• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkish troops cross into north Iraq

They where murdered by rockets and missiles, yes.
No innocents were "murdered" there.
Innocents were killed, but murder implies on an intention by the soldiers or the soldiers' commanders to take the lives of those innocents who have died.
 
The recently approved sanctions against Iran will not require Turkey to take any additional measures or institute any new arrangements, the Foreign Ministry has said following its initial assessment of the UN Security Council’s resolution.

“Sanctions do not affect our energy cooperation with Iran at all. Turkey already does not have important operations with Iranian banking systems. So we do not need any measures to address that,” diplomatic sources told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Thursday.

“The sole consequences of the new sanctions for Turkey will be increasing border controls, such as for cargos of Iranian ships. But no new legal arrangements are yet needed,” the sources said.

Although Turkey, along with Brazil, voted “no” on the Security Council resolution to impose new sanctions against Iran over its controversial nuclear program, Ankara has assured the international community that it will implement them while taking other countries’ moves as a precedent for its own measures.

“Currently, we already implement the required inspections on our borders. But there will be additional technical measures taken,” diplomatic sources told the Daily News. “For instance, the previous practice was that if objectionable material was detected on a ship, it was sent back to the country of the ship’s flag. Hereafter, it will be destroyed immediately.”

Iran sanctions to have little effect on Turkey, Foreign Ministry says - Hurriyet Daily News and Economic Review

It has come to my attention increasingly that the Iranian NO vote was done half-heartedly just to stick to an initial uranium swap agreement. Iran is also an exponential threat to Turkish sovereign, and the sooner the AKP realizes this, the better. It is why i do not support the downgrade of ties. We need every damn ally we can get in the region.
 
It wouldn't matter.
It does matter, a lot, in the context of your statement. (More like an accusation)
No one was killed and I don't even think there were many injuries on Israel's side in the months leading to the Gaza War.
What are you talking about? People were killed, and there wer many injuries.
Yet Israel decided it was ok to attack everything and anything it could possibly construe as a strategic target.
In other words, Israel has went to war with Hamas.
There are enough plausible targets that Israel would have killed hundreds of civilians by now if they were in Turkey's shoes in this incident.
Israel showed no consideration for Lebanon's sovereignty and Lebanese civilians paid the price more than anyone. If Turkey retaliated the way Israel retaliated I assure you there would be far more dead civilians right now.
I call bull****.
The hell it's off-topic. You don't honestly expect anyone to believe you are screaming "bloody hypocrisy" over Turkey's criticism from a year and a half ago do you? The soldiers didn't "eventually resist" they were cracking down from the start and simply escalated their actions.
The ship's crew has attacked the soldiers and they have eventually resisted, and yes it is quite off-topic.
I'm sure Israel wants people to think it is unintentional, but it seems every time they attack civilians die.
Most of the times no civilians die, but that doesn't make your news. From the same reason.
It has been a consistent policy of Israel dating back to independence and hell even back to the British Mandate to use disproportionate force. That inevitably means more civilians die so I say Israel does deliberately target civilians.
Then let me use alexa's words in the context of this argument and say that even suggesting that Israeli soldiers are deliberately shooting innocent civilians is sick.
 
Then let me use alexa's words in the context of this argument and say that even suggesting that Israeli soldiers are deliberately shooting innocent civilians is sick.

Good one ;) but let's put it in context. You said that British Soldiers deliberately killed civilians in Afghanistan and you said that the number they killed were at least as many as were killed in Gaza.

That would mean that one third of the people who died in Afghanistan by the British were children and that they were deliberately killed by UK soldiers. Suggesting that with no proof, I did indeed find sick.
 
Good one ;) but let's put it in context. You said that British Soldiers deliberately killed civilians in Afghanistan and you said that the number they killed were at least as many as were killed in Gaza.

That would mean that one third of the people who died in Afghanistan by the British were children and that they were deliberately killed by UK soldiers. Suggesting that with no proof, I did indeed find sick.

I have never said that British soldiers deliberately killed civilians, read don's comment.
As to the latter statement, I was referring to civilians and not to children specifically. I believe I've even used the word "civilians" when saying this and not the word children.

So once more, suggesting that Israeli/British/American soldiers deliberately kill innocent children is sick.
 
I have never said that British soldiers deliberately killed civilians, read don's comment.
As to the latter statement, I was referring to civilians and not to children specifically. I believe I've even used the word "civilians" when saying this and not the word children.

So once more, suggesting that Israeli/British/American soldiers deliberately kill innocent children is sick.

When you upped the stakes from simply killing to deliberately killing, you did use the word civilians. However this began with talking only about children. From what you said and to which I responded that it was sick, you did indeed say that British soldiers deliberately killed civilians. Given that you had previously said killed more children than Israel in Gaza, it can be taken that you were saying that 1/3rd of the people killed in Afghanistan by the British were children. Now if we want to go on percentages with Gaza on how many were innocent civilians, I am not sure of the number but it was very high.

I only entered this discussion when you chose to up the stakes to British deliberately killing.

Therefore in the context of why I said it 'was sick' post 79 is a correct description.

If for some other reason you were accusing British soldiers of doing this, I certainly had no knowledge when I said that to accuse British soldiers of this without proof was sick.
 
When you upped the stakes from simply killing to deliberately killing, you did use the word civilians. However this began with talking only about children.
Irrelavent, since I have referred to civilians in general and not to children in private.
From what you said and to which I responded that it was sick, you did indeed say that British soldiers deliberately killed civilians.
No, I've never said this, you're putting words in my mouth.
I did say that Pete is unwilling to claim that Britain deliberately kills civilians(While willing to claim that Israel does so) and I did ask Pete if he believes that Britain is killing civilians, but none of those statements, contrary to your bizarre claims, mean that I in person have ever said that Britain deliberately kills civilians, and I obviously have never said such a thing.
Since you've already been clarified on that, and since you've had even one of the forum's moderators explaining this to you, I'd refer to any further claims about me saying something that I haven't (and that I've shown strong opposition to) as a libel, which is against the forum's rules.
Given that you had previously said killed more children than Israel in Gaza, it can be taken that you were saying that 1/3rd of the people killed in Afghanistan by the British were children.
I have never said such thing, I said that Britain has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than Israel did in the Gaza war. Period.
 
Irrelavent, since I have referred to civilians in general and not to children in private.
No, I've never said this, you're putting words in my mouth.
I did say that Pete is unwilling to claim that Britain deliberately kills civilians and I did ask Pete if he believes that Britain is killing civilians, but none of those statements, contrary to your bizarre claims, mean that I in person have ever said that Britain deliberately kills civilians, and I obviously have never said such a thing.
Since you've already been clarified on that, and since you've had even one of the forum's moderators explaining this to you, I'd refer to any further claims about me saying something that I haven't (and that I've shown strong opposition to) as a libel, which is against the forum's rules.
I have never said such thing, I said that Britain has killed more civilians in Afghanistan than Israel did in the Gaza war. Period.

Yes you did but I do not have some people's patience to go on and on with ever longer posts. You misrepresented what I said. That is for others particularly Demon of light to know. Please do not do that again.
 
Yes you did but I do not have some people's patience to go on and on with ever longer posts. You misrepresented what I said. That is for others particularly Demon of light to know. Please do not do that again.

I don't know what you're talking about, I'll simply ask you not to repeat the false accusation that I've ever claimed Britain deliberately kills civilians.
 
It does matter, a lot, in the context of your statement. (More like an accusation)

I am saying it wouldn't matter where the attacks went if it was Israel in that situation.

What are you talking about? People were killed, and there wer many injuries.

Well shock is often cited as an injury so I don't know how many were actual physical injuries.

In other words, Israel has went to war with Hamas.

Over something that most countries would not have.

I call bull****.

On what exactly?

The ship's crew has attacked the soldiers and they have eventually resisted, and yes it is quite off-topic.

No, you are confusing an escalation with resistance. Israel boarded the ship intending to use force. The people on the ship resisted and as a result of said resistance Israel escalated to lethal force.

Most of the times no civilians die, but that doesn't make your news. From the same reason.

I would challenge that claim.

Then let me use alexa's words in the context of this argument and say that even suggesting that Israeli soldiers are deliberately shooting innocent civilians is sick.

They initiate actions against civilian targets knowing civilians will be killed.
 
Back
Top Bottom