US vetos Israeli UN condemnation of Gaza air strikes!, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 17-11-2006 @ 02:58 AM by stumason
Originally posted by IAF101
The British army commited numerous attrocities in Ireland, dont preach like the British army fought the good fight there! They tortured and brutally cordoned off much of Dublin in their efforts to check the IRA.

Your condecending attitude is not based in facts. Ask anybody in Ireland !


When are you talking of here? 1922?

I think you'll find it was pro-treaty Free State troops versus the anti-treaty IRA. Barely any British Troops were involved. Hence why it was called the Irish Civil War.

Battle of Dublin

In April 1922, 200 anti-treaty IRA militants led by Rory O'Connor, occupied the Four Courts in Dublin, resulting in a tense stand-off. These Anti-Treaty Republicans wanted to spark a new armed confrontation with the British, which they hoped would unite the two factions of the IRA against their common enemy. However, for those who were determined to make the Free State into a viable, self-governing Irish state, this was an act of rebellion that would have to be put down by them rather than the British. Arthur Griffith was in favour of using force against these men immediately, but Michael Collins wanted at all costs to avoid civil war and left the Four Courts garrison alone until late June 1922, when his hand was forced by British pressure.

Ironically, the British lost patience as result of an action ordered by Collins. He had Henry Hughes Wilson, a retired British General, assassinated in London on the 22nd of June because of his role in attacks on Catholics in Northern Ireland [2]

Winston Churchill assumed that the anti-treaty IRA were responsible for the killing and warned Collins that he would use British troops to attack the Four Courts unless the Free State took action. The final straw for the Free State government came on the 27th of June, when the Four Courts republican garrison kidnapped JJ "Ginger" O'Connell, a general in the new National Army. Collins, after giving the Four Courts garrison a final ultimatum to leave the building, decided to end the stand-off by bombarding the Four Courts garrison into surrender. The government then appointed Collins as Commander-in-Chief of the National Army. This attack was not the opening shots of the war as skirmishes had taken place between pro and anti treaty IRA factions throughout the country when the British were handing over barracks. However this represented the 'point of no return' when all out war was ipso facto declared and the Civil War officially began.

Michael Collins had accepted a British offer of artillery for use by the new army of the Free State (though General Nevil Macready gave just 200 shells of the 10,000 he had in store at Kilmainham barracks). The anti-treaty forces in the Four Courts, who possessed only small arms, surrendered after two days of bombardment and the storming of the building by Free State troops (28th-30th of June 1922). Pitched battles continued in Dublin until July 5, as anti-Treaty IRA units from the Dublin Brigade led by Oscar Traynor occupied O'Connell Street - provoking a week's more street fighting. The fighting cost both sides sixty-five killed and twenty-eight wounded. Among the dead was Republican leader Cathal Brugha. In addition, the Free State took over 500 Republican prisoners. The civilian casualties are thought to have numbered well over 250.

When the fighting in Dublin died down, the Free State Government was left firmly in control of the Irish capital and the anti-treaty forces dispersed around the country, mainly to the south and west.


As for you comment, oppression is oppression, so you agree that the Israeli's are oppressing the Palestinians?

I am not going to cloud over the British involvement in Ireland. But that was during a different time in the world.

What we're talking about when we ask "what if we shelled Dublin" is during the Troubles, not the Irsish Civil War in the 20's. Big difference.


reply posted on 17-11-2006 @ 05:08 PM by ThePieMaN
Well this is just atypical. Israel doesn't like what it hears in the UN and just ignores it as usual and prefers to get a more favorable response from their supporters instead.


More of the "If you are not with us, then you are with terror" campaigning
Gellerman get with the picture..it didn't work in American politicing this time around either.



Israel's UN envoy walks out of session on Beit Hanun shelling

By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, and Haaretz Service

Israel's ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman walked out of a UN General Assembly emergency session on Gaza Strip shelling in protest Friday, saying his words were falling on deaf ears and that he was better off holding a nearby press conference.

The session was called to discuss a condemnation of the errant Israel Defense Forces shelling in Beit Hanun last week, which left 20 Palestinians dead.

The resolution is expected to be passed by a large majority.

Prior to the debate, Gillerman said the session is a "humiliation and cynical exploitation of the UN, and whoever lends a hand to this decision is lending a hand to terror."

The United States ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, warned member states against approving the proposal, saying it would undermine the organization's relevance.

Bolton appears as the lapdog that he is
I think Bolton meant it would undermine Israels intent to just shove it under the rug as a routine error. Bolton needs to be an ambassador for Israel not the USA.I think he shows with who his allegiances lie, quite obvious at this point.


Source


Pie


reply posted on 18-11-2006 @ 07:38 PM by deadbang
Pieman, I disagree with you..IMO, John Bolton is the last chance the U.S. has for staying in and working with the U.N. It's a corrupt orginization that has become a bully pulpit for nations intent on the staus quo...ie...lets get nothing done that will really benefit the worlds people.

But that's a discussion for another forum...

here is a quote from ambassador Bolton that while addressing another tragedy of war(Canadian troop deaths), I believe expresses a more realistic view and is more to the topic at hand....

“I think it would be a mistake to ascribe moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts...It's simply not the same thing to say that it's the same act...to fire rockets and use explosive devices or kidnapping versus the sad and highly unfortunate consequences of self-defense”

I believe what he is saying and others on this board as well...myself included is...there IS a difference between indiscriminately lobbing rockets at civilians and an error in targeting, calculations, whatever you choose to call it...

Palestinians would never really be able to claim an accidental hit on a target...the fact is when you throw that much hardware into the sky...you ARE gonna hit something...
Israel on the other hand has to continually defend each shot it takes...why?, because they have better hardware?...I think the intensions are completely different

Palestinians are trying to hit everything in Israel within range..people, bldgs, etc...
Israel is just trying to hit the offenders, those firing the rockets.


reply posted on 18-11-2006 @ 09:43 PM by ThePieMaN
Originally posted by deadbang
Absolute, I believe that would be the difference between being out in the open engaging in battle as opposed to hiding in amonst the civilian populace...



This argument has been used over and over and over again by the israelis. Its really such a sorry excuse. "We gave them warnings, there is no one else who would do such things" and then following the warnings they bomb the roadways, gas stations and bridges. Since it was already obvious the Hizbollah were not fighting near the civilians they made it so that it looked like they were. In Gaza, Palestine where can you go that there will not be people? LOL The place is the size of a postage stamp. If its like that, then maybe they shouldn't be using Aerial Defense or Artillary and they should be sticking with ground forces instead , but they don't mind risking the necks of palestinian civilians rather then risking their own and Israel fights them where they are far away and comfiortably safe from the battlefield.

The problem is as an Occupier you are responsible for the safety of those who are being occupied, if you are not prepared to protect the ones you choose of your own free will to occupy , then you should cease occupying them. I would think that makes sense normally. There is one reason and one reason only they chose this option...to crush them any chance they get, keep them under their control and to make them leave through force and terror.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Former NAVY SEAL Rebukes Obama
  Posted 16 days ago with 7 member flags
What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
Is this the only politician in europe that is not blind?
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Newsweek Cover: \'The First Gay President\'
  Posted 13 days ago with 4 member flags
Westboro Baptist Church
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags
Congress Revolts On Obama Plan That Would Ban ‘Buy American’
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags
Police Pursue 4-Year-Old for Overdue Library Book
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags