anyone going to london on thursday to protest against George W.?

Watch
This discussion is closed.
guess_who
Badges: 0
#401
Report 17 years ago
#401
(Original post by Adhsur)
Excuse me...I have iranian friends and muslim roots. I don't think I'd ever make a racist comment like that. As for mod, I don't want to be one, and I am certainly more respected on this forum than you.
PEOPLE FIND YOU VERY BORING AND JUST PATHETICLY USELES. NOT ONCE AHV U EVER MADE A DECENT POST OR ANY VALUE. YOU JUST PLOD ALONG AND ACT NICE COZ YOU DONT REALLY HAVE A PERSONALITY.

DANI THE STUDENT IS A NICE, REAL, DOWN TO EARTH PERSON, WHO IS INTERESTING AND ISNT A RACIST PIG WITH ZERO PERSONALITY.

BHAAL ROCKS. AND BY THE WAY BHAAL, YOUR ATTEMPT TO BECOME THE NEXT MASKALL BY ACTING ALL "HARD" AND BY SWEARING AND BY BEING "CONTROVERSIAL" ISNT GOING SO GREAT.

I CNA SEE HOW YOU ARE TRYING TO COPY ME. BUT ONLY I HAVE THE SPECIAL TOUCH.

THIS IS SERIOUS, WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE, YOU WERE AS BORING AND GAY AS ADHSUR. I REALISE THAT NOW YOU HAVE CHANGED AND YOU TRY AND MATCH MY ATTITUDE IN ORDER TO STAND OUT. NICE TRY. BIT UNORIGINAL THOUGH.
0
Adhsur
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#402
Report 17 years ago
#402
(Original post by guess_who)
PEOPLE FIND YOU VERY BORING AND JUST PATHETICLY USELES.
And what do people find you, sweetheart? Do you think your posts are useful?
0
guess_who
Badges: 0
#403
Report 17 years ago
#403
(Original post by Adhsur)
And what do people find you, sweetheart? Do you think your posts are useful?
YES I DO. MAKE MUCH MORE IMPACT ON HERE THAN YOU.
0
yawn1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#404
Report 17 years ago
#404
(Original post by vienna95)
or possibly i agreed with it. and even enjoyed it.

tell me any paper this morning that didnt think it was a good speech.
ill make even easier for you...any paper in the world.
But isn't that the purpose of rhetoric? "language designed to persuade or impress"
Tony Blair's good at it as well - I remember my response on hearing his post election victory speech in 1997. I take it all with a pinch of salt now and I would have expected any intelligent person to see it for what it is.
Regarding your challenge to tell you of any paper "in the world" that did not think it was a good speech:-
New York Times - Thomas Friedman
Washington Post - Dana Millbank
The Age (Melbourne) - Editorial
Irish Independent
I do not have the advantage of fluency in other languages that you do but would observe that other English speaking newspapers do not give an opinion on any aspect of Bush/Blair visit (that I have seen). Is it not possible that their own country's affairs are more important to them?
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#405
Report 17 years ago
#405
(Original post by yawn1)
But isn't that the purpose of rhetoric? "language designed to persuade or impress"
Tony Blair's good at it as well - I remember my response on hearing his post election victory speech in 1997. I take it all with a pinch of salt now and I would have expected any intelligent person to see it for what it is.
Regarding your challenge to tell you of any paper "in the world" that did not think it was a good speech:-
New York Times - Thomas Friedman
Washington Post - Dana Millbank
The Age (Melbourne) - Editorial
Irish Independent
I do not have the advantage of fluency in other languages that you do but would observe that other English speaking newspapers do not give an opinion on any aspect of Bush/Blair visit (that I have seen). Is it not possible that their own country's affairs are more important to them?
i wasnt persuaded, i agreed with what he said. theres a difference.

regarding the papers, can i have the article links? id be interested to read what they wrote...
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#406
Report 17 years ago
#406
(Original post by Danithestudent)
I like to see the minorities of britain have gotten onto the effigy burning of the olden days, that's sooo mature...jeez i've never been so embarrassed to be british before in my life
burning the american flag was even worse though..shameful.
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#407
Report 17 years ago
#407
(Original post by Elle)
Yeah but even if it didn't stop the war it indirectly led to other things that have caused a major thorn in Blair side.. like the Hutton Inquiry and minister resignations..

Besides you never know.. Blair might suddenly decide to stop being a w*nker and actually listen to us.. lol.. someday..
us? you mean 0.2% of the population?
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#408
Report 17 years ago
#408
(Original post by Danithestudent)
Corrupt authority? You may say your parents and you didn't elect them well someone bloody well did...and they seem to be a majority
Democracy-Majority rules
*applause*
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#409
Report 17 years ago
#409
(Original post by Elle)
Bush wasn't democratically elected.. read up on it. He stole the Presidency from Gore because of disputed votes in Florida.
he was elected through the american electorate system like any other president before him. how is that stealing?
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#410
Report 17 years ago
#410
(Original post by Elle)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/...089180,00.html

..yeah you've reminded us a few times :rolleyes:
if you check the UN charter and its post 9/11 amendments you'll find the sufficient legislation. the ambiguity of the language enables different interpretations to be taken.
0
Bhaal85
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#411
Report 17 years ago
#411
(Original post by vienna95)
if you check the UN charter and its post 9/11 amendments you'll find the sufficient legislation. the ambiguity of the language enables different interpretations to be taken.
'Dont you just love the way her mind works?'
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#412
Report 17 years ago
#412
(Original post by guess_who)
100% CORRECT. GO DANI GO......THESE LOSERS ARE SO UNDEDUCATED AND UNREALIST.

I THINK SOME OF YOU PEOPLE SHOULD TAKE UP A-LEVEL ECONOMICS, YOU MIGHT LEARN A THING OR 2 ABOUT LIFE. REALITY. REAL PEOPLE.
YOU LOT ARE A DISGRACE TO THE NATION, AND THE MAJORITY, YES THE MAJORITY, ARE LAUGHING AT YOU. YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO YOUR ANTION, AND THESE EXCEPTIONALLY POINTLESS, MONEY BURNING PROTESTS ARE DAMAGING WOT YOU CLAIMED TO BE SO "VITALLY AND MROALLY AND ETHICALLY IMPORTNAT"....BRITANS MONEY.

I THOUGHT IT HAD TO BE SPENT ON HOSPITALS ETC......

OHH YES, AND MORE IRONY: MOST OF YOU LOT ARE BUMMING CHRISTIANS AND ITS JESUS THIS, DONG GOOD THAT, BEING NON SINNERS, ANTIE VERYTHING, YET YOU TRY TO FIX A WRONG WITH ANOTEHR WRONG. ITS ALL BOLLOX AND I KNOW IT IS.

APART FROM DANI, YOU LOT ARE CLUELESS AND ASSSHOLES
and you my friend are a mistake...
is it hard being you?
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#413
Report 17 years ago
#413
What makes me laugh is how many times America has used its veto, and people have had to accept it. American, having used it 76 times would make you think that they accept the veto policy. But when Russia (only twice) and CHina (only 5 times) use their veto to stop American policy, they call the UN into disrepute saying it doesn't work!!!??!!!
America has used it 24 times to protect Israels war crimes. Because of immunity from international prosecution afforded by perpetual American vetos at the United Nations Security Council, Israeli Jewish terrorists have become emboldened in their attacks, to the point where their excesses have sickened most of the civilized world.
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#414
Report 17 years ago
#414
(Original post by Bigcnee)
What makes me laugh is how many times America has used its veto, and people have had to accept it. American, having used it 76 times would make you think that they accept the veto policy. But when Russia (only twice) and CHina (only 5 times) use their veto to stop American policy, they call the UN into disrepute saying it doesn't work!!!??!!!
each situation has its merits. its not unreasonable for america to expect the UN to support it over an issue that fundamentally everyone believes in. this is not the same as US vetoes over 'disputed' issues where there is a split in interest and decision. i think you make a grave error in equating the UN vetoes post-1441 relating to terrorism, to those vetoes regarding trade and other comparably negotiable topics.

America has used it 24 times to protect Israels war crimes. Because of immunity from international prosecution afforded by perpetual American vetos at the United Nations Security Council, Israeli Jewish terrorists have become emboldened in their attacks, to the point where their excesses have sickened most of the civilized world.
protect Israeli war crimes?
but, what were these UN resolutions proposing?
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#415
Report 17 years ago
#415
July 1973, S/10974

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israel's occupation of the Arab territories since 1967, and expressed serious concern with the Israeli authorities' lack of cooperation with the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General.

January 1976, S/11940

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions
.
The resolution called for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967, and deplored Israel's refusal to implement relevant UN resolutions. It furthermore reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

March 1976, S/12022

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

In the draft, the Security Council expressed deep concern over Israeli measures to change the character of the occupied territories, in particular Jerusalem, the establishment of Israeli settlements, human rights violations, and called for an end of such measures.

June 1976, S/12119

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self determination, the right of return, and the right to national independence.

April 1980, S/13911

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution affirmed the Palestinian right to establish an independent state, the right of return or compensation for loss of property for refugees not wishing to return, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories since 1967.

April 1982, S/14943

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention
.
In the draft, the Security Council denounced Israeli interference with local governance in the West Bank, and its violations of the rights and liberties of the population in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The resolution furthermore called on Israel to end all activities in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

April 1982, S/14985

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft strongly condemned the shooting of worshippers at Haram Al-Sharif on 11 April, 1982, and called on Israel to observe and apply the provisions of the Forth Geneva Convention, and other international laws.

June 1982, S/15185

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution draft condemned the Israeli non-compliance with resolutions 508 and 509, urged the parties to comply with the Hague Convention of 1907, and restated the Security Council's demands of Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.

June 1982, S/15255/Rev. 2

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution demanded the immediate withdrawal of Israeli and Palestinian forces from areas in and around Beirut, and that the parties would comply with resolution 508. It furthermore requested that the Secretary General would station UN military observers to supervise the ceasefire and disengagement in and around Beirut, and that the Secretary General would make proposals for the installation of a UN force to take up positions beside the Lebanese interposition force.

August 1982, S/15347/Rev. 1

Vote: 11 in favor, 1 veto (US), 3 abstentions.

The resolution strongly condemned Israel for not implementing resolutions 516 and 517, called for their immediate implementation, and decided that all UN member-states would refrain from providing Israel with weapons or other military aid until Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory.

August 1983, S/15895

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution called upon Israel to discontinue the establishment of new settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, to dismantle existing settlements, and to adhere to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. The resolution furthermore rejected Israeli deportations and transfers of Palestinian civilians, and condemned attacks against the Arab civilian population. The Security Council also called upon other states to refrain from giving Israel any assistance related to the settlements, and stated its intention to examine ways of securing the implementation of the resolution, in the event of Israeli non-compliance

September 1985, S/17459

Vote: 10 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution draft deplored the repressive measures applied by the Israeli authorities against the Palestinian population in the occupied territories, and called upon Israel to immediately cease the use of repressive measures, including the use of curfews, deportations, and detentions.

January 1986, S/17769

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli refusal to abide earlier Security Council resolutions, and called upon Israel to comply with these resolutions, as well as the norms of international law governing military occupation such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Security Council also expressed deep concern with violations of the sanctity of the Haram Al-Sharif, and with Israeli measures aimed at altering the character of the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

January 1988, S/19466

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution called upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War to the territories occupied since 1967, and to conform to the Convention. The resolution moreover called upon Israel to refrain from practices violating the human rights of the Palestinian people.

April 1988, S/19780

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed grave concerned with the Israeli use of collective punishment, including house demolitions. It condemned the policies and practices utilized by the Israeli authorities violating the human rights of the Palestinian People, especially the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army. Called on Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, and urged it to desist from deporting Palestinians.

February 1989, S/20463

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution strongly deplored Israeli persistence in violating the human rights of the Palestinian people, in particular the shooting of Palestinian civilians, including children. It also deplored Israel's disregard of Security Council decisions, and called upon Israel to act in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant Security Council resolutions.

June 1989, S/20677

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).
The resolution deplored the violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, demanded that Israel would abstain from deporting Palestinian civilians for the occupied territories, and that it would ensure the safe return of those already deported. It also called upon Israel to comply with the Fourth Geneva Convention, and requested that the Secretary General would give recommendations on measures guaranteeing compliance with the Convention, and the protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.

November 1989, S/20945/Rev. 1

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US)
.
The resolution deplored the Israeli violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people, including the siege of towns, ransacking of homes, and confiscation of property. It called upon Israel to abide to the Fourth Geneva Convention, to lift the siege, and to return confiscated property to its owners. The resolution requested that the Secretary General would conduct on-site monitoring of the situation in the occupied territories.

May 1990, S/21326

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The draft resolution attempted to establish a commission to examine the situation related to Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem.

May 1995, S/1995/394

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution confirmed that the Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was invalid, and called upon Israel to refrain from such actions. It also expressed its support for the Middle East peace process and urged the parties to adhere to the accord agreed upon.

March 1997, S/1997/199

Vote: 14 in favor, 1 veto (US).

The resolution expressed deep concern with the Israeli plans to build new settlements in East Jerusalem, and called upon Israel to desist from measures, including the building of settlements, that would pre-empt the final status negotiations. The resolution once again called on Israel to abide by the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

March 1997, S/1997/241

Vote: 13 in favor, 1 veto (US), 1 abstention.

The resolution demanded an end to the Israeli construction of the Jabal Abu Ghneim settlement in East Jerusalem, and to all other measures related to settlements in the occupied territories.

March 2001, S/2001/270

Vote: 9 in favor, 1 veto (US), 4 abstentions.

The resolution called for a total and immediate stop of all acts of violence, provocation, and collective punishment, as well as a complete cessation of Israeli settlement activities, and an end of the closures of the occupied territories. The resolution furthermore called for the implementation of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement, and expressed the Security Council's willingness to set up mechanisms to protect the Palestinian civilians, including the establishment of a UN observer force.

December 2001, S/2001/1199

Vote: 12 in favor, 1 veto (US) 2 abstentions.

In the resolution, the Security Council condemned all acts of terror, extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and destruction of properties, and demanded an end of all acts of violence, destruction and provocation. The resolution called on the parties to resume negotiations, and to implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Report. It also encouraged the establishment of a monitoring apparatus for the above mentioned implementation.
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#416
Report 17 years ago
#416
war crimes?
which one of those resolutions is not one-sided, ridiculous or affirms Israels right to exist?
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#417
Report 17 years ago
#417
(Original post by vienna95)
war crimes?
which one of those resolutions is not one-sided, ridiculous or affirms Israels right to exist?
Few of them. Most are legimate concerns exressed by (supposedly) civilised states.
0
Bhaa!85
Badges: 0
#418
Report 17 years ago
#418
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Few of them. Most are legimate concerns exressed by (supposedly) civilised states.
i agree
0
Vienna
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#419
Report 17 years ago
#419
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Few of them. Most are legimate concerns exressed by (supposedly) civilised states.
well, thankfully you can see its a few. looking through them, there are one or 2 that the US would have done no harm in agreeing to. but those are the ones that make practically little difference to the actual development of peace. i would also be interested to see the countries who proposed these resolutions. although since theyve been rammed down my throat more than once, im sure i can guess.
0
kebab22
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#420
Report 17 years ago
#420
(Original post by vienna95)
war crimes?
which one of those resolutions is not one-sided, ridiculous or affirms Israels right to exist?
can't really see any that are particularly ridiculous or one-sided. strikes me that they are just matters of upholding human rights for Palestinians. really quite rational and sensible resolutions, quite odd the US, the great democracy, the nation that claims to uphold human rights across the globe seems so against these resolutions
0
X
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

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (587)
50%
No (587)
50%

Watched Threads

View All