Was Condy right or wrong ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Sure they want a cease-fire. If you are being beaten up severely after irritating the bear for a long while, wouldn't you be asking for a cease-fire, genius ?

It wasn't so long ago, just a few days, that Nasrallah was threatening Israel with an all out war. It seems Israel made him change his mind very quickly indeed.

How then do you explain the Israeli retreat from the town where 9 of their soldiers were killed?

Nasrallah's speech today made clear he's perfectly willing to continue the struggle if Israel doesn't agree to the terms offered by Finiora. Israel seems to be looking for a way out now; as I said their losses are mounting and their murderous campaign against civilians is having international repercussions among all but the most rabid apologists for Israel like yourself.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Read the resolution, marauder.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions04.html


EDIT: Well at least you admit that Israel withdrew.

Yes, on May 24, 2000 almost 4 years before SC 1559, Israel withdrew, for military reasons, from all of Lebanon except Shebba Farms.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The government of Lebanon, obviously. As usual, you utterly refuse to address the substantive points. Do you have any arguments at all regarding the validity of SC 1559?

Write a letter to Kofi Anan, genius and try to persuade him to agree with you on this silly matter.

After you succeed you can come back to me.

..... and answer my question. You keep hopping around like a bunny with a belly ache.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You still haven't answered my question of who in the Middle-East theater agrees with your assessment of SC resolution 1559 being illegal.

Can you please answer the question ?

For the third time, the Government of Lebanon has not acted as if they regard the disarming of militias has an binding obligation because of SC 1559.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Oh brother, you sure know how to make a mess of things, don't you ?

I'm getting the impression that you are drunk, marauder.

don't want to interfere...
But my honest opinion is that you, Ivanhoe, are exhibiting yourself as a pedantic, ignorant person, whose only remaining arguments directed to "win" a lost discussion (a lot of post before) is appealing to calling names to the other part.

My non-due respects.

P.S.: if anyone is drunk here, that's you.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Oh brother, you sure know how to make a mess of things, don't you ?

I'm getting the impression that you are drunk, marauder.

Please avoid your usual personal attacks and try to address the substantive points raised.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please avoid your usual personal attacks and try to address the substantive points raised.

post deleted

Originally posted by ivanhoe
'

Was Condoleezza Rice right in Rome to hold firm that just a cessation of hostilities is not good enough and Hezbollah must disarm ?

Very convenient for the Bush administration, to say the least.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How then do you explain the Israeli retreat from the town where 9 of their soldiers were killed?

Nasrallah's speech today made clear he's perfectly willing to continue the struggle if Israel doesn't agree to the terms offered by Finiora. Israel seems to be looking for a way out now; as I said their losses are mounting and their murderous campa ...[text shortened]... international repercussions among all but the most rabid apologists for Israel like yourself.

marauder: " ... most rabid apologists for Israel like yourself."

I want peace for all parties involved.

Hassan Nasrallah, "Secretary General" of Hezbollah, does not want peace. He doesn't accept the Two State solution, of which you claim to be an advocate. He doesn't accept the State of Israel. In fact he claims that the State of Israel doesn't even exist. He is an old-fashioned hard-core anti-Semite. I can't believe you defend this creep.

You seem to flip flop from one position to the other. If Arafat is Israel's enemy you agree with him. If Hamas forms the Palestinian government, you agree with them. If Hezbollah comes into the picture you suddenly flip flop to their position. Defending Iran ? No problem ... and you also claim to agree with "Peace Now" .... remember, Mr Flip-flop ? .... unbelievable this elasticity in political thinking. But I guess in opposing Israel and the US government everything is possible, right genius ?

.

Originally posted by no1marauder
For the third time, the Government of Lebanon has not acted as if they regard the disarming of militias has an binding obligation because of SC 1559.

Marauder, you simply lost it. You are giving an answer to a question I did not ask.

Besides, I adressed this point.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Please avoid your usual personal attacks and try to address the substantive points raised.

marauder, you are hilarious ...... 😀 😵 😀

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder, you simply lost it. You are giving an answer to a question I did not ask.

Besides, I adressed this point.

you are a loser.
And a bad onw, btw.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
marauder: " ... most rabid apologists for Israel like yourself."

I want peace for all parties involved.

Hassan Nasrallah, "Secretary General" of Hezbollah, does not want peace. He doesn't accept the Two State solution, of which you claim to be an advocate. He doesn't accept the State of Israel. In fact he claims that the State of Israel doesn't even ex ...[text shortened]... in opposing Israel and the US government everything is possible, right genius ?

.

Please try to stay on on-topic.

Nasrallah's acceptance of Israel's right to exist is irrelevant to the present situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah's stated goals are concerned with Lebanon, not with Israel's ultimate fate. And saying that a Jewish run state shouldn't exist in Palestine doesn't make you an "anti-Semite". Name calling of a foreign leader is a bit childish.

I don't see any flip-flopping in my views. I say that Israel should withdraw from foreign lands whether that be Lebanon or Syria or the West Bank. That seems pretty consistent to me.

Finally people who "want peace" usually don't oppose cease fires, particulary when it is beyond doubt that innocent civilians are being killed in large numbers and being exposed to misery and suffering in far greater ones.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How then do you explain the Israeli retreat from the town where 9 of their soldiers were killed?

Nasrallah's speech today made clear he's perfectly willing to continue the struggle if Israel doesn't agree to the terms offered by Finiora. Israel seems to be looking for a way out now; as I said their losses are mounting and their murderous campa ...[text shortened]... international repercussions among all but the most rabid apologists for Israel like yourself.

Marauder: "Nasrallah's speech today made clear he's perfectly willing to continue the struggle if Israel doesn't agree to the terms offered by Finiora."

I'm afraid he will have to fight on .... unless of course he is going to take the short cut to Syria and Iran.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Marauder, you simply lost it. You are giving an answer to a question I did not ask.

Besides, I adressed this point.

It's a direct answer to your question. I don't see that you've "addressed this point" at all.