

MrFun · April 6, 2002, 22:58

Woud you justify Mexicans sending suicide bombers everyday into United State's cities because they could not get over their defeat in the Mexican War??

And I'm sorry -- what I mean is, that the borders that Israel obtained from their Six Day War is legitimate, and those are the borders that should be accepted, with the exception of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai peninsula.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 23:04

Quote:

Woud you justify Mexicans sending suicide bombers everyday into United State's cities because they could not get over their defeat in the Mexican War??

If we treated them like **** and occupied territory and said that is the place for Mexicans to live, but we hold all the power (kind of like the reseverations with the Amerindian, say), then yeah..

The main difference is that there is a Mexican state. We didn't take all Mexico (as some Congressmen wanted) and deprive the Mexican people of their own homeland.

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 23:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Doesn't matter. Under international law he can be arrested for his acts in Lebanon in 1982...

That's a demonstrablly false statement at least as long as he is PM anyway, Imran.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocke...t_20020214.PDF

MrFun · April 6, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Woud you justify Mexicans sending suicide bombers everyday into United State's cities because they could not get over their defeat in the Mexican War??

If we treated them like **** and occupied territory and said that is the place for Mexicans to live, but we hold all the power (kind of like the reseverations with the Amerindian, say), then yeah..

The main difference is that there is a Mexican state. We didn't take all Mexico (as some Congressmen wanted) and deprive the Mexican people of their own homeland.

Throughout the 19th century, and for the first half of the 20th century, we have treated the Mexicans who remained in the Southwest like ****, in case you have not read your history.

And there were a couple of times when we invaded Mexico to intervene in its internal affairs after the Mexican War.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 23:18

Dino: I'm going to have to see the Vienna Convention of 1961, because the court only refers to diplomatic immunity of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

IIRC, during the whole Kosovo affair, Milosevic was called a war criminal by the Hague while he still was in office. So that remains a contradiction.

MF: Mexico, though, did have a homeland. These actions by the Palestinians would be totally wrong if Palestine was a nation-state. However, Israel indicated that if Arafat unilaterally declared a state of Palestine composing of the West Bank and Gaza, there would be war.

Felch · April 6, 2002, 23:18

Seriously, I'm more concerned with reason than nitpicking over international law. If a whole gang of guys tries to beat somebody up, and he soundly kicks the crap out of them time after time, I think they shouldn't whine and moan when he acts like an ******* towards them.

Even in 1967, Egypt had escalated the hostilities by blocking off a sea route to Israel, and it's not like the Syrians, Egyptians, and Jordanians were preparing a surprise party for the Israelis with their arms buildups. The Arab nations fully intended to launch a surprise attack on Israel, just as they did six years later. Israel just wasn't going to wait around to be raped, pillaged, and murdered. They defended themselves, and siezed territories that were being used as launching grounds against Israel.

If somebody starts a war, and gets their asses handed to them on a platter, they shouldn't be surprised to find out that the victors will take out some righteous frustration on them. The Arabs should have seen what happened to Germany and Japan in 1945, and be greatful that at least Israel didn't carpet bomb Arab population centers.

Drake Tungsten · April 6, 2002, 23:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main difference is that there is a Mexican state. We didn't take all Mexico (as some Congressmen wanted) and deprive the Mexican people of their own homeland.

The Israelis did the same thing. They took the West Bank, but left the rest of Jordan intact. There's your Palestinian state.

Imran Siddiqui · April 6, 2002, 23:22

Palestine is the Palestinian state.

Drake Tungsten · April 6, 2002, 23:30

Where's this state of Palestine you speak of? I can't find it on any maps, current or historic. It's almost as if a state named Palestine had never existed...

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 23:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Where's this state of Palestine you speak of?

Before they said that they were Palestinians, they liked to consider themselves Syrians. That maybe the source of your confusion.

DinoDoc · April 6, 2002, 23:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Dino: I'm going to have to see the Vienna Convention of 1961, because the court only refers to diplomatic immunity of the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

http://www.un.org/law/ilc/texts/diplomat.htm

I aim to please.

Quote:

IIRC, during the whole Kosovo affair, Milosevic was called a war criminal by the Hague while he still was in office. So that remains a contradiction.

I can only tell you that as long as Sharon is PM of Isreal any case against him for war crimes can not procede due to this rulings. Furthermore, precedent isn't the straight jacket you assume it to be in the realm of international law.

Bereta_Eder · April 7, 2002, 10:31

I created a monster

Hey Moneypenny why don't you tell to whom your american flag copyrights belong too?

The Mad Monk · April 7, 2002, 10:42

Thanks, Siro!