It's official: gay men are a geater threat than terrorists

[Bereta_Eder]

Israel can't afford to lose anyone.
So even gays are in.

I'd like to know if they are in fighting positions so to speak though, yes.

(ok minor troll this post, but what can i do, 2nd nature)

[Bereta_Eder]

I don't need to provide any links.

1) Eu cant interfere in matters of national security. Even my cat knows that if I had one.

It's on the 3rd pillar of non enforcment policies.


Indulge my lazyness, yes 'cause I want to see quoted what exactly the european court of justice had to say about woman equality in the german army (which was curtailed and decorative up to the '90s)
so we can evaluate.
and make it more than a line

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW if this "info" about Israel comes from your israeli fighter pilot boyfriend make sure you ask him if he has declared his homosexuality or if all is "kept quiet".

So, again, link about Israel's policies and while you're at it link about every other country you mentioned.


(and again i clarify that i dont have an opinion on the matter, just telling you right from wrong in what regards real info)

[Boris Godunov]

Israel doesn't exclude gays from combat operations.

Originally posted by paiktis22
I don't need to provide any links.

1) Eu cant interfere in matters of national security. Even my cat knows that if I had one.

It's on the 3rd pillar of non enforcment policies.

Then please explain why the UK and Germany, under no compulsion according to you, felt it necessary to therefore change their laws. Clearly the rulings had force, whether it be official or not, that compelled them to comply. The power of a court extends as far as its rulings are obeyed.

Indulge my lazyness, yes 'cause I want to see quoted what exactly the european court of justice had to say about woman equality in the german army (which was curtailed and decorative up to the '90s)
so we can evaluate.
and make it more than a line

Go to the link, make a little click on it...it's easy. I'm lazy too, but I did provide the links at least.

[Boris Godunov]

And yes, you need to provide links if you're going to ask for them. If you don't trust me, I don't trust you.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Israel doesn't exclude gays from combat operations.



Then please explain why the UK and Germany, under no compulsion according to you, felt it necessary to therefore change their laws. Clearly the rulings had force, whether it be official or not, that compelled them to comply. The power of a court extends as far as its rulings are obeyed.

The European court of human rights has no authority to impose anything.

all it does is getting out verdicts. kind like the UN huh?

even my invisible cat knows that.

dont press the point it makes you look stupid (to those who are informed about this)

the european court of justice thats another matter all together.


s to why these coutnries changed something (what remains exactly unlear) its up to them.

The point remains that the EU has no authority of interferance to matters of national security.
wait if and when there's one euro army.

Go to the link, make a little click on it...it's easy. I'm lazy too, but I did provide the links at least.

not so interested as to do that especially since you have fallen from one mistake to the other.

[Bereta_Eder]

i'm not trying to conveince anybody about anything.

what i'm doing in replying to you is to learn.

i cant learn from what you "think" you know. i need links and then evaluate these links.


you are welcomed not to trust me, it dont bother me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
The European court of human rights has no authority to impose anything.

all it does is getting out verdicts. kind like the UN huh?

the european court of justice thats another matter all together.

The ruling against Germany was made by the court of justice, not the one of human rights.

s to why these coutnries changed something (what remains exactly unlear) its up to them.

Just on a whim? I mean, they fought hard to oppose these rulings, but when they came, just gave up? Clearly there is something else going on here.

The point remains that the EU has no authority of interferance to matters of national security.
wait if and when there's one euro army.

If the court makes a ruling, and the European countries jump to abide by it, then the court has de facto authority, whether inscribed in specific law or not. You can't say a court has no authority when its rulings are abided by.

not so interested as to do that especially since you have fallen from one mistake to the other.

I'm not interested in having this asinine discussion anymore either, but you've failed to make any point anyway, so I am not sure why you kept posting for so long...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
i cant learn from what you "think" you know. i need links and then evaluate these links.

Maybe I should put this in braille for you to understand?

The links have been given. Use the "previous page" button and click on them to read them. Do you know which mouse button to click?

[Bereta_Eder]

Court of human rights have no imposing authority. it cant force anything.

what these coutrneis did (which is still unlear) is NOT enforced by the human rights court.

get this thru your skull.

good.

now provide me with a link about the court of justice


all other things you say are low form of rhetorics.

stick to facts, but you dont seem inclined to do so .

[Bereta_Eder]

and im still waiting for links about all the countries u mentioned including israel.

cant rely on what your boyfriend told you or what u assumed.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Court of human rights have no imposing authority. it cant force anything.

what these coutrneis did (which is still unlear) is NOT enforced by the human rights court.

Once again, if the human rights court made a verdict, and the UK complied with the verdict, I don't see where there is a lack of authority on the part of the court. According to the court, all of their verdicts to date have been complied with. How does that translate to their not being de facto jurisdiction for the court?

now provide me with a link about the court of justice

This will be the only time I coddle your laziness:

http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=61998J0285

"Although it is for the Member States, which have to adopt appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security, to take decisions on the organisation of their armed forces, it does not follow that such decisions must fall entirely outside the scope of Community law. It is not possible, without impairing the binding nature of Community law and its uniform application, to recognise that there is inherent in the Treaty a general exception covering all measures taken by a Member State for reasons of public security, above and beyond the specific cases contemplated in certain provisions. Accordingly, such measures are subject to Directive 76/207 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions.
When, in the case of the organisation of the armed forces in the Federal Republic of Germany, the competent national authorities avail themselves of the option open to them under Article 2(2) of the Directive - that is to say, of excluding from the scope of the Directive occupational activities for which, by reason of their nature or the context in which they are carried out, sex constitutes a determining factor - they cannot, without contravening the principle of proportionality, adopt the general position that the composition of all armed units in the Bundeswehr must remain exclusively male. Since the derogations provided for in Article 2(2) can apply only to specific activities, such an exclusion, which applies to almost all military posts in the Bundeswehr, cannot be regarded as a derogating measure justified by the specific nature of the posts in question or by the particular context in which the activities in question are carried out.
As regards the possible application of Article 2(3) of the Directive, under which differences of treatment are allowed out of a concern to protect women, the total exclusion of women from all military posts involving the use of arms is not one of the differences of treatment permissible.
It follows that Directive 76/207 precludes the application of provisions of national law, such as those of German law, which impose a general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of arms and which allow them access only to the medical and military-music services."

all other things you say are low form of rhetorics.

stick to facts, but you dont seem inclined to do so .

Since I'm the only one providing links, I don't think you can claim to be Mr. Factual yet, patty.

[Bereta_Eder]

Although it is for the Member States, which have to adopt appropriate measures to ensure their internal and external security, to take decisions on the organisation of their armed forces, it does not follow that such decisions must fall entirely outside the scope of Community law



thank you thats all i need to read and that what i expected.


an exception.

and you still havent gotten thru your skull that the human rights court cant enforce anything.


this doesnt change no matter how much you try to make it so.


actually i wished it would be enforced

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by paiktis22
and im still waiting for links about all the countries u mentioned including israel.

cant rely on what your boyfriend told you or what u assumed.

That is covered in previous links. Just to pound it home for you,

http://www.aegis.com/news/lt/1993/LT930101.html

LA times article:

In Israel, where homosexuals have been allowed to serve in any capacity within the country's armed forces since the nation was founded in 1948, no major problems have arisen, an embassy official said.

"It's not an issue that's on the agenda," said embassy spokeswoman Ruth Yaron. "It's never reached the level of public debate."

Yaron said individual problems with gay soldiers or with those who react adversely to serving with homosexuals have cropped up but they "have been been sporadic and have been dealt with in an ad hoc manner." She said no statistics were available on such cases.

From now on, I want links supporting all your assertions, or I will dismiss them as lies, since turnabout is fair play.

[Bereta_Eder]

which goes back in saying what we originally started to argue about:

the EU cannot interfere in national security matters (such as the army)

and the EU cannot force countries to accept gays in their armies.