NationStates Jolt Archive

CBS News says Israeli aircraft bombed 17 trucks carrying weapons apparently meant for Hamas about two months ago, reportedly killing 39 people. Report refers to recent agreement to curb smuggling signed by Israel, US. Jerusalem declines comment
-
Israeli planes struck in January a convoy of trucks in Sudan that was headed for Egypt and carrying weapons apparently meant for the Gaza Strip, the CBS television network reported Thursday.

According to the report 17 trucks had been bombed and 39 people had been killed in the strike.

The report was not confirmed by Israel.

The CBS report was based on information provided to Pentagon reporter David Martin by his sources, and published on the blog of the network's Washington-based correspondent Dan Raviv.

According to another report, in the SudanTribune.com website, Israel intelligence has tracked down the convoy northwest of the city of Port Sudan, as it was moving north, and the bombing took place near Mount al-Sha’anoon.

The CBS report also mentions an agreement signed between Israel and the US following Operation Cast Lead in Gaza that calls for increased international efforts to curb weapon smuggling into Hamas-led Gaza.

"American and Israeli diplomats said the (January) agreement includes intelligence coordination to prevent arms from Iran from entering Gaza, maritime efforts to identify ships carrying weaponry, and the sharing of US and European technologies to discover and prevent the use of weapons-smuggling tunnels," the report said, quoting SudnaTribune.com.

The Sudanese website added that the attack was "an embarrassment" to the local government, which discussed the matter with Cairo in order to gather more information and formulate a response.

One government official, the state Minister for Highways Mabrouk Mubarak Saleem said following the strike: "A major power bombed small trucks carrying arms – burning all of them. It killed Sudanese, Eritreans, and Ethiopians and injured others."

In the beginning of the week Egyptian media reported that American aircraft bombarded a convoy suspected of carrying weapons to Gaza.

cut and paste

Mmmm...spam

Cake is an onomatopoeia. It is the sound cake makes when it strikes someone in the face.

Should we rename pie, 'splut'?

Good for the Israelis.

I'd call this an act of war. If, let's say, the Iranian Air Force had bombed a convoy in Pakistani territory because it was carrying weapons to some anti-iranian terrorist group, everybody would be calling for war against Iran.

Some countries are more equal than others.

I'd call this an act of war. If, let's say, the Iranian Air Force had bombed a convoy in Pakistani territory because it was carrying weapons to some anti-iranian terrorist group, everybody would be calling for war against Iran.

Some countries are more equal than others.

There's two words that make your generalization not work.

"Terrorist Group".

Also, Sudan itself is in the middle of a civil war in which the Sudanese are carrying out genocide against animist africans in the south. Genocide by definition renders much one's legitimacy questionable, particularly against one's own people. (see: Darfur for details).

Were Pakistan to be indiscriminately killing Pakistanis in their Tribal areas, conducting open trade of slaves (both of which apply to Sudan), then nobody would likely blink (other than examining, very carefully, the veracity of the arms-smuggling claim itself) if Iran bombed the convoy-though given relative strengths, Iran wouldn't, because Pakistan is stronger even divided militarily, and likely to react...um...badly, to an Iranian mission of that sort, whereas Sudan may well have cooperated in exchange for trade concessions from Israel and an easing of international pressure from Israel's allies *(er, 'Ally', Israel only has the U.S., really-the Europeans would just as soon see them killed off in trade for lower oil prices.)

There's two words that make your generalization not work.

"Terrorist Group".
Um, PKK? Same scenario. Interesting one Ris.

Also, Sudan itself is in the middle of a civil war in which the Sudanese are carrying out genocide against animist africans in the south. Genocide by definition renders much one's legitimacy questionable, particularly against one's own people. (see: Darfur for details).
Potentially the legitimacy of the current administration, although highly debatable. I would want to see someone argue that it renders the State sovereignty invalid though.

Um, PKK? Same scenario. Interesting one Ris.

Israel & Turkey = US allies. Iran isn't. Might double standards on national sovereignity be somewhat linked to that?

Also, Sudova, I don't get you. Are you claiming that Hamas isn't a terrorist group? Or are you claiming that a sovereign state, and UN member to boot, doesn't have sovereignity over its own territory?
Also, the last part of your argument is: Sudan isn't a nuclear power, Pakistan is, so Pakistan has right to sovereignity over its territory and Sudan doesn't.

Other examples? Yugoslavia in 1999. They got bombed because they sent their "special police forces" to Kosovo (of course they sent the police, what should they have done, send in the army?) . Remember that UCK was labeled as terrorist group by almost every country back then. Imagine what would have happened if the Yugoslav Air Force had bombed a convoy of weapons bound for UCK in Northern Albania.

Israel & Turkey = US allies. Iran isn't. Might double standards on national sovereignity be somewhat linked to that?
No, I meant the PKK is a terrorist group. They're also active in Iraq and Iran. So if the Iranian Air Force took out a PKK convoy in Northern Iraq......

No, I meant the PKK is a terrorist group. They're also active in Iraq and Iran. So if the Iranian Air Force took out a PKK convoy in Northern Iraq......

..it would be a disgraceful act of aggression that shows naught but contempt for international law and the soverignty of nations, so it would.

I'd call this an act of war. If, let's say, the Iranian Air Force had bombed a convoy in Pakistani territory because it was carrying weapons to some anti-iranian terrorist group, everybody would be calling for war against Iran.

Some countries are more equal than others.How so? I'm pretty sure Sudan's friends are quite happy to condemn the act. Just like Israel's friends aren't.

If Iran were to act in the fashion you described, I'd presume the exact same thing would happen - enemies confront each other, friends support each other.

That's not 'More equal than others', that's business as usual.

I was listening to news about this earlier this morning, but it seems that the reporters don't have much information.

By the way, I'm kind of surprised nobody put a thread about those offensive shirts some Israeli soldiers were found to be wearing.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073234.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_army (this one has a picture)

No, I meant the PKK is a terrorist group. They're also active in Iraq and Iran. So if the Iranian Air Force took out a PKK convoy in Northern Iraq......

Iran would be blamed, right. Iran =/= Turkey, only Turkey is allowed to kill Kurds!

That's not 'More equal than others', that's business as usual.

"More equal than others" IS business as usual. Expecially with countries. :(

By the way, I'm kind of surprised nobody put a thread about those offensive shirts some Israeli soldiers were found to be wearing.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073234.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090323/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_army (this one has a picture)
Saw that. But most militaries are dickish like that. I'm not condoning or excusing it mind.

I was more concerned when I saw this:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090325/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpoliticsisraelconflictsettler

JERUSALEM (AFP) – Israeli prime minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu has struck a secret deal with one of his coalition partners, pledging to expand settlements in a highly-contentious area of the West Bank, army radio said on Wednesday.

The agreement is not included in the official coalition deal between Netanyahu's right-wing Likud and the ultra-nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party of firebrand Avigdor Lieberman but the two men struck the understanding during their coalition talks, the radio said.

According to the plan, some 3,000 housing units are to be constructed in the so-called E1 Sector in the occupied West Bank which runs between annexed east Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement.
YAAAAY!!! PEACE!

"More equal than others" IS business as usual. Expecially with countries. :(More equal to others among specific political groupings, maybe... But never throughout the world. Which consequently means that it's just the usual powergame between different blocks.

It's been going on for somewhere between five- to ten-thousand years. Honestly, just get used to it already.

this:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090325/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpoliticsisraelconflictsettler


YAAAAY!!! PEACE!

Let me summarize the next few pages of discussion.

"Jewish genocide going on!"
"It's all a Muslim conspiracy!"
*some reason shows up*
"Israel isn't interested in peace with its neighbors"
"It's everybody elses fault, Israel love peace. Nobody else does."
"Here's proof Israel doesn't like peace"
"They deserve to die anyway."
*rabble rabble*

"Jewish genocide going on!"
"It's all a Muslim conspiracy!"

Oh yes, and is the Holocaust a jewish conspiracy?

*some reason shows up*
"Israel isn't interested in peace with its neighbors"
"It's everybody elses fault, Israel love peace. Nobody else does."

You are using the good/evil meter. It's good for roleplaying and such, but not in this situation. "Israel" is a word. not a person. You can say that some people in Israel was peace, and some want to fight. Also, in "Iran", some people want peace and some war.

"Here's proof Israel doesn't like peace"
"They deserve to die anyway."
*rabble rabble*

I would like to see even one quote of a politican in Israel that sayed such a thing.

*snip*

*looks down*

NAS, you don't have the lottery numbers for next week by any chance do you? :tongue:

Oh yes, and is the Holocaust a jewish conspiracy?

You are using the good/evil meter. It's good for roleplaying and such, but not in this situation. "Israel" is a word. not a person. You can say that some people in Israel was peace, and some want to fight. Also, in "Iran", some people want peace and some war.

I would like to see even one quote of a politican in Israel that sayed such a thing.

*looks down*

NAS, you don't have the lottery numbers for next week by any chance do you? :tongue:

If I did, I wouldn't give them to you. If you won, then Dave won't win three weeks down the line, and his eventual contribution to certain groups that will become key to the transhumanist movement won't happen. In the interests of the galactic all-mind, the time stream should be preserved.

:p

As far as islam is concern'd after 9/11 with those pigs danceing in the streets Israel can nuke them.

CBS News says Israeli aircraft bombed 17 trucks carrying weapons apparently meant for Hamas about two months ago, reportedly killing 39 people. Report refers to recent agreement to curb smuggling signed by Israel, US. Jerusalem declines comment
-
Israeli planes struck in January a convoy of trucks in Sudan that was headed for Egypt and carrying weapons apparently meant for the Gaza Strip, the CBS television network reported Thursday.

According to the report 17 trucks had been bombed and 39 people had been killed in the strike.

The report was not confirmed by Israel.

The CBS report was based on information provided to Pentagon reporter David Martin by his sources, and published on the blog of the network's Washington-based correspondent Dan Raviv.

According to another report, in the SudanTribune.com website, Israel intelligence has tracked down the convoy northwest of the city of Port Sudan, as it was moving north, and the bombing took place near Mount al-Sha’anoon.

The CBS report also mentions an agreement signed between Israel and the US following Operation Cast Lead in Gaza that calls for increased international efforts to curb weapon smuggling into Hamas-led Gaza.

"American and Israeli diplomats said the (January) agreement includes intelligence coordination to prevent arms from Iran from entering Gaza, maritime efforts to identify ships carrying weaponry, and the sharing of US and European technologies to discover and prevent the use of weapons-smuggling tunnels," the report said, quoting SudnaTribune.com.

The Sudanese website added that the attack was "an embarrassment" to the local government, which discussed the matter with Cairo in order to gather more information and formulate a response.

One government official, the state Minister for Highways Mabrouk Mubarak Saleem said following the strike: "A major power bombed small trucks carrying arms – burning all of them. It killed Sudanese, Eritreans, and Ethiopians and injured others."

In the beginning of the week Egyptian media reported that American aircraft bombarded a convoy suspected of carrying weapons to Gaza.


All I can say is GOOD JOB ISRAEL! The Sudanese military is evil and deserves to be eradicated.

All I can say is GOOD JOB ISRAEL! The Sudanese military is evil and deserves to be eradicated.

How quickly and fast people dismiss situations, simplify them, and reach conclusions.

I wish the world was this simple.

Here in Latin America we had a HUGE issue last year regarding the bombing of a FARC camp in Ecuador by colombian armed forces. The FARC is a faction internationally labeled as a terrorist group. So we could say that the FARC are the bad guys and GO COLOMBIA! for bombing them.

However, it is not that simple, the colombian forces violated Ecuador's air space and sovereignity. All the international community backed Ecuador through the complain, even although some countries that supported Ecuador could agree with the bombing of a FARC camp. This is about sovereignity, not about morals.

Israel violated Sudan's sovereignity, that is the point. The point of who is good and who is bad is pointless.

Israel violated Sudan's sovereignity, that is the point. The point of who is good and who is bad is pointless.


Thing is, I don't really care that Israel violated Sudan's sovereignty. Their president is a wanted man by the international community. Any offensive action taken by Israel against them is, in my opinion completely okay. But again, I'm extremely militaristic. I'm the guy who says that the US should also invade Iran, Syria (our recent "talks" with them are a huge mistake), and the "Autonomous" West Pakistan region.

Thing is, I don't really care that Israel violated Sudan's sovereignty. Their president is a wanted man by the international community. Any offensive action taken by Israel against them is, in my opinion completely okay. But again, I'm extremely militaristic. I'm the guy who says that the US should also invade Iran, Syria (our recent "talks" with them are a huge mistake), and the "Autonomous" West Pakistan region.

Wasn't Ariel Sharon wanted by some international court in Belgium? Would it have been okay by you to commence offensive action against Israel at the time he was PM?

Wasn't Ariel Sharon wanted by some international court in Belgium? Would it have been okay by you to commence offensive action against Israel at the time he was PM?

Of course. I don't like Israel either. Me giving them props for anything is a big deal.

I am normally an Israeli supporter but in this case I think they went too far. The Sudan doesn't even border on Israel. How do they know for sure they were headed for Palestine? I think the Sudanese would have to bring charges and I think those charges should be seriously looked at.

How quickly and fast people dismiss situations, simplify them, and reach conclusions.

I wish the world was this simple.

Here in Latin America we had a HUGE issue last year regarding the bombing of a FARC camp in Ecuador by colombian armed forces. The FARC is a faction internationally labeled as a terrorist group. So we could say that the FARC are the bad guys and GO COLOMBIA! for bombing them.

However, it is not that simple, the colombian forces violated Ecuador's air space and sovereignity. All the international community backed Ecuador through the complain, even although some countries that supported Ecuador could agree with the bombing of a FARC camp. This is about sovereignity, not about morals.

Israel violated Sudan's sovereignity, that is the point. The point of who is good and who is bad is pointless.

Well said, I agree. There should be a penalty as well. It should not go unpunished. Way out of line.

I am normally an Israeli supporter but in this case I think they went too far. The Sudan doesn't even border on Israel. How do they know for sure they were headed for Palestine? I think the Sudanese would have to bring charges and I think those charges should be seriously looked at.

I believe the article said that Israeli and American intelligence services had information that they were. Being in American military intelligence (Naval) myself, and knowing several guys who were with the Central Intelligence Agency in addition to regular Military Intel, I know I'm biased when I say that they probably knew what they were doing. The Mossad is pretty damn good. When they say something is up, they generally know what they're talking about. American Military Intelligence groups are excellent in themselves. I have no doubt that they were infact heading to supply Hamas.

Egypt should complain as well. As usual it will come "So what are you going to do about it?"

Egypt should complain as well. As usual it will come "So what are you going to do about it?"

Thats a complicated issue. The Egyptians have been trying to be on Israel's good side for the past thirty years or so. Well, at least trying to stay off their shit list. Anwar Sadat did a lot to try to clear up relations with Israel and the Middle East in general after the Yom Kippur War. The people aren't too thrilled about this, so if they complain then the people of Egypt will be happy, but it'll go against their agenda of keeping the peace and preventing another Arab-Israeli war. Its definitely an interesting point to bring up though, what should they do.

Of course. I don't like Israel either. Me giving them props for anything is a big deal.

At least you're not a hypocrite in this case. But I don't agree that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to a country just because it's being headed by what some or even most would consider a bad government.

At least you're not a hypocrite in this case. But I don't agree that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to a country just because it's being headed by what some or even most would consider a bad government.

See, thats the beauty of it. I'm just an intelligence specialist. My job is to keep an eye on this region, know whats going on, and track movements of our enemies and such. I, obviously, have no say so in government policy, but if war were to come I'm ready to do my part in it.

In short: by being aggressive myself, and being ready for war at all times, I'm doing my job to make sure everything goes America and the world's way. But my overly aggressive attitude is not reflective of the US government's position in anyway. :wink:

See, thats the beauty of it. I'm just an intelligence specialist. My job is to keep an eye on this region, know whats going on, and track movements of our enemies and such. I, obviously, have no say so in government policy, but if war were to come I'm ready to do my part in it.

In short: by being aggressive myself, and being ready for war at all times, I'm doing my job to make sure everything goes America and the world's way. But my overly aggressive attitude is not reflective of the US government's position in anyway. :wink:

America's way isn't necessarily the world's way. What will you do if those ways start to contradict?

America's way isn't necessarily the world's way. What will you do if those ways start to contradict?

My country's. If America's interest go against the world's will then I'm sticking with my country always. Unless of course its just so egregious as to be completely unacceptable in my eyes, then I'll stand against it. Bear in mind I differentiate my country from my government...

My country's. If America's interest go against the world's will then I'm sticking with my country always. Unless of course its just so egregious as to be completely unacceptable in my eyes, then I'll stand against it. Bear in mind I differentiate my country from my government...

Alright, thanks for sharing.

Thing is, I don't really care that Israel violated Sudan's sovereignty. Their president is a wanted man by the international community. Any offensive action taken by Israel against them is, in my opinion completely okay. But again, I'm extremely militaristic. I'm the guy who says that the US should also invade Iran, Syria (our recent "talks" with them are a huge mistake), and the "Autonomous" West Pakistan region.

Of course, your will and judgment should be above anything else. I am not a supporter of Sudanese goverment, actually, but international laws exist for a reason.

Posada Carriles is a wanted man in Cuba. Should Castro bomb Miami to take him? You are taking out many factors in this. Of course, after reading a small proof of your simplistic thinking, I couldn't expect anything else.

Please take into account that my use of the term "simplistic" is not at all peyorative. You are defending a direct approach that is by far more simple than any kind of negotiation. A direct approach that I disagree with.

Thats a complicated issue. The Egyptians have been trying to be on Israel's good side for the past thirty years or so. Well, at least trying to stay off their shit list. Anwar Sadat did a lot to try to clear up relations with Israel and the Middle East in general after the Yom Kippur War. The people aren't too thrilled about this, so if they complain then the people of Egypt will be happy, but it'll go against their agenda of keeping the peace and preventing another Arab-Israeli war. Its definitely an interesting point to bring up though, what should they do.

I think the Sudanese should bring charges. It would have been at least a courtesy to ask if they could bomb them. Not they would have listened or anything. The best word for the political system in the Sudan is a mess. They have several other problems to deal with, they do not need other countries bombing their citizens.


We know which way the US will fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

The United States has listed Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993.[43] U.S. firms have been barred from doing business in Sudan since 1997.[44] In 1998, the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was destroyed by a US cruise missile strike because of its alleged production of chemical weapons and links to al-Qaeda.



I guess anyone can do whatever they want in the Sudan.

I think the Sudanese should bring charges. It would have been at least a courtesy to ask if they could bomb them. Not they would have listened or anything. The best word for the political system in the Sudan is a mess. They have several other problems to deal with, they do not need other countries bombing their citizens.


We know which way the US will fall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan

The United States has listed Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism since 1993.[43] U.S. firms have been barred from doing business in Sudan since 1997.[44] In 1998, the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was destroyed by a US cruise missile strike because of its alleged production of chemical weapons and links to al-Qaeda.



I guess anyone can do whatever they want in the Sudan.

West Sudan (Darfur Province) is basically like the Bakara Market in Mogadishu: Its the Wild West out there. You can more or less do whatever as long as you have the weaponry to back yourself up. The rest of Sudan is only slightly better in that instead of having to have weaponry to back yourself up, you simply need to be on a government bureaucrat's good side.

West Sudan (Darfur Province) is basically like the Bakara Market in Mogadishu: Its the Wild West out there. You can more or less do whatever as long as you have the weaponry to back yourself up. The rest of Sudan is only slightly better in that instead of having to have weaponry to back yourself up, you simply need to be on a government bureaucrat's good side.

If I remember correctly at one time the framers said it was kind of a choice which government do you want

Choice 1: Communist

Choice 2: Islamic Government

I imagine the situation has changed alot. I know Chad, Ethiopia, and Eritrea are all involved in whatever the issue is.


It would seem that the South Sudan is relatively Democratic, did I get this wrong? I guess the question is why don't we support them?


Sorry by we I mean the US.

Thing is, I don't really care that Israel violated Sudan's sovereignty. Their president is a wanted man by the international community. Any offensive action taken by Israel against them is, in my opinion completely okay. But again, I'm extremely militaristic. I'm the guy who says that the US should also invade Iran, Syria (our recent "talks" with them are a huge mistake), and the "Autonomous" West Pakistan region.

Then, why NOT also:

PR China (see Tibet)
Georgia (see Abkhazia)
Russia (see Abkhazia)
Turkey (see Cyprus)
Israel (see Palestine)
Palestine (see Israel)
Morocco (see West Sahara)
Ceylon (see Tamil area)

etc... etc...

My guesses about why no one thinks about invading said countries:

PR China: nuclear power
Georgia: US ally
Russia: nuclear superpower
Turkey: US ally
Israel: US ally and nuclear power
Palestine: no oil
Morocco: no oil
Ceylon: no oil

Also, Pakistan (US ally and nuclear power): no one thinks about invading it.

Hmm, Attacking Israel would get the U.S. brownie points in the Middle East wouldnt it?

Ofcourse I know nothing about the situation, but I wouldnt lose any sleep knowing its off the map.

I think the Sudanese should bring charges. It would have been at least a courtesy to ask if they could bomb them. Not they would have listened or anything. The best word for the political system in the Sudan is a mess. They have several other problems to deal with, they do not need other countries bombing their citizens.

Okay, first of all, the nation is called Sudan, not the Sudan, just like it's France, not the France, or China, not the China. The Sudan is a desert.

Regarding Sudan bringing charges, Sudan routinely violates the sovereignty of neighboring Chad. I suspect that Sudan would restrain themselves from doing anything too publicly, lest their own dirty laundry get aired (more so than it already has been).

By the way, I'm really fucking glad Israel did this to Sudan. It's exactly what the Sudanese President deserves.

Think not?

Check out what a douchebag he is:

Sudan is one of the three countries worldwide not to comply with international flight safety protocol (the others being Iran, Cuba, and North Korea). The official state airline, Sudan-Airs fleet is mainly composed of 1950's era Soviet manufactured aircraft. Some planes have no navigation, lighting, or are missing critical pieces of landing gear. The President of Sudan claims his country doesn't recognize these laws because they are "evidence of the American and Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam". There is also no documented test to become a certified pilot, with the only requirement being a primary school diploma. Over 27 fatal crashes occurred last year in the Northern region alone, making Sudan the most dangerous country for internal air travel besides Cuba. Because of these issues, over 100 countries have banned Sudanese aircraft from operating within their borders, severely hampering Sudan's already tense relationship with various Western powers.

That fucker is a moron and doesn't derserve to be in power. I hope he is shitting bricks about the Israelis being in his country.

By the way, I'm really fucking glad Israel did this to Sudan. It's exactly what the Sudanese President deserves.

Think not?

Check out what a douchebag he is:

Sudan is one of the three countries worldwide not to comply with international flight safety protocol (the others being Iran, Cuba, and North Korea). The official state airline, Sudan-Airs fleet is mainly composed of 1950's era Soviet manufactured aircraft. Some planes have no navigation, lighting, or are missing critical pieces of landing gear. The President of Sudan claims his country doesn't recognize these laws because they are "evidence of the American and Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam". There is also no documented test to become a certified pilot, with the only requirement being a primary school diploma. Over 27 fatal crashes occurred last year in the Northern region alone, making Sudan the most dangerous country for internal air travel besides Cuba. Because of these issues, over 100 countries have banned Sudanese aircraft from operating within their borders, severely hampering Sudan's already tense relationship with various Western powers.

That fucker is a moron and doesn't derserve to be in power. I hope he is shitting bricks about the Israelis being in his country.

The president being a douchebag (I cannot argue that), doesn't justify the violation of international laws. My own president is a douchebag, yet I wouldn't like to see foreign combat airplanes bombing my country.

Please separate goverment from state for a while.

Thing is, I don't really care that Israel violated Sudan's sovereignty. Their president is a wanted man by the international community. Any offensive action taken by Israel against them is, in my opinion completely okay.

I agree with this statement. In my opinion, the genocide in Darfur has obliterated the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

I also think that the ICC should hire Mossad to arrest al-Bashir.

The president being a douchebag (I cannot argue that), doesn't justify the violation of international laws. My own president is a douchebag, yet I wouldn't like to see foreign combat airplanes bombing my country.

Please separate goverment from state for a while.
Your President, for all his douchebaggery, is not, at best tolerating and at worst carrying out a genocide in his country. Your President is also not wanted by the international criminal court (yet ;)). etc etc etc

The comparison is just not there. Sudan is almost a failed state and the head of state 1. believes in an international zionist conspriracy 2. is allowing/carrying out a genocide and 3. is allowing a terrorist-helping arms trade be carried out in his country.

I agree with this statement. In my opinion, the genocide in Darfur has obliterated the legitimacy of the Sudanese government.

I also think that the ICC should hire Mossad to arrest al-Bashir.
This.

I too wish that Al-Bashir gets arrested. Anyway arresting a head of State on genocide charges =/= green light to attack the territory of said State.
A country is one thing, his government another, and the people who occupy seats in the government a third one.


By the way: the attack wasn't aimed at Al-Bashir, wasn't it? Nor was it aimed at the militias who are carrying out the massacres in Darfur... So, I'd call BS on arguments saying "freedom to attack because of genocide". The Israeli attack wasn't linked to the genocide in Darfur.

I too wish that Al-Bashir gets arrested. Anyway arresting a head of State on genocide charges =/= green light to attack the territory of said State.
A country is one thing, his government another, and the people who occupy seats in the government a third one.


By the way: the attack wasn't aimed at Al-Bashir, wasn't it? Nor was it aimed at the militias who are carrying out the massacres in Darfur... So, I'd call BS on arguments saying "freedom to attack because of genocide". The Israeli attack wasn't linked to the genocide in Darfur.

Seconded, I was actually writing a post with the same points and arguments, and almost the same words.

Too bad that they didn't bomb Sudanese presidental palace in process. That genocidial regime deserves to be taken down.

Also, Pakistan (US ally and nuclear power): no one thinks about invading it.


Actually I want to see an American invasion of Pakistan. Georgia is completely justified in invading Abkhazia and Ossetia, those are rogue break away provinces. Russia is justified in invading Chechnya, though I do for my own reasons side with the Chechens in that issue. I think that the US should've gone to war with Israel over the USS Liberty bombing back in '67, or at least told the Arabs, "Go get 'em.". As far as Turkey vs. Greece for Cyprus is concerned, I'm indifferent.

The president being a douchebag (I cannot argue that), doesn't justify the violation of international laws. My own president is a douchebag, yet I wouldn't like to see foreign combat airplanes bombing my country.

Please separate goverment from state for a while.

Aye, but is your president a genocidal madman? If my president was a genocidal madman dictator I'd be completely okay if another country was bombing.

Actually I want to see an American invasion of Pakistan. Georgia is completely justified in invading Abkhazia and Ossetia, those are rogue break away provinces. Russia is justified in invading Chechnya, though I do for my own reasons side with the Chechens in that issue. I think that the US should've gone to war with Israel over the USS Liberty bombing back in '67, or at least told the Arabs, "Go get 'em.". As far as Turkey vs. Greece for Cyprus is concerned, I'm indifferent.

God fucking damnit. Who dont you want to invade? Tell me, where are we going to get the money and warm bodies for all these wars you want to fight for no real fucking reason?

God fucking damnit. Who dont you want to invade? Tell me, where are we going to get the money and warm bodies for all these wars you want to fight for no real fucking reason?

I like Canada. They're okay in my book.

I like Canada. They're okay in my book.

Like I said, where would we get all the warm bodies and money for all the wars we would fight under your (disasterous) leadership?

CBS News says Israeli aircraft bombed 17 trucks carrying weapons apparently meant for Hamas about two months ago, reportedly killing 39 people. Report refers to recent agreement to curb smuggling signed by Israel, US. Jerusalem declines comment

If true, props to Israel and keep it up.

Actually I want to see an American invasion of Pakistan. Georgia is completely justified in invading Abkhazia and Ossetia, those are rogue break away provinces. Russia is justified in invading Chechnya, though I do for my own reasons side with the Chechens in that issue. I think that the US should've gone to war with Israel over the USS Liberty bombing back in '67, or at least told the Arabs, "Go get 'em.". As far as Turkey vs. Greece for Cyprus is concerned, I'm indifferent.

I'm afraid that what you (or I) think is immaterial: I was referring to countries, not to individuals.

Btw, no, Georgia wasn't justified in invading Abkhazia and South Ossetia because Georgia signed, together with Russia, a protocol about Abkh and SO which included the placement of observers.

Aye, but is your president a genocidal madman? If my president was a genocidal madman dictator I'd be completely okay if another country was bombing.

I'd guess that it would depend on where and what they would be bombing. I don't think that you would be very happy if your parents were part of the so-called "collateral damage", or if your daughter was burned by WP during a bombardment. Even if the genocidal madman dictator were killed.

I think that the US should've gone to war with Israel over the USS Liberty bombing back in '67, or at least told the Arabs, "Go get 'em.".

Why? It was an accident. Everyone involved agrees. There have been like 10 investigations of the subject.

Why? It was an accident. Everyone involved agrees. There have been like 10 investigations of the subject.

No, theres been ten 'investigations', but they haven't looked at the real evidence (http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/32/assets/images/schuster10.jpg)

Why? It was an accident. Everyone involved agrees. There have been like 10 investigations of the subject.

You're going to have to explain to me how multiple recon flights produced a conclusion that a ship flying an American flag, designated in Latin letters as opposed to Arabic was identified as an Egyptian ship half its size by accident.

You'll also have to account for the people who were involved in the investigations who dispute the accident explanation.

As far as islam is concern'd after 9/11 with those pigs danceing in the streets Israel can nuke them.

:hail:

The way I see it is like this:

You can make an argument Iraq or Pakistan's legitimate government have been making efforts to defuse and work against terrorist groups on their soil and Iran or Turkey should have been cooperating with their government rather than acting unilaterally.

Sudan is belligerent to Israel and would likely rather be caught dead than helping Israel protect its own people. The fact that they are supporting Hamas in the first place is in itself an act of aggression.