It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US vetos Israeli UN condemnation of Gaza air strikes!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
To the people that are in their minds defending theirself, the opposition side is expendable.

In that if Iran launched a nuclear bomb at America, and it hit a small town in the midwest, killing 100 people, It would be acceptable to destroy the entire capital of Iran, with a (made up population of 20,000,000). America by a large percentage would accept this as a acceptable action.

I feel the same is true of the Israel people and America. If some nut sector attacks Israel, then the retaliation, no matter how severe is acceptable.

If they kill 6, then Israel kills 500. If they kill 500, then Israel kills 5000. Keep this going until the radicals realize the cost to them is not worth what they continue to do.

So the UK would have been justified in bombing / shelling Dublin and the US would have consistently vetoed any resolutions condemning such UK action?

Face it the oppression, death and mutilation of Palestinians is being overlooked in the cause of US realpolitik

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:23 PM
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 !

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 10:39 PM
Oh I get it you're referring to pre-1922? Over 80 years ago?!

At that time Dublin was part of the UK so it's not the same situation at all.

As you know the UN didn't exist then so you're just being deliberately disingenuous

posted on Nov, 16 2006 @ 11:53 PM
Oppression is oppression, 80 years or 80 minutes ago!

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:46 AM
So, what IAF is saying here is that he supports the actions of the IRA, and that the British were wrong in everything they did.

So he supports terrorism, and yet argues against the actions of Hezbollah.

Why do you support terrorism IAF?

(Note, this is written in a heavily sarcastic tone, but if you choose to defend your own atrocities by labelling the actions of another country as inappropriate, then you are defending that countries enemies. And if you want to talk about opression, then building walls to segregate people and treat them as second class citizens isn't exactly a poster model for an enlightend society, is it?)

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:52 AM
You senile attempt at drawing me into some sort of an intellectual exchange is laughable at best. All reasonable people can understand what I wish to imply, if you willingly refuse to do so that is your problem.

Nobody has the moral right to dictate what is and what isnt acceptable to Israel while Israel fights to defend its people and maintain its territorial integrity.

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 02:58 AM

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.

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:00 AM

Originally posted by IAF101
You senile attempt at drawing me into some sort of an intellectual exchange is laughable at best.

Indeed. Only a fool would attempt doing that! It would be like getting blood out of a stone.

So, what your saying is, the UK would be well within it's rights to attack Dublin during the Troubles, kill thousands of innocent Irish, as we would only have been protecting our citizens?

Is that what your saying?

posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 05:08 PM
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 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.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:38 PM
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 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 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 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.

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by deadbang

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.

I do not know you so I can say nothing about your character. But this position is ridiculous. What kind of justification is that? How could one rationalize that? Are you just that naive and misinformed? Or do you just swallow up the mainstream media as truth? The last conflict left over 800 palestinians dead MOSTLY CIVILIANS and 187 israelis MOSTLY SOLDIERS. Google it for yourself.

So poor rudimentary weaponry (as you say) managed to kill more soldiers, yet isreal's modern tech killed mostly civilains. Nice work. Think. Research. Then speak.


posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

So poor rudimentary weaponry (as you say) managed to kill more soldiers, yet isreal's modern tech killed mostly civilains.

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...

Sorry Absolute, but they don't get to be both...either your engaged in the struggle or your on the sidelines...but you don't get to take pot shots from the sidelines..

And you should check your attitude..
"Nice work. Think. Research. Then speak"...your right you don't know me...and your insinuation that I dont think before I speak is RUDE!!, are you here to pick little fights? or discuss as an adult?...there are two side to every discussion, or are we just here to hear yours???

posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 08:10 PM
That's just it... I don't beleive you are discussing both sides. I didn't intend to offend and I'm sorry if I did. I just can't see your position. I don't know how you can disregard so many factors. So many completely nefarious statements about palestinians from isreali policy makers.

The bottom line is that israel stole the land (in the eyes of the palestinians) and now have the backing of the world powers defending every sinister move they make? Let me ask you this... What should the palestinans do? Resin to living their lives as slaves? (as areil sharon said) "They can stay if they're resigned to being our slaves." This is the truth behid the propaganda. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean palestinains and iranians and all the other arbs don't see what they are trying to do. They are trying to prevent it from happening.

Isn't that what the US does. Sees a threat and preemptively strikes? We are ridiculing the very thing that makes us who we are. The only thing throwing us all off is that they are willing to die for their beliefs. How do you rationalize that? They're all just nutsos? I agree, but it is their oppressive situation that has killed their desire for rational acts. These are just a few of the circumstances that should be considered before making judgement in isreal's favor.


posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:43 PM

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 crush them any chance they get, keep them under their control and to make them leave through force and terror.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:11 PM
Pieman, Stumason, Absolute and Strangerous...Well guys I guess we will have to agree to disagree...and for my part, with all due respect to you all...apologies if in my posts I came across as unwilling to listen or at least entrenched with my own ideals.

I won't use this as a passive-aggressive attempt to get my view across one last time...If I (and you) didn't change anyone's mind by now...we won't.

I will say I enjoyed very much the discussion and the alternative views, and look forward to debating/discussing with all of you in the furure...whichever side of the coin we end up on...

thanks guys!

[edit on 19-11-2006 by deadbang]

[edit on 19-11-2006 by deadbang]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:23 PM
No problem. for my part, I have no issues with debating with someone with a complete opposite view to that of mine, as long as it remains civil and on the whole, you have. I know I too can come across as a complete git sometimes, so sorry if I did to you.

For what it's worth, I doubt we're actually that far from agreement, but there are issues that we do seem to have a polarised view on.

You believe Israel has the right to protect itself. I agree. What we disagree on is the method.

We probably would disagree on other aspects of Israeli policy too, but then, where would the fun be if everyone agreed?

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:56 PM
Deadbang, you have left a warm feeling in my heart. I agree with you on the disagreeing part.

That is what makes progress great, a coin with two sides. We all must learn to listen without the fear of being wrong. My apologies as well fellow debater.


posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 07:11 PM
I agree too.

Debating such complex issues on a web-forum is never going to solve a very difficult situation but if peoples' views are nudged slightly it's worthwhile.

I don't think anyone can seriously question Israel's right to defend itself and I certainly accept that when hot metal is flying innocents get in the way, of course any Army can make mistakes - no-one is infallible.

I think the key point a lot of us are trying to make is that Israel is not a special case, the burden of responsible action falls on them as it does on everyone.

From my perspective Israel is treated as a special case, allowed to excuse actions and policies any other country would have to account for. The reasons for this special treatment are deep-rooted and do rest, mainly, in the US.

Some ATS posters see this already, some come with their minds open to hear the arguments and some can't get past what their beliefs to even listen to the arguments, for me, I think deabang has been one of those who has listened but is yet to be swayed.

I don't expect that this discussion has changed your mind one bit but maybe you'll reflect on what we're saying sometime and possibly see something in what we're saying.

No problems debating this sort of stuff with you deadbang, I'm sure we'll see each other on the next one!

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 07:29 PM
Well I get extremely frustrated when I see we are being taken advantage of blatantly. If we sit here and accept lies as being truth, then we are no better.
I refuse to be lied to and I won't support it, not in the name of religion or in the name of allied standing & support. We are being and have been made to look like fools.

General Halutz today stated that he had no idea Cluster Bombs were being used and that it was against direct orders NOT to use them during the Lebanon war.

How many accidents can there be? How many direct orders can be disregarded?
Im sorry but I think its in their best interests to be held responsible rather then to cover up for them. It seems they have their own little problem of a terrorist army within a legitimate army then or else some sort of shadow government.

new topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in