Israel "Ignored" UN Troops Pleas To Stop Firing So Close To Them

Peace is always preferable.

The question is only if it's possible. Here on this board, I would say yes.

Sorry for the tantrum

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by hogtie

Originally posted by intrepid

I didn't say this, you did. Are you standing by it? Are you bunching ALL muslim groups together?

*sigh* They are not all Muslim groups. And they are not the same. But once they are considered a threat, the result is the same. So yes, I am standing by it; whatever it is that you think I said. I'm not sure anymore.

Originally posted by hogtie


I was speaking to what was shown on Al Jazera, not what Hez does. Just pointing out that it is a succsesful tool in the ME. I will say that I can have more than one enemy, understand their differences, yet put them in the same bag in the end.

BTW, this thread didn't magically disappear either. You words are here.

Propaganda is a BAD thing. Renounce it.

What are you talking about?!

"I was speaking to what was shown on Al Jazera, not what Hez does. Just pointing out that it is a succsesful tool in the ME." This was a reply to your "To the bold I think you've got the extremist parties mixed up here." There was no confusion. AJ broadcasts tapes. Who from is irrelivant. Hez can probably use AJ.

"I will say that I can have more than one enemy, understand their differences, yet put them in the same bag in the end." This means that it doesn't matter if you are a muslim fundamentalist, Irish, or Columbian terrorist, hence the names in the later post.

Obfuscation is right...

Originally posted by xmotex
Peace is always preferable.

The question is only if it's possible. Here on this board, I would say yes.

Sorry for the tantrum

Me too.

Originally posted by hogtie
yet put them in the same bag in the end.

What are you talking about?!

"I was speaking to what was shown on Al Jazera, not what Hez does. Just pointing out that it is a succsesful tool in the ME." This was a reply to your "To the bold I think you've got the extremist parties mixed up here." There was no confusion. AJ broadcasts tapes. Who from is irrelivant. Hez can probably use AJ.

"I will say that I can have more than one enemy, understand their differences, yet put them in the same bag in the end." This means that it doesn't matter if you are a muslim fundamentalist, Irish, or Columbian terrorist, hence the names in the later post.

Obfuscation is right...

But did they? Nope. You were attempting a broad brush. Pasting one group with another. Sorry, that's not happening.

The names later were a diversion. Sorry, didn't take the bait.

"Obfuscation is right.

Originally posted by intrepid

But did they? Nope. You were attempting a broad brush. Pasting one group with another. Sorry, that's not happening.

The names later were a diversion. Sorry, didn't take the bait.

"Obfuscation is right.

Curse you Intrepid! Curse you to Hades! Yooooouuuuuuuuu.......

So im not to be listend to because im not a military expert? Did I ever claim to be a military expert? Did I claim to offer anything more than my own personal opinion? Would you like to explain your credentials to us all? Would it make a difference?

Thank you Thompsonite for pointing some of that out

Originally posted by wang
Have participated? Check this Source i provided in the other thread showing the number of resolutions agaisnt Palestine is 0 and the number of resolutions agaisnt Israel is atleast 65.

Nice website for as they put it:

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world’s major sources of instability. Americans are directly connected to this conflict, and increasingly imperiled by its devastation.

It is the goal of If Americans Knew to provide full and accurate information on this critical issue, and on our power – and duty – to bring a resolution. url=http://www.ifamericansknew.org/]http://www.ifamericansknew.org/[/url]

Their report is so "full and accurate" as to totally gloss over and not even mention the 147 suicide bombings done by Palestinian extremists from 2000-2005 except for this little blurb:

While the large majority of Palestinians oppose suicide bombings, many feel that armed resistance has become necessary – much as Americans supported war after the attack at Pearl Harbor. Nevertheless, only a small portion take an active part in the resistance, despite the fact that virtually all support its aim: to create a nation free from foreign oppression.

Give me a break.

Originally posted by xmotex
marg is absolutely right.

It has become increasingly clear to me that there is absolutely no point in discussing these things with Israel's apologists. Israel could bomb downtown Detroit, and they would find some sly way to defend it, like an army of drones repeating the same talking points ad nauseum. ("After all there are a lot of Arabs in Detroit you see, Israel had to defend itself against the subhuman Arab menace", blah blah blah...)

Now that is an excellent point.

You could almost predict the text.

"So what if Israel threw a cruise missile at Detroit? They were only defending themselves. Those dumb idiots in Detroit should have got out of the way - they knew there were arabs in the neigbourhood so it was bound to be the case that Hezbollah was there, so what if 50 of them got killed, I blame Hezbollah, they mix with civilians you know."

Sad thing is.....one day I'll probably read something like that on here for real.

here is a pic of the UN building after the attack.

if this isnt the same building then perhaps its another one?

i43.photobucket.com...

Originally posted by wang
Have participated? Check this Source i provided in the other thread showing the number of resolutions agaisnt Palestine is 0 and the number of resolutions agaisnt Israel is atleast 65.
They didnt participate but incited the violence for along time.

The UN is very anti-Israel, judging by it's actions:

U.N. institutional structures consistently are used to isolate and vilify Israel.

Israel is the only country in the world that is not eligible to sit on the Security Council, the principal policy making body of the U.N. This situation violates the principle of the "sovereign equality of all member states" of the U.N. under Article 2 of the U.N. Charter.
Seven of the 140 items submitted for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in 2002 were anti-Israel. Last year, the UNGA adopted 19 anti-Israel resolutions.
Israel is the object of more investigative committees, special representatives and rapporteurs than any other state in the U.N. system. For example, a special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel 51 times during 27 years of activity. The Director-General of the International Labor Organization has sent a "Special Mission" to Israel and the territories every year for the past 17 years.
The "Special Committees" and "Palestinian Units" of the U.N. spend more than $3 million a year, essentially to spread anti-Israel propaganda. These bodies-the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, the Division on Palestinian Rights and the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs-are the focus of the worst anti-Israel activity under the aegis of the U.N. They organize, inter alia, the annual "Palestine Day" events at the U.N., as well as symposia and other events.

The U.N. has failed to investigate Palestinian actions supporting terrorism.

The U.N. has never initiated any inquiry into Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority's role in aiding and abetting terrorists, or passed one resolution condemning any terrorist organization operating against Israel.
One glaring example of the U.N.'s biased policy against Israel is the concealment and vehement denial of the existence of videotape of Hezbollah's abduction of three Israeli soldiers made by U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon. For 11 months, the U.N. lied to the world and denied the existence of any evidence related to the abduction. When the cover-up was exposed, revealing the existence of the videotape, the U.N. eventually showed Israel a heavily edited videotape with the faces of the terrorists blurred. When asked the reason behind this, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan stated it was due to the U.N.'s standing as a neutral organization.

The U.N. has tolerated and fostered anti-Semitism and anti-Israel propaganda.

The U.N. has condemned virtually every conceivable form of racism. It has established programs to combat racism and its multiple facets - including xenophobia - but has consistently refused to condemn anti-Semitism. It only was on November 24, 1998, more than 50 years after the U.N.'s founding, that the word anti-Semitism was first mentioned in a U.N. resolution (GA Res. A/53/623).
www.science.co.il...

etc., etc., etc.

If it wasn't for the US defending Israel at the UN, the UN would have "resolutioned" Israel out of existence a long time ago.

Originally posted by bombers8

etc., etc., etc.

If it wasn't for the US defending Israel at the UN, the UN would have "resolutioned" Israel out of existence a long time ago.

I have decided that facts are not going to win this argument. I’ve been trying to tally the score, based on facts and sources provided. So far, here are the results:

Anti-Israeli:
Total links to sources: 8
4 of them are repeats to the original BBC story
1 about rape (?)
1 that misquotes the source
2 that actually show that the UN is biased against Israel by the number of resolutions passed against it compared to none against Hez
Total sources that have something to do with the issue that can actually used to support this position: 1 – the BBC story

Pro-Israeli:
Total links to sources: 16
3 are references to the Canadian soldier’s email
13 independent sources, one of which corrects the misquoted source above
Total sources that have something to do with the issue that can actually used to support this position: 14

Neutral (as far as I can tell):
2

If I was generous and used the neutral position to bolster the Anti-Israel camp that would bring their sources up to 3.

14 to 3.

Someone has some catching up to do.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by hogtie]

hogtie, give it.

Clearly, you have no understanding of Islam. Jerusalem is as important to them as it is to the Jews - people just seem to forget they're as good as the same religion. Furthermore, if it was given back to shared control by Jewish, Muslim and Christian people it would be a good thing for them all. Giving back scraps of land which can't be used for anything won't help the issue. Also, in 1947 [November] Irgun were meant to disarm and they never did. In fact, not long after a terrorist organisation became the IDF

As for;

it compared to none against Hez

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559?
Took me 10 seconds to find that.

Your eyes only see what they want them to see.

We'll wait for your next State Sponsered Broadcast.

Of course your novel tallysheet does not prove anything but if it makes you feel better and that you are 'winning' so be it. We are all losing here, until there is peace in the Middle East and the killing is stopped we are all fighting a losing battle.

I find the psychology behind bombers8 interpretation of the UN's actions against Israel very interesting. bombers8 thinks that the UN (aka The World) is anti-semitic because it investigates Israel more than any other nation. Absent from his analysis is the alternative interpretation i.e. that Israel has been a gross human rights violator for some 50 years.

But dont get me wrong, Israel is not alone in its gross human rights violations over the years. The difference being that the United States does not veto every single resolution with teeth condemning any other countries attrocities. Maybe if Israel was able to be dealt with effectively by the UN, without US protection, the problems of Israel's violations would of been solved decades ago.

If Israel's violations were solved decades ago I would hypothesis that the amount of Arabs baying for Israel's blood would be much less than today.

Can we imagine bombers8's interpretation being applied to the likes of Iraq? If the United States veto'd any resolution critical of Iraq Saddam would still be in power, he would still be violating human rights and killing hundreds of people annually. Would the UN stop investigating him? Most likely not. Would it look like Iraq was coping more attention and toothless 'anti-Iraqi' resolutions than other countries? Definately.

You want to know why the UN is ineffective, it's the veto.

[edit on 28/7/06 by subz]

Clearly, you have no understanding of Islam. Jerusalem is as important to them as it is to the Jews - people just seem to forget they're as good as the same religion.

Actually, I do have a good understanding of Islam. Jews, Chrisitans, and Mulims all share the same god of Abraham.

Furthermore, if it was given back to shared control by Jewish, Muslim and Christian people it would be a good thing for them all.

I like that idea a lot. But I don't agree with Israel just giving up its capital to one side, carte blanche, especially since the opposition has shown no inclination to stand down.

Also, in 1947 [November] Irgun were meant to disarm and they never did. In fact, not long after a terrorist organisation became the IDF

Ok, so they became Israel's army. If it makes you feel any better, I'll call Hez an army instead of a terrorist organization. That should put them both on the same footing.

As for;

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559?
Took me 10 seconds to find that.

I was referencing a source posted by Wang. Thank you for pointing out that his source was flawed, therefore biased, which just proves my point.

We'll wait for your next State Sponsered Broadcast.

I'll send it on through as soon as it I get it from Imperial HQ.

Originally posted by subz

If Israel's violations were solved decades ago I would hypothesis that the amount of Arabs baying for Israel's blood would be much less than today.

That's because there would be less Israeli blood to bay over.

Can we imagine bombers8's interpretation being applied to the likes of Iraq? If the United States veto'd any resolution critical of Iraq Saddam would still be in power, he would still be violating human rights and killing hundreds of people annually. Would the UN stop investigating him? Most likely not. Would it look like Iraq was coping more attention and toothless 'anti-Iraqi' resolutions than other countries? Definately.

You want to know why the UN is ineffective, it's the veto.

[edit on 28/7/06 by subz]

Are you saying that if it weren't for the UN, Saddam would still be in power? Maybe I'm reading your statement wrong.

That veto is exactly what kept Saddam from being dealt with until the US acted without UN approval. So, in that case, you are right.

Originally posted by subz
I find the psychology behind bombers8 interpretation of the UN's actions against Israel very interesting. bombers8 thinks that the UN (aka The World) is anti-semitic because it investigates Israel more than any other nation. Absent from his analysis is the alternative interpretation i.e. that Israel has been a gross human rights violator for some 50 years.

Also absent is the fact that the conclusion that the UN is anti-Semitic because of space monkeys that tell them to be so. And for the same reason.

What is absent from your analysis is attention to the fact that the UN has never said squat about Arafat's sponsor of terrorism.

I wonder if the UN flag will be flown at half-mast, and if Kofi Annan will be "deeply moved" to give a "special tribute" to Ariel Sharon when he finally passses from this world.

Originally posted by subz
Of course your novel tallysheet does not prove anything but if it makes you feel better and that you are 'winning' so be it.

You're right it doesn't prove anything. Except that one side relies on factual information, while the other relies mostly on rhetoric, which is fine if you judge an issue based on who screams the loudest. So by quality over quantity, do you mean quality of talking points over quantity of facts? How very politician-esque of you.

Soooooo .... they didn't have the intelligence to move at some point? Six Hours???

Sounds like a good candidate for an entry for the "Darwin Awards".

Ten pages of posts for this???

"..... to be dealt with effectively by the UN..."

REPLY: The UN is the most corruot and ineffectual organization since the League of Nations. Oops.. basically the same thing, and they failed, too.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by zappafan1]

Israel will not defeat the hezbollah or the insurgency in iraq, you see there good at beating normal dysfunctional middle east armies like in the 6day war, but against guerilla warfare they cant win, this was seen during the veitnam war for instance.

Now, I feel that Israel and the socalled jews in the land are not semitic people most socalled jews are from europe originally, that land was controlled by the ottoman empire for 1000s of years. Then just because of the holocasut which the western, rothchild, zionist pupper masters engineered (how do you think the nazis got all that money to build an army out of the thin air... they were backed and financed by big time international bankers who munipulate both sides of the war).

Israel and the US have no regard for the UN or the red cross, infact Israel even attacked a US ship called the liberty back several decades ago. You see the US should get the hell out of the middle east stop backing israel and giving them weapons.

If the state of Israel was never created we could have avoided all this, all socalled religions which are at the root of this problem as well. CREATED to control us and cause warfare could have lived and dwelled there... I have more thoughts on this whole topic which I will post later.

My basic analysis of the situation is

1. the Global elite manipulate both sides of conflict via problem reaction solution.
2. the US top gov echelons engineered 911 and fund and train terrorist networks in order to invade the mideast ie oil war...
3. israel is the true terrorist state and has caused this war to try and defang hezbollah.
4. There will only be peace when both sides are mutually destroyed along with the rest of the human population. (long term illuminati plan for ww3)

"The US is ineffective.. the UN is no good.. the UN is no better than the league of nations.."

oh put a sock in it!!!
ENOUGH!!!
Lets hear 'WHY' some of feel that the UN is not worth it(whatever 'it' might be), and then we have a discussion or our hands..