Osama bin Laden Killed


Recommended Posts

Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

WSS: nicely done. And done pronto, at that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

Good one. This Israel 1967 thing is getting quite a bit of attention. But I don't get it, Israel doesn't have to do what Obama says. What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

Good one. This Israel 1967 thing is getting quite a bit of attention. But I don't get it, Israel doesn't have to do what Obama says. What am I missing?

Dennis:

This is actually not the biggest problem, but those "borders" would seriously compromise the Israeli perimeter defenses.

Biggest problem is the "right of return" which would basically end Israel.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

Good one. This Israel 1967 thing is getting quite a bit of attention. But I don't get it, Israel doesn't have to do what Obama says. What am I missing?

Dennis:

This is actually not the biggest problem, but those "borders" would seriously compromise the Israeli perimeter defenses.

Biggest problem is the "right of return" which would basically end Israel.

Adam

The proper and legal borders are post-1967.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div style="background-color:white;width:549px;">
snapback.png
Boydstun:
Remarks by the President on the Middle East and North Africa

snapback.png

Gaede:
Oh, I mis-read this. I thought it was "Remarks by the President of the Middle East and North Africa" hoping for a satire.

snapback.png

Hudgins:
Obama's a joke so you're not too far off!

snapback.png

Scherk
: Does this matter? Did it say anything new? Did he sell Israel down the river?

snapback.png

Ninth Doctor:
Probably not. Not really. Who cares what he said, what can he do? Obama called for the 1967 borders, Netanyahu says no. It's all hot air.

Now don't tell me you disapprove of the bin Laden porn titles! I caught just a whiff of schoolmarm a minute ago.

snapback.png
Scherk:
Didn't really pay attention to the porn titles, but the 'whiff of schoolmarm' woke me from a hideously serious nap. Quick, William, an Osama porn reference, and quick!

snapback.png

Ninth Doctor:
Good one. This Israel 1967 thing is getting quite a bit of attention. But I don't get it, Israel doesn't have to do what Obama says. What am I missing?

snapback.png

Selene:
This is actually not the biggest problem, but those "borders" would seriously compromise the Israeli perimeter de fenses.

Biggest problem is the "right of return" which would basically end Israel.

snapback.png

Gaede:
The proper and legal borders are post-1967.</div>

Everyone is right. Everyone gets prizes. Israel gets a border somewhere around what it was thinking of in 2008:

201112313133279738_8.png

This is the famous 'napkin map' revealed in the Palestinian Papers leak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Golan Heights are part of Israel. They are not "occupied." This goes back to the founding of Israel. Israel only really got its hands on it in 1967, but it had been a part of "Jewish Palestine."

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush%20bin%20laden.jpg

Damn you Adam, you made me spill my coffee again laughing. If that isn't an inspired projection of poor Dubya's dearest fantasy, then I'm not Respectable.

In other sightings, Obama was at the Sharks game yesterday, wearing a Canucks jersey (I saw him!). Apparently he had an extra ticket but Netanyahu refused to go with him. Downright churlish of Mr N, I thought. Those tickets are not easy to come by, even in benighted venues like San Jose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Golan Heights are part of Israel. They are not "occupied." This goes back to the founding of Israel. Israel only really got its hands on it in 1967, but it had been a part of "Jewish Palestine."

I think you are wrong, or at least in a minority position holding this opinion: name me one country besides Israel that recognizes the de facto 1981 annexation as lawful.

The Golan may have been in many Israeli minds as "Jewish Palestine," Brant, but if you look at any map of 1918, 1920, 1924, 1926, 1933, 1946, 1956, through each change of occupying empire or Mandate or foreign administration, the first time the Golan Heights was noted to be under Israeli military control was in 1967, the same year Israeli brought the entire Sinai desert under its control. The basis of the Israeli claim is historical/security/religion: 29 ancient synagogues. There aren't many people there, only around 40,000, half of whom are Druze and the other almost half are post-67 settlers from Israel (a little over half have a state or citizenship: 100 percent of the Israelis, only ten percent of Druze). The border between is essentially sealed by war -- this is a place with a Korean-style border, where folk hail and holler at each other across a valley where no one may cross freely, whether to visit family or to exchange news and goods.

The whole land issue between Israel and Syria, the entire linchpin of peace between the two nations, is Golan. If Golan is never ever to be returned to Syria, then there will never be a formal peace with Syria. In any case, the Israelis and the Palestinians rarely discuss Golan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Golan Heights are part of Israel. They are not "occupied." This goes back to the founding of Israel. Israel only really got its hands on it in 1967, but it had been a part of "Jewish Palestine."

I think you are wrong, or at least in a minority position holding this opinion: name me one country besides Israel that recognizes the de facto 1981 annexation as lawful.

The Golan may have been in many Israeli minds as "Jewish Palestine," Brant, but if you look at any map of 1918, 1920, 1924, 1926, 1933, 1946, 1956, through each change of occupying empire or Mandate or foreign administration, the first time the Golan Heights was noted to be under Israeli military control was in 1967, the same year Israeli brought the entire Sinai desert under its control. The basis of the Israeli claim is historical/security/religion: 29 ancient synagogues. There aren't many people there, only around 40,000, half of whom are Druze and the other almost half are post-67 settlers from Israel (a little over half have a state or citizenship: 100 percent of the Israelis, only ten percent of Druze). The border between is essentially sealed by war -- this is a place with a Korean-style border, where folk hail and holler at each other across a valley where no one may cross freely, whether to visit family or to exchange news and goods.

The whole land issue between Israel and Syria, the entire linchpin of peace between the two nations, is Golan. If Golan is never ever to be returned to Syria, then there will never be a formal peace with Syria. In any case, the Israelis and the Palestinians rarely discuss Golan.

The 1920 Mandate for Palestine included the Golan Heights and what is now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip plus Jordan. In 1922 Palestine was divided into Arab Palestine (Jordan) and Jewish Palestine. In the 1948 War of Independence Israel lost the Heights and West Bank and the Strip, I think, but got them back in 1967. If the pre-war 1948 borders were legal they defined Syria's borders too. If Syria says it's the legal owner of the Heights it must also say there is no legal regard for its own borders, established by one of the four governing League of Nations Mandates in the early 1920s. Prior to 1967 Syria used the Heights to bombard Israel with artillery.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole land issue between Israel and Syria, the entire linchpin of peace between the two nations, is Golan. If Golan is never ever to be returned to Syria, then there will never be a formal peace with Syria. In any case, the Israelis and the Palestinians rarely discuss Golan.

The 1920 Mandate for Palestine included the Golan Heights and what is now known as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip plus Jordan.

The British Mandate included present-day Jordan and present-day Israel & the present-day occupied territories. The Golan Heights were part of the French Mandate which included Syria and Lebanon.

In 1922 Palestine was divided into Arab Palestine and Jewish Palestine (Jordan).

Palestine was hived off from the rest of the British mandate. Jewish Palestine (Jordan)? Jordan was not Jewish. Palestine and Jordan were adminstered separately by the Brits. The Golan border between French and British mandates were establised between the French and the British.

In the 1948 War of Independence Israel lost the Heights and West Bank and the Strip, I think, but got them back in 1967.

Nope. Israel did not have anything till it declared itself, and it did not declare itself the owner of the Golan. Syria under the French, from 1923 to 1946, had the Golan.

If the pre-war 1948 borders were legal they defined Syria's borders too.

Well, as I noted, Syria obtained its independence from France in 1946. The borders in the Golan then are what is referred to as the 1967 Borders. Again, the 1948 independence made no claims to the Golan.

If Syria says it's the legal owner of the Heights it must also say there is no legal regard for its own borders, established by one of the four governing League of Nations Mandates in the early 1920s.

Check the maps, Brant, please -- the situation was not quite as you claim.

Prior to 1967 Syria used the Heights to bombard Israel with artillery.

Yes. The Israeli occupation prevented this bombardment, and no give-back to Syria will be accomplished without a treaty with Syria. The Israeli claim and annexation was made on the basis of security, not previous agreements or borders.

It might have been a while since you examined the maps and wars and maps and wars since 1920 in this disputed area, Brant, but have a look-over this map and see if your opinions and assertions shift a little bit.

golan_1923_2000.gif

-- this map comes from a brilliant set of maps at the Foundation for Middle East Peace website.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

If Country A decides to go to war against Country B, it's a good possibility that the loser will lose some of its territory.

I don't know where it is engraved in stone that nowadays wars can only be fought without land loss. On the contrary, from what I've seen, human history has never been that way.

So why the need for "lawful" annexation?

Was the war "lawful"?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Country A decides to go to war against Country B, it's a good possibility that the loser will lose some of its territory.

True. Wars bring different outcomes. If Country A (let's call it Syria) decides to war against Country B (Israel), and if 38 years later the two parties Syria and Israel want peaceful, secure borders, then they will negotiate a treaty. In this case, Israel has stated its policy with Syria: provisionally, land for peace, but a peace that suits Israeli security concerns above all. I don't presume to speak for Israel or Syria, I simply note the difficulties of insisting on a fait accompli.

I don't know where it is engraved in stone that nowadays wars can only be fought without land loss. On the contrary, from what I've seen, human history has never been that way.

Right. Borders change due to war. Intractable border conflicts are only with difficulty resolved.

So why the need for "lawful" annexation?

You raise the notion of "lawful" annexation, I suppose in the context of the Golan. Israel changed the rule of law in Golan, integrating it with Israeli administration, offering citizenship to its residents. This is not a formal annexation -- but could become a formal annexation were it to agree new borders with Syria. How this plays out in the future, I don't know. I am very pessimistic, and do not expect an agreement with Syria in the near term.

Was the war "lawful"?

We have to look at other situations in the world that are similar. Most of the war gains by one party are disputed by the other party. At best there are armistice lines and demilitarized zones separating the belligerents (as in Korea, Kashmir, Cyprus, Armenia/Azerbaijan) where formal peace has not been achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise the notion of "lawful" annexation...

William,

My apologies. I should have quoted you.

I didn't raise the notion of lawful annexation.

You did.

I think you are wrong, or at least in a minority position holding this opinion: name me one country besides Israel that recognizes the de facto 1981 annexation as lawful.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to wrastle you on this one, William, but follow this link and wrastle with someone more your peer, click on the Mandate for Palestine in the center.

http://www.mythsandfacts.com

Thanks for the link, Brant. I like their slogan: "The truth may not always win, but it is always right!"

There is no actual ring for wrastling at MythsandFacts.com, no discussion area, so I will have to wrastle with the facts as best I can.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise the notion of "lawful" annexation...

My apologies. I should have quoted you.

I didn't raise the notion of lawful annexation.

You did.

I think you are wrong, or at least in a minority position holding this opinion: name me one country besides Israel that recognizes the de facto 1981 annexation as lawful.

Got me to rights, Michael. No need to apologize for pointing out error or misapprehensions or for clarifying a point.

Yours was and remains a good question: So why the need for "lawful" annexation? (of the Golan)

Brant had said Israel retains a longstanding legal claim to all the Golan, with an implied authority of the British Mandate. I pointed out that this was incorrect, that the Golan was part of the French Mandate territories, that Golan was never under Jewish control until 1967. I also noted that there are historical, religious and security justifications offered by Israel for keeping Golan under its control.

I answered to my best understanding your question, Michael -- that the two parties will want a legal agreement to replace their truce line. If and when, gains accrue to both parties: Israel and Syria gain a formal end to hostilities with all that this implies. As now with Jordan, as now with Egypt, there would then be a mutually-recognized legal border. I made a comparison with other places in the world that have longstanding territorial disputes to illustrate that point -- that it is in warring parties interests to have secure, internationally recognized borders.

I agreed with several of your general points in #389, Michael, so I guess we are now on the same page, except for the question: Was the war "lawful"?**

There are few wars and warring operations that I might find 'unlawful' over modern history, though war and law intersect in general terms, in the Geneva Conventions. We can have war crimes, and unlawful combatants, and all manner of unique actions and sorties that might break our established laws of war, and have been prosecuted as such in this century and the 20th. The 1967 war -- I cannot think of any way to characterize that war as unlawful in the same sense we might call Iraq's invasion of Kuwait unlawful. So, yes, no laws of war were trampled on, especially considering the place and time and situation. The war has not ended, hostilities brewed in the waning days of the Ottomans have not formally ended.

What I find so weird about this area is struck from the coin Brant introduced -- the first world war. As I think I have drearily pointed out before, law and legitimacy are not the same thing. Who was the legitimate representative of the people when the French and British carved up their interests at the end of the first war? The lawful representative was the League of Nations . . . it delegated administration, legally, and red lines were drawn, red lines that today form the basis for the border between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt.

Today, I think we all understand some mutually-embracing realities: that Israel has drawn no red line on the map with Syria, and announced to the Syrians (and anyone else who cares): This is the final border between Syria and Israel. Nor have the Israelis said: This red line is the final border between the state of Israel and Palestine.

So, I guess my underlying point is that Israeli itself would like a formal, legal, annexation of territories it gathered, a de jure reflection of their de facto rule -- or a comprehensive agreement that would involve the return of some territory pledged against the security of a peace treaty.

Israel's stated fear of a democratic Egypt is fear for its treaty. I believe Israel wants to treaty with Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, and I stand by Israel's need for secure, recognized borders.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Egypt is a real country with an in-your-face many thousand year history. That's why it could make a treaty with Israel. Syria reminds me of an old-time Mexican dictatorship with many times the brutality.

Egypt is militarily defenseless against Israel, too. Against anybody, actually, capable of blowing up the Aswan High Dam. That'd be biblical and no nukes required!

Egypt cares not about Israel one way or the other. It cares about itself. It has been de facto ruled by the military since the 1950s. The only countries that care about Israel qua countries are Syria and Iran. The rest is all make the right noise bs to get and keep power for hoi polloi digestion. Terrorism is mostly state-sponsored by Syria, Iran and idelogically--worst of all--Saudia Arabia. The Palestinian situation no one cares about but the international (western) community--wring your hands, wring your hands!--and the so-called Palestinians and Israel--a monster Israel itself created and sanctioned with its fuzzy-headed, mush-headed, can't we all get along? socialistic garbage for brains, inviting Arafat back for G_d's sake! and it got Hamas--what did they think appeasement was but plant food for Israel-eating plants?

Now I grant you that Israel is a socialistic, irrational abomination--or something--but the Jews are on the ropes. There aren't enough left. BUT GET THIS!: why is the birth-rate so low and slow? WE NEED MORE JEWS! But how many would be left if T.A, gets blown up? Too much was lost in the Holocaust as it is. Jews are smart, but not smart enough to get their own hands off their own throats. THEY NEED TO BE AMERICANS!! Why not? Americans are already Jews of the world, except not quite as smart. If we Americans have a too-low birth rate, we simply import another million Chinese! If we were smart, we'd get rid of all those old-age entitlements and then they'd have to make a lot of babies so one or two might stick around for old-age care.

Now, where was I? oh, yes, I need another margarita. Rant, pant. My Father was anti-Semitic, not me. Dad was so smart he couldn't properly appreciate how smart the Jews were since he as an individuals was much smarter than the Jews speaking generally. Now, I too, am smarter personally than Jews generally--thank G_d!, but not so smart as not to appreciate smart Jews--you know, them damn geniuses! Atom Bombs--bombs away!--and all that other good stuff and doctors and lawyers--opps!--let's not mention lawyers--and Freud, Ayn Rand.

--Brant

I'll be embarrassed in the morning, but I have to retrieve my Crown Vic with the flat tire so go suck eggs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hell of an episode of 60 Minutes tonight, on the Bin Laden raid. Anyone else see it?

I saw it. I'm amazed at how the SEALS stayed focused on the job at hand, despite the unforeseen developments. Add to that the years of surveillance and preparation for the assault.

Will definitely get the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now