Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Syria: Israel bombed research center near Damascus

75 replies to this topic
Whiskey
  • Whiskey

    Homie

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2011

#61

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:20 PM

Reading some of the comments on a few of the videos from the channel in the first post. Almost every comment is in support of the Syrian army. Would any of you consider this state propaganda?

baguvix_wanrltw
  • baguvix_wanrltw

    Cynical, yeah. Bitter, probably.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2012

#62

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:28 PM

All the first comments of the video posted in the OP are from the same guy and if you go back you see about a 50:50 ratio of ignorance on both sides of this issue. Trying to find sense in YT comments lol.gif

Besides all major armies have "internet people" nowadays that try to steer public opinion in the direction they prefer. Nothing new.

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#63

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

QUOTE (Whiskey @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 19:20)
Reading some of the comments on a few of the videos from the channel in the first post. Almost every comment is in support of the Syrian army. Would any of you consider this state propaganda?

More like a reaction to the very shady rebel movement.
I think people would rather have Syria enjoy orderly tyranny under Assad than complete anarchy among a group of dissenting rebels.

Let's face it, this whole thing is not as clear cut as saying Assad is 'evil' and the rebels are 'good'.
I wish it were that simple, but you can't argue with the facts. And the facts are that certain elements within the rebellion are war criminals, other elements are openly working for al Queda - the whole thing stinks.

Once Assad goes, and go he will, Syria will be carved up between a rabble of petty tyrants, failed democrats and religious fanatics.
Sad as it sounds, a single tyrant is better than that awful future.

860
  • 860

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 21 Dec 2008
  • None

#64

Posted 05 May 2013 - 07:53 PM

QUOTE (baguvix_wanrltw @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 22:28)
Besides all major armies have "internet people" nowadays that try to steer public opinion in the direction they prefer. Nothing new.

Even EU has confirmed they have people who get paid trying to debate anti-EU material on the social media.

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if Raavi was part of JIDF himself.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#65

Posted 05 May 2013 - 08:26 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 19:45)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Monday, May 6 2013, 04:37)
It's accused of annexing, and aggressive expansionism, yet the territory it has captured has been in defensive wars which were started by it's neighbours, who seek it's total destruction.

It doesn't matter what circumstances surrounded it conquering a foreign nation: it's illegal to gain territory through war.

Yeah, it sort of isn't though. Not in and of itself, anyway. A defensive conflict that culminated with the capture of land isn't illegal under international law. Nor is a war of aggression sanctified by the UNSC.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City

#66

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:07 PM

QUOTE (860 @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 20:53)
QUOTE (baguvix_wanrltw @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 22:28)
Besides all major armies have "internet people" nowadays that try to steer public opinion in the direction they prefer. Nothing new.

Even EU has confirmed they have people who get paid trying to debate anti-EU material on the social media.

Oh, and I wouldn't be surprised if Raavi was part of JIDF himself.

I do in fact have deep respect for Israel and Israelis, as you probably might have noticed. But I don't see how wasting my time forcing my personal views onto other people would benefit anyone. That doesn't mean that I'm not in for a debate about the matter. To the contrary.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#67

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:09 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 6 2013, 06:26)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 19:45)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Monday, May 6 2013, 04:37)
It's accused of annexing, and aggressive expansionism, yet the territory it has captured has been in defensive wars which were started by it's neighbours, who seek it's total destruction.

It doesn't matter what circumstances surrounded it conquering a foreign nation: it's illegal to gain territory through war.

Yeah, it sort of isn't though. Not in and of itself, anyway. A defensive conflict that culminated with the capture of land isn't illegal under international law. Nor is a war of aggression sanctified by the UNSC.

Actually, it is illegal to compromise a peoples' or a state's "political integrity" and to occupy territory in what isn't- demonstrably- a temporary measure. But no matter, whatever the law says, it's down to the international community to interpret and apply them, and they're condemning Israel for the occupation and for the settlements.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#68

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:29 PM Edited by sivispacem, 05 May 2013 - 09:35 PM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 22:09)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 6 2013, 06:26)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 19:45)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Monday, May 6 2013, 04:37)
It's accused of annexing, and aggressive expansionism, yet the territory it has captured has been in defensive wars which were started by it's neighbours, who seek it's total destruction.

It doesn't matter what circumstances surrounded it conquering a foreign nation: it's illegal to gain territory through war.

Yeah, it sort of isn't though. Not in and of itself, anyway. A defensive conflict that culminated with the capture of land isn't illegal under international law. Nor is a war of aggression sanctified by the UNSC.

Actually, it is illegal to compromise a peoples' or a state's "political integrity" and to occupy territory in what isn't- demonstrably- a temporary measure. But no matter, whatever the law says, it's down to the international community to interpret and apply them, and they're condemning Israel for the occupation and for the settlements.

Wars of aggression are effectively illegal, but the taking and holding territory is not. The Convention for the Definition of Aggression and the Nuremberg Principles don't specifically outlaw the taking and holding territory unless as part of a war of aggression. The same is true of the idea of compromising the integrity of a nation. If it's the specific purpose of the conflict and is part of a war of aggression, it is illegal. Otherwise it isn't technically illegal in and of itself

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#69

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 6 2013, 07:29)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 22:09)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 6 2013, 06:26)
QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 19:45)
QUOTE (GTA_stu @ Monday, May 6 2013, 04:37)
It's accused of annexing, and aggressive expansionism, yet the territory it has captured has been in defensive wars which were started by it's neighbours, who seek it's total destruction.

It doesn't matter what circumstances surrounded it conquering a foreign nation: it's illegal to gain territory through war.

Yeah, it sort of isn't though. Not in and of itself, anyway. A defensive conflict that culminated with the capture of land isn't illegal under international law. Nor is a war of aggression sanctified by the UNSC.

Actually, it is illegal to compromise a peoples' or a state's "political integrity" and to occupy territory in what isn't- demonstrably- a temporary measure. But no matter, whatever the law says, it's down to the international community to interpret and apply them, and they're condemning Israel for the occupation and for the settlements.

Wars of aggression are effectively illegal, but the taking and holding territory is not. The Convention for the Definition of Aggression and the Nuremberg Principles don't specifically outlaw the taking and holding territory unless as part of a war of aggression. The same is true of the idea of compromising the integrity of a nation. If it's the specific purpose of the conflict and is part of a war of aggression, it is illegal. Otherwise it isn't technically illegal in and of itself

The UN forbids the compromisation of political integrity, and occupations that don't appear to be temporary (Israel more or less sesm intent on keeping things this way forever so they may have a "buffer zone" between Israel-proper and hostile Palestinian entities). Further, the Israeli occupation specifically violates the Geneva Convention by racially segregating the occupied territory.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#70

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:38 PM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 21:29)
The UN forbids the compromisation of political integrity

It does, but as Palestine isn't a nation state it's political integrity isn't protected. In relation to the current attacks on Syria, there is a reasonable justification based on pre-emptive self defence.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 21:29)
and occupations that don't appear to be temporary

This is interesting in terms of international law, as entities which aren't provided the status of nations do not have the entitlement to the privilege of territory, but nonetheless I agree on a more fundamental level.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 21:29)
Further, the Israeli occupation specifically violates the Geneva Convention by racially segregating the occupied territory.

I don't think that the occupied territory is, legally speaking, racially segregated. There are no laws enforcing it's status as solely (or largely) Palestinian (which isn't a race anyway, but I digress).

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • United-Nations

#71

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:50 PM

It's racially segregated in that there are "Jewish only" areas and the movement of the Palestinians is restricted.

While you are right that Palestine shouldn't technically be afforded the same protection (well, now it should since it's been afforded statehood, but historically, no), the international community sees it differently. The UN is the only entity that has a role in interpreting international law, Israel can harp on about how these laws don't apply to terrorists all they want and legally it's all meaningless.

RipeDex
  • RipeDex

    Crackhead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2013

#72

Posted 07 May 2013 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 13:52)
I don't get all the cynicism and "hate", if you will, Israel gets. It's a great country that contributes a great deal to the Western world and the world in total. We should be glad we have Israel.

This was told in prophecy in the Bible. Isreal has enemies lots of them, just like Christians But NO its just all a coincedence. dozingoff.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#73

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:10 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 22:50)
It's racially segregated in that there are "Jewish only" areas and the movement of the Palestinians is restricted.

They aren't "Jewish only", they're technically Israeli-only. There is no legal distinction in freedom of travel made between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs. In fact, most of the Israeli traffic through the restricted areas of the Occupied territories is actually Israeli Arabs- given the high proportion of them living around the Southern and Northern tips of the West Bank.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 22:50)
While you are right that Palestine shouldn't technically be afforded the same protection (well, now it should since it's been afforded statehood, but historically, no), the international community sees it differently.

It's still questionable whether Palestine is legally a state in the eyes of the UN. It is referred to as the "State of Palestine" and has been since late last year, but it's status as a state is questionable. It's certainly a sovereign entity, but given that it currently lacks clearly defined borders to possess statehood over I don't think it's technically speaking a state.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Monday, May 6 2013, 22:50)
The UN is the only entity that has a role in interpreting international law

Quite right, and the international consensus around Israel has been...well, unclear. Which isn't to say that it hasn't done abhorrent things- as you know, I agree with you that it has- but if we use the activities of the UN in bringing nation states to justice for violations of international law as the yard-stick for establishing whether international law was broken or not, then Israel comes out pretty strongly.

omgz153
  • omgz153

    Disregard females, acquire monetary funds

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2007

#74

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:33 PM

Our plan is almost finished

Leone Sentinel
  • Leone Sentinel

    Radio Espantoso!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2013

#75

Posted 07 May 2013 - 07:53 PM Edited by Leone Sentinel, 07 May 2013 - 08:21 PM.

It's strange that after centuries of being spat upon and treated like dirt, when the Jewish finally got their own country again, one of the first things they did was to oppress the people of another country. Next thing you know, the Israelis will start putting the Palestinians in concentration camps, they already have the ghettos.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 10:33)
They were probably aiming for a school or something.


I disagree. They were most likely aiming for a hospital.

WHAT!?
  • WHAT!?

    mono a mono

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2002
  • United-States

#76

Posted 07 May 2013 - 09:00 PM

QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Sunday, May 5 2013, 00:45)
Not a single f*ck was given from within US borders.

Shut up Canada. Nobody cares.

Let an esteemed gentleman of the international community insult us, then I may discuss this properly.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users