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

by Daedalus3:

"This is not off-topic;'

REPLY: Yes it is. What does it have to do with: "Israel "Ignored" UN Troops Pleas To Stop Firing So Close To Them."

"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?!!!

REPLY: Those countries who have yet to become "civilized" (modern?) are in need of individual liberty and freedom, not external control who they cannot hire and fire. And, no, not every country will be participants. The UN Declaration of Human Rights has Marxist/Communist overtones, so you either do not understand that or are one who believes in those principles.

"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."

REPLY: Their resoulutions are about as valuable as Confederate Script. As previous posts have shown, they (the UN) are hardly neutral they fly a Hezbubble flag alongside their own, and allow Hez to fire into Isreal without complaint. How I choose to spell a terrorist organizations name is my own choice.

Information coming from the New York Sun, Fox News, or anyone else, is valid if what they present is true and factual. Too many people "shoot the messenger" if it is info that differs from their beliefs, or what they wish to be true.

Now.. back on topic please.

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

How is the UN biased?

This has all been covered in the past 12 pages. I'm not going to rehash it just because the question comes up again. I'm not intending to be rude, but it is all there for you to read.

This thread covers it as well:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

Does any one find it ironic that the Israeli government is now asking the UN to pull it out of the crapper, so to speak, and occupy a security zone it could not pacify in 18 years of occupation?

What country in their right mind would want to send it's own soldiers into a place where Israel can, will and does bomb UN troops with apparent impunity?

Originally posted by subz
What country in their right mind would want to send it's own soldiers into a place where Israel can, will and does bomb UN troops with apparent impunity?

Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.



The article didn't mention which country is the fourth one.

Edit - Link to another related article:

1,000 Malaysian soldiers for Lebanon

A thousand is not much... but hey, at least we're doing something. Unlike some more powerful countries

[edit on 5-8-2006 by Beachcoma]

I would be surprised if Israel "allowed" Malaysian or Indonesian troops to sit on its northern border. But then again it would give Israel a good excuse when Hezbollah continue to operate. It can then blame yet more Islamic nations for the woes it created for itself.

These UN soldiers must have been unaware that a war is going on around them. Do their commanders dispatch messages to them via pigeons?

UN soldiers; "Hi, Israel, could you please stop the war, the bombings are very loud?"
Israel: "WTF!"
UN soldiers: "Is that a yes?"

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Considering how anti-jew the UN is, the people in the post probably invited the
Hezbollah to cozy up to them thinking that would protect Hezbollah from Isreal.

Let's not forget what the UN is. It is the assembly of over 180 countries who try to deal with world issues as best they can. In the case of UN resolutions or policies (as with the recent creation of the new Council on Human Rights), whatever the majority decides goes. So saying that the UN is anti-jew would mean that most of the world is anti-jew.

Incidentally, the creation of the new UN council on human rights was opposed by a mere four countries - including the U.S. and Israel. If that means that the UN is anti-jew, then one would have to conclude that whatever is deemed against Israel's interests is anti-jew... and that would be a huge leap in logic.

Originally posted by skippytjUN = The most corrupt and useless oganization on the planet. Now terrorist collaborators.

Yes... let's invade the UN and spread democracy there as well... all 180 countries.

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

Originally posted by missed_gearThe failures of the UN in "peacekeeping" are very real...

Careful. Your conclusion seems to be based on the fact that the UN has failed in preserving the peace in the Middle East. There have been other missions (which unfortunately don't get as much media coverage) where the UN has played a key role - for example, UNMIL's work in maintaining law and order during Liberia's transition to democracy, or UNMEE's role as an official marker of the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea (also acting as a buffer between the two). It should be noted that intervening as a third party in a conflict is never easy, and automatically causes said third party to come under fire and criticism - sometimes deserved, often not.

Not to mention all the work that agencies like UNICEF and UNESCO do, namely, to promote better health and hygiene in developing countries and give girls better access to education.

Originally posted by missed_gearThat 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.

That would be because when third-party interventions are required, small, developing countries are perceived less as having an agenda than bigger countries. Whether it's warranted or not, people will trust troops from Benin or Paraguay to be neutral more than they will troops from France or the United States.

For the same reason, the UN Secretary General never comes from one of the five permanent member countries on the Security Council.

Edited for HTML code






[edit on 8-8-2006 by Otts]

reply to post by skippytjc


The photograph shows a Hizbollah flag in the foreground, on top of Sheil Abbad's tomb, in Houle, South Lebanon. It is not a Hizbollah position. The UN flag is flying from UNIFIL post 8-33, some meters away. The photograph is taken from INSIDE an IDF position, the edge of which is beside the tomb. I trust that you are not suggesting therefore, as your logic appears to suggest, that an alliance with Hizbollah is based on proximity to their flag. Because if you are, the IDF must be more allied with Hizbollah than the UN are.

You really shouldn't go on about things you know so little about.