Egyptian/Middle Eastern Protests thread derail thread

@pvtnum 11;

They sponsor Hizballah and Hamas. They have no right to use the canal. They have no right to use the oxygen in the air.

edited 23rd Feb '11 12:02:34 PM by Yair-Jeger

^

And y'all let Mossad do all sorts of dirty shit, I like Israel, but that's really the pot calling the kettle black.

I believe the current treaty allows for all nations to pass through the canal, not just nations that X country approves of. I will have to look for a source on that, though.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

^^^ I understand that. And I don't like it either, but unless the Suez Canal treaty is changed to say who can go where and why, it still stands that the Iranian Navy can use the canal.

Now, why they would want to transit the canal is another matter. Desire to repeat Iranian-vs-Israeli naval action, again? I can't fathom offhand why Iran would want to put their ships into the Mediterranean, aside from just to say that they can and making Israel irritated. Showing the flag, maybe. Pretty good money that Israel is shadowing them.

I was actually worried that Egypt, with all the protests and stuff going on internally, might have shut the canal down. The fact that it's still open at all is something of a miracle, given all the political turmoil and stuff.

edited 23rd Feb '11 12:13:47 PM by pvtnum11

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

But Barkey, everybody knows that when Israel does it, it's automatically correct.

first sentence of article I, and yes this document is still in force.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Why would Iran want to go through the canal?

Someone linked it back in the original thread, but...

So, not a reason per se, but it's not related to the protests.

edited 23rd Feb '11 1:30:55 PM by deathjavu

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

Ah, makes sense, sort of. I'd imagine they'd get the same quality of training out in the Indian Ocean, but whatever.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

As I said in the other thread, this is very clearly an attempt to distract domestic audiences from the protests gong on.

As for who 'deserves' to use it, well, its not our canal, we dont get to make that decision.

We've sponsored mujahedeen against the Soviets. We were best buds with the Tunisian government and Mubarak. We have a right to call out someone sponsoring hamas and hezbollah?

If the Suez Canal were American, I can see some justification for blocking Iran, who is their enemy but this is Egypt's choice. However, I doubt they had a functioning government to make much of a decision on that anyway. I think Iran is just trying to test out what it's regional power is and the upheavals will likely only aid them. There's a fairly good chance that Medvedev's fear of an Islamist takeover of the revolutions sweeping the mideast.

Not even Egypt can, not without violating the contract laid down regarding the Suez.

Ignore.

edited 23rd Feb '11 8:24:05 PM by Blurring

If a chicken crosses the road and nobody else is around to see it, does the road move beneath the chicken instead?

Iran has as much right to use the Suez Canal as anyone, and they do have a right to breath. Amazing how nationalism can make people so very biased for their nation, as to make such bold statements.

As said, the canal is regulated by international law, which says pretty much that if it floats, it can go through. Unless Egypt suddenly voids the canal treaty, Iran, Israel or East Timor have every right to sail any ship up and down that thing all day... wait, that came out wrong...

*sigh* Aren't you the hammy one. What are you going to do about it, take their breath away? You leave me speechless. You know what, maybe you should take a breather, blow off some steam, get some fresh air. After that, I'm sure you'll be inspired to be more moderate in your opinions. Hatred is great for group cohesion against a foreign opponent, but it can lead to some genuinely stupid, grave, and, most importantly, avoidable mistakes.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

I know of a group of people who thought a whole different group had no right to breath, you would probably get along very well with them.

edited 25th Feb '11 6:17:12 PM by NickTheSwing

I thought it was clear that we are talking about the government, not Iranians in general.

edited 25th Feb '11 6:28:05 PM by Yair-Jeger

^^

Is that a law that starts with G being subtly invoked?

Maaaybe...

Okay, nick, allow me to rephrase my earlier post:

That's right. We should put them in special containment facilities, and have them breathe something other than our air.

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."

OK, if a leader who supports terrorism has no right to breathe, what about a leader who orders terrorist attacks? If your position is that terrorists have no right to live, you'd have to accept that most (or at least a fair share) of Israel's pre-independence military (including its command) would not have lived to see an independent Israel.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

It's only terrorism if it's being done to Israel, you dummy!

"Sweets are good. Sweets are justice."