Neo-Nazi calls for Israel to "keep building more and more settlements" Watch

FriendlyPenguin
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Edit: Sorry, wrong thread
0
reply
TheTruthTeller
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
International law doesn't apply to Israel mayne
0
reply
will'o'wisp
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by mathemagicien)
geert wilder, leader of the dutch far-right party for freedom (pvv), is a prominent political figure in the netherlands who founded the nationalist faction in 2006. While predictions that he will become the next dutch prime minister are ********, because all other major parties have said they will refuse to work with the pvv, his party is leading in the polls, with around 30% support.



http://www.jpost.com/israel-news/pol...olution-476545
A SETTLEMENT NEEDS YOUR HELP!!!!



lol
0
reply
HandiCapanda
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Mathemagicien)
Geert Wilder, leader of the Dutch far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), is a prominent political figure in the Netherlands who founded the nationalist faction in 2006. While predictions that he will become the next Dutch prime minister are ********, because all other major parties have said they will refuse to work with the PVV, his party is leading in the polls, with around 30% support.



http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pol...olution-476545
Neo-Nazi supporting the Jews... it's oxymoronic statements like this which allow people to see the true illogical reasoning of the 'liberal' establishment in all it's reality denying glory.

Keep up the good work.
0
reply
FakeNewsEditor
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
He's not a neo-Nazi. He's a racist alright but not a nationalist socialist of any kind.
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
"Ignore the world/international law, do your own thing yolo"

What is it with people like Farage/Wilder sucking up to foreign fascists (Trump/Netanyahu)?
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
He isn't a Neo-Nazi you odious fool. He's a classical liberal.
1
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
He's not a Neo-Nazi, but it would be better if he said nothing on the issue.
0
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Palmyra)
"Ignore the world/international law, do your own thing yolo"

What is it with people like Farage/Wilder sucking up to foreign fascists (Trump/Netanyahu)?
It's like a reverse catch 22.


Either America runs the world in which case it will protect Israel from the UN or China runs the world in which case the UN will largely be a non-entity.


It's 2050 and the UN proposes a no-fly zone over Europe to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe and the Premier of PR China shrugs and asks what relevance it has to him.
0
reply
Len Goodman
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Oh please, Wilder is far, far from being a Neo-Nazi. People like him are exactly what the Western world needs and he is spot on encouraging Israel to build more settlements and ignore the terrorist sympathisers at the UN.
1
reply
Petrodollar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Palmyra)
"Ignore the world/international law, do your own thing yolo"

What is it with people like Farage/Wilder sucking up to foreign fascists (Trump/Netanyahu)?
Didn't you unironically support Trump? or was that ironic lol
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by l'etranger)
Either America runs the world in which case it will protect Israel from the UN or China runs the world in which case the UN will largely be a non-entity.

It's 2050 and the UN proposes a no-fly zone over Europe to prevent the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe and the Premier of PR China shrugs and asks what relevance it has to him.
China has just as much power in the UNSC as the U.S. does, so I don't really get your point. Any UNSC member is free to put resolutions to a vote, and the 5 permanent members each have an equal veto power over such resolutions. So even if it were true to say x country "runs the world", I don't see how this has the UNSC implications that you seem to think it does.
0
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Palmyra)
China has just as much power in the UNSC as the U.S. does, so I don't really get your point. Any UNSC member is free to put resolutions to a vote, and the 5 permanent members each have an equal veto power over such resolutions. So even if it were true to say x country "runs the world", I don't see how this has the UNSC implications that you seem to think it does.
I never denied that, but the Chinese won't care for using it as an avenue for peacekeeping or playing geo-politics in the same way America does. The Western mindset of expanding and utilising the UN as a vehicle for power is a direct result of European culture as well as a mentality which developed in the wake of the two world wars.


Could you really imagine the Chinese stopping the genocide in the former Yugoslavia? Even if they had the financial capacity and the military reach they just would not bother because it doesn't serve a material purpose to them.
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by l'etranger)
I never denied that, but the Chinese won't care for using it as an avenue for peacekeeping or playing geo-politics in the same way America does. The Western mindset of expanding and utilising the UN as a vehicle for power is a direct result of European culture as well as a mentality which developed in the wake of the two world wars.
How can it be said that China would "run the world" whilst simultaneously not care about (responding to) international events?

They only seek regional hegemony, so whilst they continue a non-interventionist policy for most world events they will never "run the world" in that sense. If the U.S. somehow decided to be less interventionist (seems unlikely), then maybe China could capitalise, but if not someone else would - probably Russia.

The removal of one 'hyper-power' might even be a good thing for the UN in that it might aid the establishment of a UN army (originally envisaged by the UN Charter but never manifested).
0
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Palmyra)
How can it be said that China would "run the world" whilst simultaneously not care about (responding to) international events?

They only seek regional hegemony, so whilst they continue a non-interventionist policy for most world events they will never "run the world" in that sense. If the U.S. somehow decided to be less interventionist (seems unlikely), then maybe China could capitalise, but if not someone else would - probably Russia.

The removal of one 'hyper-power' might even be a good thing for the UN in that it might aid the establishment of a UN army (originally envisaged by the UN Charter but never manifested).
The president runs America but he doesn't feel the need to put every homeless person into a house, because on the grand theater homeless people are largely an irrelevance. China will undoubtedly play geo-politics and has already been flexing some muscle, but they won't act with ideological benevolence the West has, instead it will be pure self-interest.
0
reply
Cato the Elder
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Palmyra)
How can it be said that China would "run the world" whilst simultaneously not care about (responding to) international events?

They only seek regional hegemony, so whilst they continue a non-interventionist policy for most world events they will never "run the world" in that sense. If the U.S. somehow decided to be less interventionist (seems unlikely), then maybe China could capitalise, but if not someone else would - probably Russia.

The removal of one 'hyper-power' might even be a good thing for the UN in that it might aid the establishment of a UN army (originally envisaged by the UN Charter but never manifested).
A UN army...that's hilarious. Good thing it'll never happen. I don't want one-world government.
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by l'etranger)
China will undoubtedly play geo-politics and has already been flexing some muscle, but they won't act with ideological benevolence the West has, instead it will be pure self-interest.
OK so give of an example of how this could manifest itself?

Any one of the U.S., U.K., Russia and France could veto anything China wants to get through the SC (the only body capable of passing legally binding resolutions), so I still don't see your point if I'm honest.
0
reply
Petrodollar
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
A UN army...that's hilarious. Good thing it'll never happen. I don't want one-world government.
Unless.. we discover extraterrestrial life
0
reply
l'etranger
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Palmyra)
OK so give of an example of how this could manifest itself?

Any one of the U.S., U.K., Russia and France could veto anything China wants to get through the SC (the only body capable of passing legally binding resolutions), so I still don't see your point if I'm honest.
If America ever loses it's hegemony, China will have far less interest in the UN and using UN resolutions to pursue a global agenda, keep peace or control other nations. They just will not see it as such an important body in the same way Europe or America does, if it wasn't for America the UN just would not have grown into what it did.
0
reply
username2950448
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Cato the Elder)
A UN army...that's hilarious. Good thing it'll never happen. I don't want one-world government.
It could be an effective mechanism for enforcing international law to deter rogue nations like Israel and Russia from callously breaching international law.

(Original post by l'etranger)
If America ever loses it's hegemony, China will have far less interest in the UN and using UN resolutions to pursue a global agenda, keep peace or control other nations. They just will not see it as such an important body in the same way Europe or America does, if it wasn't for America the UN just would not have grown into what it did.
So then the U.K./France/Russia would just step in.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are your mock exams going?

Love them - Feeling positive (10)
6.17%
They've been reasonable (67)
41.36%
Not feeling great... (44)
27.16%
They are TERRIBLE! (41)
25.31%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed