All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Another great compiliation of all the shenanigans found here

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/

It amazes me the amount of time people have spent analyzing this. Half of those look really bad for the photographers, and half of them look like people trying a bit to hard to discredit them.

I think the more interesting question is why there aren't more images of the damage that Hezbollah missiles are doing in Israel.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Oh, for fuck's sake... Think how? Like you?

Dude, listen... That your econ professor told you capitalism was flawed, and you read a few Atlantic articles on the deficit, doesn't mean you think. It means you read some shit, which is why you think you know something, which you do. But it ain't much.

I read tons of shit and process it all, and it all comes down to two things - 1. I want my money now, because no matter tha data I read, it never makes sense to bet on projections re the nation's fiscal fortunes; and 2. GOP makes my taxes go down, Dems make them go up.

I am a cynic, and a cynic takes what he can while he can grab it. I'll deal with the future then. For now, I want to keep my taxes from going up, and the best way to do it is keep the fucking Dems out of office.

Do I need to know much else?

2.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Has invading another country and occupying indefinitely ever been in compliance with international law? As far as I know, under international law, one is not allowed to invade another country and indefinitely occupy it for ones own self defense. Am I wrong?

I'm not going to bother to look it up, but i thought that the UN charter allowed war for self defense. If so, the question for Israel is what counts as defense and what doesn't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I am a cynic.

A true cynic wouldn't give a speech that sounds like it was canned at a College Republics meeting in 1982. If you want to be a cynic, you need to sound less like Steve Forbes and more like Hunter Thompson.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
OK fine. But don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel just because it was created by a UN resolution and then say the UN is a ridiculous organization (which it is). UN resolutions do not equal international law nor are they by definition ethical.

And don't expect Muslims and Arabs to accept Israel based on some moral natural law argument. That doesn't cut the cake either.

Israel was created at the point of a gun, and people got screwed when it was created. It is the denial of this fact that has lead to the current screwed up situation of believing that if Israel is nice to its neighbors or if its neighbors "just get educated" they will change their minds. To expect the original inhabitants of what is now the state of Israel to ever want anything but its destruction, is naive, completely delusional and unrealistic.

If you are going to grab some land, expel the inhabitants and create a nation, if it is going to work, you need to have defensible borders for that nation. Israel grabbed some land, expelled the inhabitants, but then didn't grab a piece of land that was defensible and then they left the people they screwed in a position to wreck havoc on the state of Israel. .

Realizing that mistake, they are now under the delusion that if they grab the land that is necessary to make Israel defensible, they can leave the original inhabitants of that land in the place they have occupied, still hold onto the property and get the people that live there (and the rest of the world) to accept it as morally righteous and ethically defendable act. And maybe a monkey will fly out of my derriere.

Israel either needs to complete the job, expel the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza, create a defensible state (by building a huge wall around the whole country), or just give it up and call it a day.

Am I wrong?

Actually, more or less, not surprisingly (given your R cred), you are correct. And I guess my assertion is, its time to finish the job.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty, if the esteemed mods of this board can't seek common ground in our highminded and genteel debate, then what example are we setting for the lesser people who post here? What Ty, what?

You try some highminded and genteel debate, and when I trust that you're not hiding around the corner with a handful of monkey shit, I'll be right there with you.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
Has invading another country and occupying indefinitely ever been in compliance with international law? As far as I know, under international law, one is not allowed to invade another country and indefinitely occupy it for ones own self defense. Am I wrong?

If you believe UN resolutions equal international law then:

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"

1955-1992:
* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
council's order not to deport Palestinians".
* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
Palestinian mayors".
* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
nuclear facility".
* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
allow food supplies to be brought in".
* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
in attack on PLO headquarters.
* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.
* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
Nations.
* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
Palestinians.
* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
and calls for their immediate return.

I don't think UN Resos = international law but I may be mistaken. Regardless, my understanding is that territories taken in a war need not been given back except per terms of the peace treaty, which, as I also understand, has never been reached between Israel and its Arab aggressors.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Adder
It amazes me the amount of time people have spent analyzing this. Half of those look really bad for the photographers, and half of them look like people trying a bit to hard to discredit them.

I think the more interesting question is why there aren't more images of the damage that Hezbollah missiles are doing in Israel.

Because Israel doesn't subscribe to a cult of victimology like your pals in the Arab world. They take the hit, pick themselves up and hit back, ten fold.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
A true cynic wouldn't give a speech that sounds like it was canned at a College Republics meeting in 1982. If you want to be a cynic, you need to sound less like Steve Forbes and more like Hunter Thompson.

You scurvy shyster bastard... I'll be on a plane to that faggot village of yours by midnite, and I'll come with big goddamned saps. You can run all you like, but by 3 tomorrow, hell or high water, you'll be lashed to a bridge and beaten like a whore in a Taliban smokeshack.

Good enough? I'm rusty...

I am far too pretty to ever be compared to Steve Forbes. You take that back. it's just goddamned mean and rotten. You're no fucking good, Mr. Slothrop.

Hunter was more a contrarian. He believed in the country too much to be a cynic. Its what killed him. I've lost faith and am treading into a Menckenish harbor or paranoia and alcohol's soft middle age.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You try some highminded and genteel debate, and when I trust that you're not hiding around the corner with a handful of monkey shit, I'll be right there with you.

You wound me. All of my debate is high minded and if not genteel, then gentile, does that count for anything?

[pony_trekker]

Have you EVER seen an airport security person (in NY anyway) that WASN'T Muslim?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bzzzzzzztttt. WTC I (and OK City).

The first was in 1993, and the second in 1995. I think 8 and 6 years counts as "years."

now, how many years has it been since 9/11?

I won't mention that OK City wasn't Islamic terrorists and thus has nothing to do with this conversation.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Ty, if the esteemed mods of this board can't seek common ground in our highminded and genteel debate, then what example are we setting for the lesser people who post here? What Ty, what?

They day you two reach common ground (or start debating in a genteel manner) is the day I quit the board. If I want boredom and civility I can go hang out at the country club.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Because Israel doesn't subscribe to a cult of victimology like your pals in the Arab world. They take the hit, pick themselves up and hit back, ten fold.

That's called winning. The Arabs are the Cubs of the Middle East.

Except they behead people.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think UN Resos = international law but I may be mistaken. Regardless, my understanding is that territories taken in a war need not been given back except per terms of the peace treaty, which, as I also understand, has never been reached between Israel and its Arab aggressors.

I wonder why..........didn't the Pali leader win a Nobel Peace Prize? You'd have thunk he would have had the cred and principled beliefs to have pulled it off. Must have been those wicked duplicitious land-hungry Jews that thwarted the effourt.