Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jones" data-source="post: 168898" data-attributes="member: 4805"><p>This sounds like another one of your "made up" definitions, tailored to fit whatever point you're trying to make.</p><p>I prefer a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation" target="_blank">real one</a></p><p> Your understanding of Middle East conflict seems pretty weak, to the point where your statements have no basis in the actual situation nor any relation to the point I was making. I'll try to be brief here, and rely on Wiki for the sake of brevity.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_occupation_of_Lebanon" target="_blank"><span style="font-size: 9px">Syrian occupation of Lebanon</span></a></p><p></p><p> By most common definitions, Syria had a military occupation in Lebanon. Dispute that if you want to though. When they left, under intense international criticism (starting to sound familiar?), Lebanon had no military worthy of the name, and a barely adequate police force. Half the country was(and still is) firmly under control of Hizbollah, and a former Prime Minister had just been assasinated in a car bomb attack. Syria most certainly did not want to leave, and if there were any preconditions in International Law like the ones you keep lobbying for, they would not have hesitated in trumpeting them as an excuse to stay and "stabilize" the country.</p><p></p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank" target="_blank">Israeli occupation of the West bank</a></p><p></p><p>Perhaps not quite so clear cut, but:</p><p> They haven't left yet. They give a lot reasons for staying(I don't dispute most of them), but considering all the turmoil and violence that goes on there on a daily basis, it must come as quite a shock to you that they <strong>don't</strong> claim they <strong>can't</strong> leave <em>because it would be a violation of International Law. </em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em> </em>And that was my point. Because if International Law actually contained the preconditions that you keep lobbying for, they most certainly would be claiming them as legitamate reason for continuing the occupation.</p><p></p><p> Take care</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jones, post: 168898, member: 4805"] This sounds like another one of your "made up" definitions, tailored to fit whatever point you're trying to make. I prefer a [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation"]real one[/URL] Your understanding of Middle East conflict seems pretty weak, to the point where your statements have no basis in the actual situation nor any relation to the point I was making. I'll try to be brief here, and rely on Wiki for the sake of brevity. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_occupation_of_Lebanon"][SIZE=1]Syrian occupation of Lebanon[/SIZE][/URL] By most common definitions, Syria had a military occupation in Lebanon. Dispute that if you want to though. When they left, under intense international criticism (starting to sound familiar?), Lebanon had no military worthy of the name, and a barely adequate police force. Half the country was(and still is) firmly under control of Hizbollah, and a former Prime Minister had just been assasinated in a car bomb attack. Syria most certainly did not want to leave, and if there were any preconditions in International Law like the ones you keep lobbying for, they would not have hesitated in trumpeting them as an excuse to stay and "stabilize" the country. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank"]Israeli occupation of the West bank[/URL] Perhaps not quite so clear cut, but: They haven't left yet. They give a lot reasons for staying(I don't dispute most of them), but considering all the turmoil and violence that goes on there on a daily basis, it must come as quite a shock to you that they [B]don't[/B] claim they [B]can't[/B] leave [I]because it would be a violation of International Law. [/I]And that was my point. Because if International Law actually contained the preconditions that you keep lobbying for, they most certainly would be claiming them as legitamate reason for continuing the occupation. Take care [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Anti War Protests
Top