Netanyahu in Shannon

carrickmilo

According to Haaretz Netanyahu will be stopping over at Shannon airport next Sunday November 8th.

After the Goldstone report do we really want him in this country?

Agent Smith

Why not? we have full diplomatic relations with Isreal.

carrickmilo

Because he leads a country found guilty of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

Karadzic in on trial for similar charges. Why is 'justice' selectively applied?

Happy Monday

carrickmilo wrote: »

Because he leads a country found guilty of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

Karadzic in on trial for similar charges. Why is 'justice' selectively applied?

Could apply that logic to a lot of leaders in the world who come to Ireland.

Should we cut relations with the US who use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs or China whose human rights record is absymal.

FlutterinBantam

Happy Monday wrote: »

Could apply that logic to a lot of leaders in the world who come to Ireland.

Should we cut relations with the US who use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs or China whose human rights record is absymal.

Use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs???

Presume you have proof, and if so, have you advised the proper authorities??

"We" seem to be extremely selective in whom "we" want in the country around here.

Strange indeed.

Happy Monday

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Use Shannon to illegally deport young Arabs???

Presume you have proof, and if so, have you advised the proper authorities??

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Please tell me - who are the proper authorities to inform?

wes

Well, as much as I dislike the man, I think as long as he is here on official diplomatic business, he should of course be allowed to come here. The way I see it, it costs nothing to talk.

It will also provide a oppurtunity for protest as well against the man and his odious policies, much like people in the US protesting against Ahmadinejad, when he goes to the UN.

Nodin

carrickmilo wrote: »

After the Goldstone report do we really want him in this country?

Didn't want him here before it, tbh.

Manic Moran

Ireland either claims to be neutral, or it is not. The country has requirements and procedures in place for the Shannon Stopover (or indeed, a stopover at any Irish airport), and it must (and as far as I know, does) enforce them equally to aircraft of all nationalities.

NTM

FlutterinBantam

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Please tell me - who are the proper authorities to inform?

I did say concrete evidence, not the opinion of vested interests.

proper authorities... the gárdaí of course.

Have we now come to a situation where splinter groups can wind up and try to dictate about whom we allow into the country and who we don't.??

Let's get a grip here , and don't make idiots of ourselves

callig

carrickmilo wrote: »

Because he leads a country accused of comitting war crimes in Gaza last winter.

FYP

Happy Monday

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I did say concrete evidence, not the opinion of vested interests.

The Human Rights Commitee of the United Nations - a vested interest!!

Now I know your not serious - no one would question the intergrity and impartiality of that body.

In the same way that people didn't contest the findings of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission led by Hans Blix when they concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Except Uncle Sam - in violation of international law at every turn.

lucernarian

Happy Monday wrote: »

The Human Rights Commitee of the United Nations - a vested interest!!

Now I know your not serious - no one would question the intergrity and impartiality of that body.

In the same way that people didn't contest the findings of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission led by Hans Blix when they concluded that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Except Uncle Sam - in violation of international law at every turn.

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

The Saint

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think I will question the jobs and agendas of bueraucrats who are thousands of miles from every situation they may be of use in (except Yugoslavia, and still made no difference anyway). Oh whoops, what did I just do...

Wow. I don't think I've seen such a fundamental lack of understanding of what the UN is and how it works here in quite a while.

ArmaniJeanss

Happy Monday wrote: »

The UN with Amnesty International has concrete evidence of this practice below and Ireland has been hauled up before them for questioning below.

http://www.humanrights-geneva.info/UN-human-rights-panel-drills,3309

Reading the article it looks as if the Irish government, diplomatic service and Attorney General played an absolute stormer over this issue.
Seek guarantees and assurances from the US, then don't look too closely to see if they abide by them.

So you don't annoy your important Americans friends and neither can anyone accuse you of actively helping with rendition.

So whatever about any moral questions, for once kudos to the Irish Government for a nice bit of wellplayed realpolitik.

Joey the lips

I am biased I am a B.I.G supporter so hate what the man stands for......




# I know i have confused a few people here!

Happy Monday

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Reading the article it looks as if the Irish government, diplomatic service and Attorney General played an absolute stormer over this issue.
Seek guarantees and assurances from the US, then don't look too closely to see if they abide by them.

So you don't annoy your important Americans friends and neither can anyone accuse you of actively helping with rendition.

So whatever about any moral questions, for once kudos to the Irish Government for a nice bit of wellplayed realpolitik.

Unless you happen to be the poor sod or sods on the plane lifted from your home country and bagged and tagged by aggressive CIA types.
Not to mention the impact this may have had on their wives and children back home.
But as long as Uncle Sam's long noise is not put out of joint.......

FlutterinBantam

Or unless you happen to live in the USA and expect your country to take steps to prevent brainwashed and idealistic fanatics who have nothing to lose but their miserable lives from plotting and acting to destroy you.

Bit like expecting the Gárdaí to ignore threats from across the Border from dissidents bent putting people in this state in harms way.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Or unless you happen to live in the USA and expect your country to take steps to prevent brainwashed and idealistic fanatics who have nothing to lose but their miserable lives from plotting and acting to destroy you.

You seem to be under the impression that these people actually had a trial and were found guilty of being "brainwashed and idealistic fanatics". No force has the right to go to another sovereign country and kidnap a person from their family. That is the sort of thing that America "should" stand against, being the land of the free and all that. But contradicts everything it stands for when it kidnaps people.

As for Netanyahu, he is a disgusting human being. The amount of nonsense he is currently getting away with is nothing short of amazing. I hope there is a large protest against his policies.

FlutterinBantam

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

In my opinion the US is correct to not wait till the violence hits their shores again, but take proactive steps based on intelligence to strike at the source of the terrorism.

I certainly would not welcome political and social unrest coupled with fanatical leadership in inherently unstable countries.

Certain areas of the world are extremely unstable and have to potential to ruin western standards of living.

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

In my opinion the US is correct to not wait till the violence hits their shores again, but take proactive steps based on intelligence to strike at the source of the terrorism.

Surely this applies the other way round as well then, right? Using the same logic shouldn't Iran have the right to attack the US (international law be damned), to defend its people then? The US is known to invade countries looking for imaginary WMD's and to stop some DC comics super villans called Gog and MaGog.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I certainly would not welcome political and social unrest coupled with fanatical leadership in inherently unstable countries.

US intervention has hardly helped in this situation. Take Iraq for example, that country has become for more unstable since the US invaded. There was no significant Al Qaeda presence (except in Dick Cheny's imagination) in that country, and after the US invade, a whole load of them flock to the place, causing all kinds of trouble.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Certain areas of the world are extremely unstable and have to potential to ruin western standards of living.

Western intervention has a way of ruining other countries standards of living. So by your own logic, these guys have every right to attack the West then, and things like international law shouldn't come into it, as you can justify anything, as long as you claim self defense.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

As far as I am concerned the US has every right to protect it's citizens.

It does not however, have the right to abduct citizens of another country, in that said country - without that person ever having a trial. It is illegal and immoral.

Fulton Crown

dlofnep wrote: »

You seem to be under the impression that these people actually had a trial and were found guilty of being "brainwashed and idealistic fanatics". No force has the right to go to another sovereign country and kidnap a person from their family. That is the sort of thing that America "should" stand against, being the land of the free and all that. But contradicts everything it stands for when it kidnaps people.

Only problem I have with this kind of thing my friend is when people assume that you are dealing with like minded people.

The fact is that there are countrys all over the Globe that are piss poor, where the women do any work that there is and the men go round acting the big fellas with their AK 47's or whatever.

Then you have the "mad cleric" types spreading hate and whipping these fellas into a frenzy with promises of all sorts of afterlife goodies.

Look at Zimbabwe - transformed from being the breadbasket of Africa to a fear ridden poverty stricken state while Bobby Boy lives it up in luxury at the expense of "his people"..

There are plenty of very good reasons for America or indeed any country with balls to go in and take out these scumbags....

ynotdu

The OP,s question was about Netanyahu.He is the Democraticly elected Leader of Israel, even if it puts a sour taste in Irish peoples mouth that He should be made welcome in this Country well TOUGH!

as said the UN HQ is in the USA and America has often had to allow its arch enemies in because of that.

There is such double standards in this Country of ours,any leader that might bring money into our Economy is welcome despite any breach of human rights He/She may have comitted.

Those who can bring nothing except to explain their bad image.............Well then us Irish find the 'courage' to take the 'moral' high ground.

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Those who can bring nothing except to explain their bad image.............Well then us Irish find the 'courage' to take the 'moral' high ground.

So we are just like the rest of the world, looking after our own interests?

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

So we are just like the rest of the world, looking after our own interests?

Yes wes We are and You know it!{like extraordinary rendition at Shannon was not known about by our Govt/security forces at Shannon:)?}

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Yes wes We are and You know it!{like extraordinary rendition at Shannon was not known about by our Govt/security forces at Shannon:)?}

It wouldn't surprise me if they were well aware of it, but turned a blind eye to it.

ynotdu

wes wrote: »

It wouldn't surprise me if they were well aware of it, but turned a blind eye to it.

Well Wes after the incident yesterday that five UK troops were killed by a guy they were training in order that Afghanistan could at least try to Govern itself..........................these 'overeactions'(extraordinary rendition) by armys begin to be more understandable. What a Sneaky prick He was!

a coward IMO,at least when You put on a uniform You are saying 'What side you are on'

wes

ynotdu wrote: »

Well Wes after the incident yesterday that five UK troops were killed by a guy they were training in order that Afghanistan could at least try to Govern itself..........................these 'overeactions'(extraordinary rendition) by armys begin to be more understandable. What a Sneaky prick He was!

What are you on about? How would extraordinary rendition have helped in that instance? Seriously care to explain how it would have helped? As what your saying doeesn't make any sense whatsoever, and you seem to be despretately trying to excuse one groups actions by invoking the others, when both are clearly wrong.

ynotdu wrote: »

a coward IMO,at least when You put on a uniform You are saying 'What side you are on'

Well, thats one way of looking at it, but putting on a uniform, when the other guy has overwhelming miltary superiority, could also be considered stupid btw.

FlutterinBantam

And likewise taking on the "other guy" with conventional means might be considered stupid too;)

wes

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

And likewise taking on the "other guy" with conventional means might be considered stupid too;)

Regardless of it being clever or not, both sides are violating the law, but only one side is ever considered wrong for doing so by some people. Something being brave or stupid is irrelevant, when it comes to legality.

Also, the US legitimacy comes from being a democracy that follows the law, and this has been a pretty big asset to them for the most part. The US tends to get more trouble, when it abandon's there proclaimed values, again the example of the Iraq war is apt here, basically a lot of people decided to take up arms against US soldiers based on the Iraq war, kidnapping people and shipping them to Guantanamo and other violations of international law. So, I would argue that the US using breaking the law is actually not clever at all, as it has actually increased people wanting to take up arms against the US. So basically go around acting like the evil empire, and people will start to believe it.