Originally posted by Daedalus3
"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..

REPLY: One only has to look at their record since their change from the League of Nations to the United nations. They're good at delivering food. sometimes. Need I remind you of the Oil for Fraud program?? The world would be a better place if one of the planes had missed and hit their building.

Many talk about the NWO... well, THAT is what the UN wants. Geez.... go read Agenda 21.

You've not heard of UN "Peacekeepers" raping women and children in Africa, and Mr. Coffee says nothing.

".... Israel has been a gross human rights violator for some 50 years."

REPLY: Hmmmmm care to remind us of when the last time Isreali people suicide-bombed civilians?

[edit on 28-7-2006 by zappafan1]

I heard that the UN knew that their "Peacekeeper" Station on the border was occasionaly hiding Hezbubble members, and allowing them to shoot at those in Iraqi territory.

Hmmmmm... sort of puts the end to Mr. Coffee's story, doesn't it?

I'll provide a link asap.

Originally posted by bombers8
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.

Im sorry but that is no where near to fulfilling the burden of proof required to paint the entire UN as anti-semitic. What the hell is a space monkey?

Originally posted by bombers8
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.

Why should they give a special tribute to a convicted war criminal like Sharon?

Originally posted by hogtie
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.

Are you assuming that what people link to is considered fact? Did you have any criteria to base your tally on? Did you examine the voracity of the links submitted in this thread? If I linked to a wikipedia that was written by some biased authour would you throw that into my 'side' as a factual link?

What you are calling rhetoric I class as people's opinions, which is what this discussion board solicits. We dont want people to only quote external sources and copy and paste URLs, we want to hear what they think and what they have to say. That is to be backed up with pertinent quotes and links if needed, but not necessary.

No one is forcing anyone to believe what you or I say, that is up to the reader to decide. If you feel you have said as much as you can on the topic and that you are convincing, fine, leave it at that. But dont try and paint some kind of superior picture of your 'side' based on the number of URLs posted or quoted in this thread, that's useless.

[edit on 28/7/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Im sorry but that is no where near to fulfilling the burden of proof required to paint the entire UN as anti-semitic. What the hell is a space monkey?

My fault. I thought that you were capable of seeing the sarcasm directed against your statement that "israel has been a gross violator of human rights for over 50 years"

Originally posted by bombers8
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.

Why should they give a special tribute to a convicted war criminal like Sharon?

Convicted war criminal? And Yassar Arafat, who did receive a "special tribute" and a UN flag flown at half mast, was a humanitarian?

It's plain to see which side your sentiments fall on, regardless of your attempt to paint yourself as a moderate.

Originally posted by subz

Are you assuming that what people link to is considered fact? Did you have any criteria to base your tally on? Did you examine the voracity of the links submitted in this thread? If I linked to a wikipedia that was written by some biased authour would you throw that into my 'side' as a factual link?

See, its obvious you didn't even look at the links provided, to verify their data yourself. None was to Wiki, and the one of dubious credibility was condemning Israel. The rest were legitimate news sources and official documents. At least I read the links posted by those whose views differ from my own. Why didn't you do the same?

What you are calling rhetoric I class as people's opinions, which is what this discussion board solicits. We dont want people to only quote external sources and copy and paste URLs, we want to hear what they think and what they have to say. That is to be backed up with pertinent quotes and links if needed, but not necessary.

Opinion, backed by nothing, yet regurgitated again and again is rhetoric. I don't want people to quote external sources only either, but how do you expect to change anyone's mind if you don't? So, I like to see opinions backed up by fact. It may change my mind. And if you don't expect to effect change, then just blog, where you don't get so much feedback, and you can vent all you like without uncomfortable truths popping up.

No one is forcing anyone to believe what you or I say, that is up to the reader to decide. If you feel you have said as much as you can on the topic and that you are convincing, fine, leave it at that. But dont try and paint some kind of superior picture of your 'side' based on the number of URLs posted or quoted in this thread, that's useless.

Well, we've got one person demanding that we prove that the UN is worthless, and you condemning the sources that do. And you are right, it is up to the reader to decide. I just find facts more convincing than verbiosity. By comparing the numbers of cited sources, I was hoping that instead of whining about it, someone would get off their duff and back up the anti-Israeli argument. Aparently that requires more work than just mouthing dissaproval. If this were an academic paper, intelligence, or legitimate news, sources would be everything. So don't complain. Do the work.

Since you've been a member for only one month you might not be aware that I source everything I quote.

But you seem to be under some serious misconception that everything that comes from "official" news sources or publications are fact. That is just not true. I'm sure you'd offer the idea if I got a quote from some mainstream publication/news source that differed from your own views. And the kicker is that I would not disabuse you of that criticism because you'd be RIGHT.

Also im not going to be dragged into the minutia of 200+ posts, I simply do not have the time. If you feel you've accomplished some kind of victory by tallying URLs and arbitrarily ruling on their voracity then im in no position to challenge it. I just think you're wasting your time.

Originally posted by subz
Since you've been a member for only one month you might not be aware that I source everything I quote.

Ouch. You got me. I'm new, and dumb as a brick, to boot. Most people source their quotes. I'm just suprised you quoted. You get a point!

But you seem to be under some serious misconception that everything that comes from "official" news sources or publications are fact.

But I'm not that new.

Also im not going to be dragged into the minutia of 200+ posts, I simply do not have the time.

Its a shame, really. At least I read your posts, and did everyone else the same courtesy before replying.

Originally posted by hogtie
Ouch. You got me. I'm new, and dumb as a brick, to boot. Most people source their quotes. I'm just suprised you quoted. You get a point!

It wasnt an attack. You feigned surprise that I sourced a quote. I was giving you a context that I always source my quotes.

Originally posted by hogtie
Its a shame, really. At least I read your posts, and did everyone else the same courtesy before replying.

I read them all, im just not going to go over them all with a fine tooth comb on a fools errand of tallying up the amount of URLs and pontificating on which are "factual" and which are "false". Gee, I'd have to be paid to do something like that!

Originally posted by subz

It wasnt an attack. You feigned surprise that I sourced a quote. I was giving you a context that I always source my quotes....

I read them all, im just not going to go over them all with a fine tooth comb on a fools errand of tallying up the amount of URLs and pontificating on which are "factual" and which are "false". Gee, I'd have to be paid to do something like that!

I've gotten off topic, and I'll admit that the score keeping was sarcastic. It is just that some of the arguments have begun to sound repetative, and it is tiresome when someone has gone to the trouble of supplying outside information and getting nothing but a "nuh-uh" by way of reply. And I'm not talking about myself. Others on here have done a lot of work, and posted some good information. I apologize for being sarcastic towards you about posting, instead of focusing on the issue.

And if I am getting paid, all you have to do is convince others that I'm wrong. A salary won't change facts.

Puhleeze... General Mackenzie is a twice-failed political hack of the same persuasion as the current regime in Ottawa... on the CTV payroll as a consultant and spouts the same made in Tel Aviv, rubber-stamped in DC junk. I served with him in Cyprus as a direct sub-ordinate when he was an up-and-comer... not a well liked or particuloarly trusted individual. McBackstabber. I can't wait for his offer to appear at a pro-Lebanon rally materializes. It may be entertaining to watch. I will wait for the investigation and when it reports... we'll have a better idea? BTW Did you know DND has a policy that dis-encourages/prevents folks from talking to the press about such things? Perhaps the squeaky wheel got greased? Accident my foot. Hmmm, CTV was the email recipient, "Blue-Lew" on the payroll...

Victor K.

by V Kaminski:
Puhleeze... General Mackenzie is a twice-failed political hack.

REPLY: All you wrote might in fact be true and factual. However, it's what Maj. Kruedener (and others) had to say about what happened that matters.

Yes, General Mackenzie's interpretation of supposed "code" (baloney, you call it in - it is what it is) is just that... a dis-informing guess. Like the targetting? There should be "Hell-to-pay", but I really think this'll go "under-rug-swept". Maybe the Chinese will pursue it but I doubt it.

Thanx, you are correct,

Victor K.

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Yes, General Mackenzie's interpretation of supposed "code" (baloney, you call it in - it is what it is) is just that... a dis-informing guess. Like the targetting? There should be "Hell-to-pay", but I really think this'll go "under-rug-swept". Maybe the Chinese will pursue it but I doubt it. Victor K.

REPLY: So you refuse to accept what the in-theater soldier said? What's up?.... did Mackenzie bust you down to private at some point? Did you tell him what you thought of him to his face? Perhaps the "code" mentioned is something new to you for some reason?

Read it again Mr. Wizard. It won't make a diff to who killed who. I won't even reply.... Buh bye ... Engaging ignore function. Click.

Victor K.