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

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

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??


So the UN is worthless? Hec the US has a clown as a president; but I ain't giving up on the US. You seriously don't expect the UN to be blemish free do you?



The world would be a better place if one of the planes had missed and hit their building.


So you're saying that you'd want planes(which planes; IAF?) to hit UN buildings?
We should talk. I think there are more of your kind here on ATS.



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



I know Agenda 21. You read it again if you have already!!
Agenda 21
NWO it seems, and instead of reading 'between' the lines, read the 'lines' themselves for once!!
IF you still think Agenda 21 is a NWO Agenda then by all means go and preach the same in the NWO and conspiracies fora.
Shame!

Meanwhile let people and countries (mine incld) benefit from Agenda 21.




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


You tell me of ONE, one bloody long term military occupation/intervention that has NOT had any of the above?!!
Are you trying to say the UN condones such acts? Hell then apply the same damn logic elsewhere!!

You're blaming the darker aspects of human nature on the collective will of human kind. The UN like every other civilised entity has procedures to deal with the same.

And yes the UN has succeded in ventures other than giving food here and aid there:

1).
Peace keeping in Africa, and Europe:
Yes maybe your countries are too busy supplying troops around the world to fulfill your agendas, our countries are committing citizens by the 1000s to maintain peace in lands 1000s of miles away, which serve no strategic/economic interest to us.
Why do we send them there? You wouldn't understand, now would you?


2). NO resolution passed to invade Iraq in 2003 based on some ppt slide info!!
This is one instance the UN worked as an organisation that catered to the will of the majority of the people on this planet. You can cry fowl as much as like; claim everyone who opposed the move had vested interests, but let me ask you this? Who didn't??!!

You and your UN-hating kind insult these people and these moves just as much as they are insulted by the Oil for Food Fraud or the rapes you mention.


You don't want the UN? LEAVE IT..


Make a group of your own or something :"Coalition of the Willing" anybody?



Despite the large and growing number of contributors, most “Blue Helmets” continue to be provided by a core group of developing countries. The 10 main troop-contributors to UN peacekeeping operations as of 30 April 2006 were Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Jordan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Uruguay and South Africa, providing together more than 67 per cent of all UN military and police personnel. Less than 5.8 per cent came from the 25-member European Union and 0.5 per cent from the United States.
Source




Until the end of 2005, 2,226 people from over 100 countries have been killed while serving on peacekeeping missions, 1,789 of them being soldiers. Many of those came from India (115), Canada (113) and Ghana (108). Thirty percent of the fatalities in the first 55 years of UN peacekeeping occurred in the years 1993-1995.
Source




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I dont know if anyone mentioned this, but the isreal's were trying to get hal's. The hal's use un bunkers/towers as cheap ass cover to fire thier rockets.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
I dont know if anyone mentioned this, but the isreal's were trying to get hal's. The hal's use un bunkers/towers as cheap ass cover to fire thier rockets.


Comprehendable maybe(after an inquiry of course), but to claim that the UN deserved it, is preposterous.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes maybe your countries are too busy supplying troops around the world to fulfill your agendas, our countries are committing citizens by the 1000s to maintain peace in lands


A bit “holier than thou” eh…better check you six…wow!

Monrovia 2003, US marines called in to support UN forces, Bosnia 1996, US army places troops under UN command, when the UN peacekeepers were getting over run in Somalia…the US sends 25k troops…who showed-up when the UN peacekeepers were having problems in Haiti…the US Navy even once sending a carrier strike force parking it of the coast, the US is very involved in NATO peacekeeping as well…the Texas National guard 36th division is in Kosovo right now with over 1200 troops under the MNTF the list goes on…oh, and don’t forget the Korean War was a UN action (the “UN Offensive” began in September of 1950).…

Seems the US is just a call away for the UN….peacekeepers…

…Also the US funds separate peacekeeping missions such as it did for the AU and the US represents 27% of the peacekeeping budget this year and 22% of the regular budget….and on the subject of food…the us is 57% of the UN World Food Fund…and USAID has ten (10) times the budget of the UN.

Additionally the US trains and equips peacekeepers such as in Burundi, Sierra Leone, East Timor, etc.…provides state of the art equipment for KFOR and SFOR….The US transports peacekeepers to regions such as with UNASMIL and Nigerian peacekeeping battalions the USN provides security to numerous regions etc…all outside of the UN.

The US failing to support “peacekeeping” is a load of…..

The failures of the UN in "peacekeeping" are very real...



mg



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Thanks, Missed Gear, as I was going to mention many of the same things; but go easy, as many do not like being confused by the facts.

I don't know what country he/she lives in, but it must be one which does not mind their soverignty being over-ruled by Agenda 21. It is indeed the NWO most are afraid of, but which is usually blamed on US interests.


"... So the UN is worthless? Hec the US has a clown as a president;


REPLY: Thats odd.... some said the same thing about Reagan.

[edit on 29-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
just like when i was little every time someone did some thing bad all the other kids would go ooooooohhh im telling on you!


lol but why does israel think they are the big kid on the block in that area? i think they should watch what they do because i bet right now a lot of arab and muslim countries are going to do something to retalliate... so israel heads up



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Mdv2: "suspected" is the operative term that you should have bolded.

"It's there to observe and report tensions"


REPLY: As has been reported in a post on another page, from those on the ground in the area in question, the UN compounds (and probably the UN itself), knew that Hezbubble were firing from, or in the vicinity of, the UN compounds.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
It appears that V Kaminski chose to "ignore" me because, I assume, I confused him with the facts, or I caught him in a whopper. Since he feels it's my fault, then I suppose it's up to me to apologize for him not wanting to carry on a rational, informed duscussion.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
Thanks, Missed Gear, as I was going to mention many of the same things; but go easy, as many do not like being confused by the facts.


Yeah like he quoted a ton there didn't he?

I didn't say that the US doesn't contribute to the UN, I said that it never committed as many troops as more developing countries did . I'm still waiting on sources for those US troop commissions(25k somewhere?).



I don't know what country he/she lives in, but it must be one which does not mind their soverignty being over-ruled by Agenda 21. It is indeed the NWO most are afraid of, but which is usually blamed on US interests.


Huh??!! You'd like to explain yourself?? with facts of course!!..



REPLY: Thats odd.... some said the same thing about Reagan.


Right.. and your point being??

[edit on 29-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thermopolis
Lets face it, the UN has done nothing to stop terrorist from attacking Isreal. Perhaps Isreal did just kill a terrorist forward observer post.

Who cares the UN is useless...........there guys might have been the ones who raped all those little girls in the Congo. God just punished them. Way to go God!


Right. How bout this. israel is useless. Why can't God just punish them so that we wouldn't have to listen to their whining and political/religious self adulation. If they weren't around things would be much better. The UN isn't the problem here. Ahmadinejad is right, and I give him the thumbs up all the way for his view on israel.
C'mon god take out the trash please.

brill

[edit on 30-7-2006 by brill]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yeah like he quoted a ton there didn't he?


As many as you…however at I went farther and referenced them with corresponding information anyone could look-up…typical.



Originally posted by Daedalus3
I'm still waiting on sources for those US troop commissions(25k somewhere?).


One of hundreds of links….


(August 15, 1992)
Deteriorating security prevents the UN mission from delivering food and supplies to the starving Somalis. Relief flights are looted upon landing, food convoys are hijacked and aid workers assaulted. The UN appeals to its members to provide military forces to assist the humanitarian operation.

(December 4, 1992)
..On December 5, the UN accepts his offer, and Bush orders 25,000 US troops into Somalia. On December 9th, the first US Marines land on the beach…
Source


You can look up the rest brainiac…"spoon feeding" may be an issue here.





mg



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:40 PM
link   
My quote: "I don't know what country he/she lives in, but it must be one which does not mind their sovereignty being over-ruled by Agenda 21. It is indeed the NWO most are afraid of...." (The EU is playing it's part, too).

Daedalus3: "Huh??!! You'd like to explain yourself?? with facts of course!!"

REPLY: Here's one example:
A- The political theory underlying "Sustainable Development" (one part of Agenda 21) is that man’s actions must be controlled and managed in accordance with the global ‘freedoms and rights’ as arranged in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 29 Sec 3 of that document states; "In no event may the freedoms and rights be exercised contrary to the principles and policies of the United Nations.

So, no matter what rights and freedoms your country allows or guarantees, they will eventually be under UN control and not your sovereign laws. I'm not going to be drawn into getting off topic again.



[edit on 30-7-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Here's some more showing Hezbubble in civilian areas. Even the UN envoy confirms the info:
"Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as "cowards" for operating among civilians.

"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," he said."

[link] www.news.com.au...



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 02:20 AM
link   


By June, only 1,200 US combat soldiers remained in Somalia, with 3,000 support troops.


From your source itself.
25000 aye? For how long; a few months? And since then? its been 14 years and no shortage of incidents.
There's another issue of hesistance to give operational troop command to the UN since then.

Lets not kid ourselves here




A- The political theory underlying "Sustainable Development" (one part of Agenda 21) is that man’s actions must be controlled and managed in accordance with the global ‘freedoms and rights’ as arranged in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Article 29 Sec 3 of that document states; "In no event may the freedoms and rights be exercised contrary to the principles and policies of the United Nations.

So, no matter what rights and freedoms your country allows or guarantees, they will eventually be under UN control and not your sovereign laws. I'm not going to be drawn into getting off topic again.


This is not off-topic;
If 'your' country's rights and freedom are in contradiction to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, then you live a place when UN intervention is required. Its clauses like this which the UN the power to move into regions like Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Darfur(Sudan).I doubt you live in any of these and if you do then I feel sorry for you and suggest you relocate. Without clauses this the UN is toothless/clawless.
Every civilised society/country will have rules and regulations in accordance with the basic Declaration of Human Rights of the UN

What in blazes does that have to do with a NWO agenda?!!!


Nobody's denying the fact that Hezbollah is using cowardly tactics to furhter its cause. wtf does this have to do with the UN? The UN hasn't got a peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Its an observation mission which means its totally neutral. Anything it films/records can be used as evidence to pass further resolutions using the UN process(i.e. this documentation is not for anyone and everyone!).



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Does purposefully spelling Hezbollah incorrectly some how do anything other than look immature? Is Nasrallah going to read the infantilasation of his organisations name and then, after recoiling in horror, seek to disband his besmirched band?



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Let me remind you of your statement:


Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes maybe your countries are too busy supplying troops around the world to fulfill your agendas, our countries are committing citizens by the 1000s to maintain peace in lands


I have provided plenty of information to show the above statement is absolutely incorrect and a false generalization only concerning the United States.

Specific examples can be easily checked…the examples I gave were specific…there are more, you of course realize…

That said, developing countries have been the backbone of UN Peacekeepers for quite some time, this is nothing new…developing countries need the opportunity, training and money not to mention nearly all peacekeeping missions are in what are considered developing countries. Go figure…


Originally posted by Daedalus3
From your source itself.
25000 aye? For how long; a few months? And since then? its been 14 years and no shortage of incidents.

You made claims…I gave some specific examples of direct involvement…then a link…now you argue “time”…*shrugs shoulder*……. You apparently have not read anything I posted…the UN does not have the monopoly on international peace keeping missions…although they want one…


Originally posted by Daedalus3
There's another issue of hesistance to give operational troop command to the UN since then.


This completely deviates from your original point, but has some relevance.

Perhaps it is not clearly understood about the lack of protection the ICC gives troops in transit or the lack of protection from third party nations etc. Bush is not the first administration to stand against ICC jurisdiction (see the Dayton Accords). The ICC guides are weak and could and would be abused by third party nations as a means of policy harassment.

“Having accepted these risks, by exposing people to dangerous and difficult situations in the service of promoting peace and stability, we will not ask them to accept the additional risk of politicized prosecutions before a court whose jurisdiction over our people the government of the United States does not accept”-Negroponte 2002

I am in agreement with the US… the UN is trying to maintain its’ authority in world peacekeeping missions because the UN peacekeeping branch needs to justify continued existence in the face of huge peacekeeping failures as to purport an image of legitimacy. The UN peacekeeping operations are extremely fearful of becoming (if not ready) completely obsolete in this area generally attributed to a lack of international will.

Why do you think nations are requesting NATO instead of UN peacekeepers?…certainly not from a lack of ICC oversight/jurisdiction.

mg



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
missed_gear

You have done an outstanding job of portraying the facts. As soon as I get another way-above vote, you've got it. Quite frankly, I thought the issue would start do settle down after the New York Sun article, but one thing I have found from this thread is that solid info holds little weight.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The New York Sun is not exactly the most reliable source for unbiased reporting. They are a paper that makes no bones about their far-right & unreservedly pro-Israeli political slant. From Wikipedia:


The paper's staff include many well-known political conservatives. Major backers of the paper include Bruce Kovner, a billionaire financier who is also a backer of the conservative Manhattan Institute and American Enterprise Institute, and Roger Hertog, a trustee of the American Enterprise Institute. The newspaper's president and editor-in-chief is Seth Lipsky, formerly editor of The Forward, a Jewish-oriented weekly, and its managing editor is Ira Stoll.

The Sun was created to establish a pro-free market conservative broadsheet in New York City to rival the New York Times. One of the founders of the Sun, in fact, previously established and edited a website devoted to issuing daily critiques of the Times. Like the Washington Times, which was launched as a conservative rival to the Washington Post, the Sun is close to the Republican Party and conservative intellectuals. Especially on foreign policy issues the Sun's editorial opinions resemble those of the neoconservative The Weekly Standard magazine.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Kind of counterbalances the BBC's anti-Israeli slant. And one thing that is missing is anyone disproving what the New York Sun article said. After the initial post of the BBC article, a lot of effort went in to showing that things weren't how originally portrayed in that article, and from varying sources. All anyone has to do is bring forward some new information defending Kofi's original claims. I think that from an objective point of view, there has been a lot of evidence in this thread that the UN administration has some bias in this issue.



posted on Jul, 31 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by hogtie
I think that from an objective point of view, there has been a lot of evidence in this thread that the UN administration has some bias in this issue.



How is the UN biased? This is what they said when it all started. No where do I see where it says that Hizbollah can keep the Soldiers and that Hizbollah is free to do whatever it wants to Israel. Its a fair statement. Blaming Israel's track to take the side of excessive and unnecessary force on the UN is about as lame as Israel trying to blame their war crimes on Hizbollah. Enough with the excuses.



He said that the Secretary-General had condemned Hizbollah’s initial attack, and had called for the captured soldiers’ immediate and unconditional release. He had also called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint, and to respect their obligations under international humanitarian law, Mr. Guéhenno added.

Following those briefings, Lebanon’s representative said the Council was meeting “in the shadow of a widespread barbaric aggression waged by Israel at this very moment against my nation”. He warned that Israel’s destruction of vital bridges, roads and buildings, and the killing and maiming of hundreds of Lebanese civilians “will not resolve the problem, but will further complicate it”.



He said the Israeli Government had held Lebanon responsible for Hizbollah’s acts, even though the Lebanese Government had issued a statement on 12 July, declaring that it was not aware of the incident, that it did not take responsibility for it, and did not endorse what had happened. Israel’s subsequent aggression undermined Lebanon’s sovereignty and attempts to exercise its authority over its entire territory, he said, calling on the Council to take a clear decision to establish a ceasefire and to end the air and sea blockade imposed on Lebanon.



Israel’s’ representative said that Hizbollah terrorists continued to act with impunity in southern Lebanon. They had carried out their heinous acts and then retreated to the Hizbollah stronghold in southern Lebanon. Israel had to respond, as any sovereign Government would, to the assault that had been carried out against it on a scale that had not been seen in recent years. Israel’s actions had been in direct response to Hizbollah’s actions, he declared, stressing that Israel had targeted Hizbollah strongholds and infrastructure, not civilian targets.



Unfortunately, since Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese Government had chosen to succumb to terror, rather than vanquish it, and to relinquish control of its country, rather than exercise it sovereignty. It had become a country held hostage and tormented by decades of sectarian strife, political assassinations, full-fledged civil war and Syrian control. He said the Council had a duty to help the Lebanese people achieve the goal of a free, prosperous and democratic Lebanon. It was up to the Council and the international community to see that the opportunity was seized, for the sake of generations to come.



Speaking in his national capacity, the representative of France, which holds the Council Presidency for the month, said that Israel had the right to defend its territory and its citizens when attacked –- and it had been attacked -- but he condemned the disproportionate nature of the response. The response threatened to erase Lebanese efforts to restore its economy and State authority throughout the territory, as well as to consolidate democracy.



Condemning the destruction of infrastructures, as well as the blockade, he said: “The Lebanese people must not be taken hostage.” Freedom of movement for Lebanese and foreigners must be restored immediately. There could be no military solution to the crisis, or to any conflict that had affected the Middle East for decades, he continued. Those conflicts fed on each other. He wholeheartedly supported the missions of the United Nations and the European Union to the region. He called upon parties to immediately end hostilities and called for respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all parties.


UN Security Council 7/14/2006





new topics
 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join