It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

WORLD: UN fabricates story of Israel shelling UNRWA school in Gaza (Confirmed)

page: 12
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
I'm inclined to disbelieve sources that have been demonstrated to have exaggerated, omitted details, or put out deliberately false information.


Then the only difference seems to be on which side your own. You believe what the 'side' with all the weapons and wealth while i tend to believe the side that gets blown to bits & becomes further impoverished.


I've never said that the USA or Israel are perfect, but it's certainly neither countries' policy to intentionally target civilians.


Because even a fundamentalist ( who believe there are countries deserving of getting invaded&bombed) like yourself knows from your little actual study of American and Israeli history that the leaders of these countries starts wars and perpetuates economic terrorism for imperial gains.


I find the Israeli press more credible than Arab press based upon my first hand experience with the latter, along with comparing news stories with Western media in Israel's case.


I find the Israeli press to be 'better' ( more context, but under increasing pressure from the same old forces ) than the western press who does so well at carrying the worse pro-Israeli propaganda to be found in Israeli circulation. It's certainly more useful to believe the people who are getting victimised and terrorised but since the imperialist hardly want to see the bloody results of their actions you just can't believe those who are actually at the recieving end of the overwhelmingly large proportion of the violence.


Haveyou read any of my earlier posts aside from the ones you've quoted?

Hamas' mission statement is the end of the State of Israel.

And this is what you get as a state when you systematically undermine more moderate voices in the states or countries you have disagreements with. Israel has systematically undermined and attacked the power base of the centrist parties of Palestine and have so managed to end up with Palestinians voting for a organization the Israeli government created in the first place! Why can't you see the irony in how a not so moderate organization created by Israel has not managed to get into power by the systematic Israeli aggression and destruction of other parties? Is it a coincidence that Israel ends up fighting a 'problem' of it's own creation? Maybe if you studied history you would see that empires do exactly this and are quite frequently undone by enemies they created for the express purpose of keeping their societies militarized and expansionist.


When you have Hamas members working with the UN, you're not going to get anything resembling truth. You're going to get exactly what they want you hear.


The same can be said of the Israeli personal who work in the UN and in the US government who have so consistently been able to undermine the resolutions made by the UN. Hamas and other Palestinian organizations and movements have never had a fraction of that power and it's laughable that your again siding with the imperialist who can so blatantly flaunt the dozens of resolutions ( which the rest of the world fights to get passed) that the Israeli and American power brokers in the UN could not prevent.


-the BBC have admitted bias, if you'd looked at my previous posts/links


I am not surprised but it's FASCINATING to me that you can only find them to be biased when they do not tow the Israeli line thus in these almost singular instances overestimating the damage done or claiming a worse motive than the Israel state consistently displays by it's actions. .


-Israel isn't carpet bombing Gaza, so aerial bombardment is somewhat of a stretch. PGMs on specific targets is a little different than the picture you're trying to paint.


1. If you don't know your definitions find a dictionary.
2. Your ignorance of weaponry in general have managed to convince you that 'precision' in terms of 250 -1500 kg's of explosives means a damn lot in terms of bombing built up areas such as cities and towns. Maybe you could familiarise yourself with the weapons effects of these classes of weapons to see what you should look into? Sure using PGM's isn't carpet bombing but the distinction is lost on anyone who becomes a target of such weapons.

www.israeli-weapons.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...(munition)
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...


The problem is that we're trying to discover facts, not opinions.


Well i am but all your doing is telling me why you cant or wont believe anything the victims of imperial aggression is saying.


It may be very accurate and sound in terms of the opinions of those polled. An opinion poll isn't a very reliable way to determine how many fatalities have occurred.


Your not listening or reading. These people were not asked their opinion about who or how many died but if members of their families died. If they said yes they manged to produce death certificates 92% of the time and in the other 8% of cases the cause of death as described were consistent with the evidence as shown by the 92%. Basically this means Iraqi's polled told the truth about the deaths in their families.


Verified fatalities, with names, dates, locations, cause, etc.. are far more telling.


Which is what they got. Will you ever read anything that is contrary to what you have chosen to believe?


You seem to be very happy with ignoring the VAST majority of the tolls, including the World Health Organization, the UN, etc... that have much lower figures.


Please post links to these numbers as i am not familiar with these vastly lower estimations by the WHO or Un.


I wonder why that is- because it doesn't sufficiently paint the USA/George Bush in a bad light?


If you would stop trying to find enemies behind ever bush , that have not managed to assassinate even one unguarded neo-con, you might slowly start to discover why this isn't happening and that it might in fact indicate that there isn't all that many that wish to do more than to defend their homes and countries when attacked. Since the US national security state seems hell bent on invading other countries and then crying foul when the people sometimes choose to attack invaders. It's funny that someone like yourself should expect others to believe in the 'good motives' of the US national security state when that's the only entity you seem to believe to have such. I suppose you can't expect much else from bigots.


It seems that any source that makes us or Israel look bad, you accept without reservation, but any source that attempts to be objective must be propagandists.


And opposite 'seems' true of you. I know you wont take my word for it but i can but restate that my goal is not to vilify Israel any more than it has it actions have destroyed it's standing in the world community. Since you are arguing against what seems the moral course of action as agreed by the vast majority of the world perhaps you would like to tell us what exactly you expect the Palestinians to do in their current situation? What are they supposed to do when Israel keeps breaking ceasefires and attacking populated areas to assassinate 'terrorist' when they could pursue legal and police means? Why does Israel perpetually keep escalating when they are the only side with the power to protect their civilians as well as much more to lose?

What makes you believe that there is anything more any Palestinian authority can do to reign in the occasional violence when Israel keep inflicting massively disproportionate casualties thus creating more people with even less to lose resisting? Why does the Israeli government keep trying to meet violence with violence when it has not and can not solve the problem? Isn't that the definition of insanity and if not doesn't this mean that the goal is to perpetuate the violence? The only other belief i can think of is that you believe the Palestinians like behind herded and hunted and thus have not done everything short of total capitulation to gain peace? What , really, do you expect the Palestinians to give up next when Israel has taken most everything but their basic means to survive?

Stellar




posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pyros

Originally posted by Ownification

Not undone, they want more, yes the Zionists, the Zionists who terrorised the Brits and then became the leaders of Israel. But they haven't captured the whole Bible Israel so we can still call them Zionists. That was the mission ohh you forgot, when they just arrived from Europe where they were being massacred, to Palestine they called the whole land of being part of Israel.

[edit on 082828p://28b2 by Ownification]


Well, let's see. Here is how the numbers add up:

At the conclusion of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israel had a land mass of approximately 51,220 square miles.

First, they gave up the Sinai peninsula to Egypt in exchange for normalized relations, so subtract 37,820 square miles in that exchange. Then, they gave up the Gaza Strip to the tune of 223 square miles and the West Bank totaling 300 square miles, in an attempt to make peace with the Palestinians. While the Egyptians and Israelis made good use of the exchange to begin a mutually beneficial relationship, the Palestinians have taken their lands and descended into anarchy, corruption, and Islamic extremism.

Today, Israel is approximately 12,877 square miles. The math says they have given away about 38,343 square miles (that's about three times their total existing land mass) for peace.

The Israelis in the 1940's were not interested in conquering the Holy Lands in an attempt to rebuild ancient Judea. They were interested in creating a nation they could call their own, were they would not be persecuted, harassed, and killed by their own so-called friends, neighbors, and countrymen.

I don't think I need to argue here lol, keeping a piece of land while its inhabetant are not happy is not what the Zionists want. It is better to expand their settlements and slowly kick out all who are not happy with the occupation and the ones who are willing to fight. When they are left in refugee camps, that is when they have accomplished their goal. Let's not forget that Jesus won't come back without Israel being under the Jewish controle, the problem is that the Jews are also waiting for Jesus lol get it or you don't want to.

If Israel pursued in not giving those lands back than there would have been a bigger problem the Zionists would have faced and that is the International community. It tries hard to keep its image as a good boy, Jews are smart that is what you need to remember. Einstein was a Jew.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The UN is now in the hip pocket of the Muslims. Could it be possible for Hamas has killed it's own popluation to belame the Isrealis. Consider the terrorist are killing women and children in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 14 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   
"I care not who sits on the throne of England. He who controls the money supply of England controls the throne, and I control the money supply," -Amschel Bower de Rothschild, in 1911.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
And this is suppose to make the Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza legal? There is no excuse for the Gaza Holocaust. Shame on Israel.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
And this is suppose to make the Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza legal? There is no excuse for the Gaza Holocaust. Shame on Israel.


There is no ethnic cleansing going on in Gaza. The only cleansing going on is in going after Hamas(the folks putting their fellow Palestinians in danger, by their actions due to political calculations).



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


The facts seem to actually point out that the people in Gaza are flourishing more than average. The current UN estimated population growth is at 1.17% on average world wide. Compare that with the population growth rate in Gaza.


The population of the Gaza Strip increased by almost 40% between 1997 and 2007, according to the results of a Palestinian census.

The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the annual growth rate at 3.3% and said the population would double in 21 years at that rate.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Argue about land ownership, blockades, quality of life, etc. all you want but the myth that some sort of genocide is happening just isn't true at all. Anyone repeating this nonsense is either lying, repeating someone else's lie, or just not informed.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates


The facts seem to actually point out that the people in Gaza are flourishing more than average. The current UN estimated population growth is at 1.17% on average world wide. Compare that with the population growth rate in Gaza.


Can you please make the logical connection between flourisihng and "not being ethnic cleansing"?
I couldn't do it.
I know you dont want to say this, but what I think: The more a community flourish the more they could be killed, statistically it is not cleansing then.
Thanks.

[edit on 17-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

Now you're just talking about statistical probabilities instead of facts. Do you want to discuss what's actually happening or just some mythical "what if" scenario? If you want to go out and find a source that shows that the death rate from Israeli fire has increased as the population has increased I would gladly discuss it. Otherwise, this scenario is as imaginary as the bombs that landed in the UNRWA school.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I have no scenario.
I am just trying to understand your way of logical thinking.
Is there a connection between flourishing birth rate in Gaza and not calling 2000 deaths as ethnic cleansing?
Remember, I never talked about cleansing. I am trying to understand your way of thinking.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


Then the only difference seems to be on which side your own. You believe what the 'side' with all the weapons and wealth while i tend to believe the side that gets blown to bits & becomes further impoverished.


Hamas can't defeat Israel militarily, so they rely on asymmetric means(i.e. dupes that they've managed to appeal to). They put their fellow Palestinians in danger, and then when collateral damage occurs, they pull the "oh poor me" sob story. This isn't about Palestinians defending themselves against the "brutal Imperialist" Israelis. It's about Israel responding to a terror organization that is absolutely unwilling to accept any plan other than the destruction of Israel.



Because even a fundamentalist ( who believe there are countries deserving of getting invaded&bombed) like yourself knows from your little actual study of American and Israeli history that the leaders of these countries starts wars and perpetuates economic terrorism for imperial gains.


Do you mean like the billions in dollars in aid and medical assitance given to poor nations around the world, aid to victims of earthquakes, tsunamis, etc..., defeating fascism/communism, etc... sort of imperialism?




I find the Israeli press to be 'better' ( more context, but under increasing pressure from the same old forces ) than the western press who does so well at carrying the worse pro-Israeli propaganda to be found in Israeli circulation. It's certainly more useful to believe the people who are getting victimised and terrorised but since the imperialist hardly want to see the bloody results of their actions you just can't believe those who are actually at the recieving end of the overwhelmingly large proportion of the violence.


If you hadn't noticed, most of the western press gives their leaders a hard time, yet I suppose you find them to not be credible because they don't give them a harder time. At least by western journalistic standards, one is expected to have multiple corroborating(and verifiable) sources. This is not the case in Arab media. There's little to no effort to appear objective.




And this is what you get as a state when you systematically undermine more moderate voices in the states or countries you have disagreements with. Israel has systematically undermined and attacked the power base of the centrist parties of Palestine and have so managed to end up with Palestinians voting for a organization the Israeli government created in the first place! Why can't you see the irony in how a not so moderate organization created by Israel has not managed to get into power by the systematic Israeli aggression and destruction of other parties? Is it a coincidence that Israel ends up fighting a 'problem' of it's own creation? Maybe if you studied history you would see that empires do exactly this and are quite frequently undone by enemies they created for the express purpose of keeping their societies militarized and expansionist.


Israel has given up more land than it has ever taken(and then only due to winning wars of self defense). Don't equate Hamas/Hezbollah/etc... as being representative of Palestinians as a whole. The living conditions of the rank and file are not improved by these groups actions against Israel.
The Palestinian leadership has severely criticized Hamas for endangering civilians(and holds them responsible for the aftermath).



-

I am not surprised but it's FASCINATING to me that you can only find them to be biased when they do not tow the Israeli line thus in these almost singular instances overestimating the damage done or claiming a worse motive than the Israel state consistently displays by it's actions. .


I find the BBC to be biased at all times to the Left.




1. If you don't know your definitions find a dictionary.
2. Your ignorance of weaponry in general have managed to convince you that 'precision' in terms of 250 -1500 kg's of explosives means a damn lot in terms of bombing built up areas such as cities and towns. Maybe you could familiarise yourself with the weapons effects of these classes of weapons to see what you should look into? Sure using PGM's isn't carpet bombing but the distinction is lost on anyone who becomes a target of such weapons.


I know a considerable amount about munitions being career military, but thanks for sharing. Mavericks, Hellfires, and SDBs(which are specifically designed to minimize debris/shrapnel), etc... are considerably smaller than 250-1500kg of explosives. Additionally, when these weapons are fused with time delay, the structures absorb the brunt of the blast to contain it. The Israelis aren't just wantonly leveling buildings and airbursting HE over non-combatants(and the key word here is wantonly, before you post pics of WP). The IDF most certainly hasn't been dropping 2000lb bombs in the midst of civilians. Just for the sake of argument, how would you go about attacking an enemy force that was in an urban environment? Would you send them invitations to meet you on neutral ground, where there'd be no collateral damage?






Well i am but all your doing is telling me why you cant or wont believe anything the victims of imperial aggression is saying.


I tend not to listen to sources that use the word imperial.




Your not listening or reading. These people were not asked their opinion about who or how many died but if members of their families died. If they said yes they manged to produce death certificates 92% of the time and in the other 8% of cases the cause of death as described were consistent with the evidence as shown by the 92%. Basically this means Iraqi's polled told the truth about the deaths in their families.


You may want to check up on your facts. These polls didn't have control measures in place to prevent multiple reportings of the same fatality, or to verify that there'd actually been a fatality. Iraqis were being paid restitution for deaths, and on many occasions their were false claims being made in order to get paid. You also have to take into consideration that even during the height of the violence, 14 of the 18 provinces were for the most part quiet. This means that these deaths were concentrated in fewer areas(which means it'd be more obvious to see these numbers of casualties on the streets, in hospitals, morgues, grave sites, etc..., not to mention journalists witnessing that level of violence. In order to get those numbers of dead, there'd have to be between 411 and 1370 fatalities everyday, from 2003 to 2007. These numbers are just ludicrous. Incidents of those sizes occurring with that regularity couldn't go unobserved. Even the highest months of violence never had even 4,000 civilian casualties, much less 12,000-30,000+. Additionally, the vast majority of non-combatant deaths were as a result of insurgent/terror bombings/shootings.

www.nytimes.com...


But another study, by Johns Hopkins, which has come under criticism for its methodology, cited an estimate of about 600,000 dead between the war’s start, in March 2003, and July 2006.

The World Health Organization said its study, based on interviews with families, indicated with a 95 percent degree of statistical certainty that between 104,000 and 223,000 civilians had died. It based its estimate of 151,000 deaths on that range.


news.bbc.co.uk...


Official Iraqi figures say 5,714 people were killed in 2008 compared to 16,252 the previous year.


www.fas.org...

Stephen Moore, a consultant for Gorton Moore International, objected to the methods used by the researchers, commenting in the Wall Street Journal that the Lancet article lacked some of the hallmarks of good research: a small margin of error, a record of the demographics of respondents (so that one can be sure one has captured a fair representation of an entire population), and a large number
of cluster points.



www.guardian.co.uk...


The World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Iraqi health ministry conducted a survey of 10,860 households in 2007. Ministry employees questioned 10 households in each of more than 1,000 clusters across Iraq's 18 provinces, picked to give a representative sample of the country's population.



the Lancet. In the first survey in 2004, 990 randomly selected families in representative locations across Iraq were asked to produce the death certificates and list the names of members who died between January 1 2002 and the start of the invasion, and those who died thereafter.



The first survey found at least 98,000 such deaths up to October 2004. The second survey, in the summer of 2006, interviewed a separate but also randomly chosen sample of 1,849 households and found an excess of 655,000 deaths up to June 2006, of which 601,027 were said to be from violence rather than natural causes. This amounts to 2.5% of Iraq's population, or more than 500 deaths a day since the invasion.


www.johnstonsarchive.net...


The fact that the study's results are not reproducible, that they are so far removed from other estimates and measurements of Iraqi deaths, should give the reader pause.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by verbal_assassin
And this is suppose to make the Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza legal? There is no excuse for the Gaza Holocaust. Shame on Israel.


There is no ethnic cleansing going on in Gaza. The only cleansing going on is in going after Hamas(the folks putting their fellow Palestinians in danger, by their actions due to political calculations).


Wow, you Jews are in serious denial. So all 1300 dead and 5000+ injured were all Hamas agents? So why is Israel refusing humanitarian aid to enter Gaza?

You seriously need to open you eyes. You are a mess and there really is not point replying to you as you are really F'd up in the head. Seriously.

No ethnic cleaning going on? Look at the map from 1917 to the map no. Where is Palestine?

Israel is ranked number one in the amount of People it has deported out of the area in question. Israel is also number one is the number of UN resolutions it has violated.

We can see millions of pictures of the crime Israel has committed. At the same time, we can't even one 1 or 2 pictures of the crime Hamas has committed. All Israel and show is a firework that was supposedly launched by hamas that hit an empty farm land. And didn't hurt any civilians.

Israel uses that as an excuse to ethnically cleanse the area and steal more land. Heck, just yesterday, Israel grabbed more illegal settlement in the West Bank.

SHAME ON ISRAEL.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Actually the growth figures are incorrect. They count the growth based on people being moved from other parts of Israel into Palestinian territories and also include the 25% which are Jews in the Westbank including Jerusalem.


Palestinian Authority’s 1997 survey and census. The Gaza Strip has a population of 1.119 million,
the West Bank and East Jerusalem 2.031 million.
www.planbleu.org...

Now that makes approx. 3.1million in 1997 which is 12 years ago

The total population in Israel is now 7.3million. in 2008 there were 5.5million Jews in Israel www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...&_Culture/newpop.ht ml deduct this figure off the whole population = 1.8million non jews? So really, almost half ot the Palestinians have gone missing in the past 12 years. Or the death figures are far greater than the births. Most likely more and more are becoming refugees forced out of their land. Either way there is a big lie here.




[edit on 18-2-2009 by Obliterated] edit to fix source link

[edit on 18-2-2009 by Obliterated]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 

I'm not sure how you get that the population in Gaza was over 1 million in 1997. The Gaza population was under 1 million till 1998. See the official Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. You're correct about some of the migration, which was at it's highest in 2000. Since 2000 however, the migration rate has been flat yet the population is still growing at nearly a 4% rate.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Originally posted by verbal_assassin


Wow, you Jews are in serious denial. So all 1300 dead and 5000+ injured were all Hamas agents? So why is Israel refusing humanitarian aid to enter Gaza?


-I'm not Jewish, nor do I live in Israel
-I never said that all of the dead/injured were Hamas
-Do you not hold Hamas at all responsible for collateral damage, using fellow Palestinians as human shields, when they conduct military operations in the midst of civilians?
-How may Israelis that Hamas has killed over the years were IDF, when they randomly rocketed/mortared/sent in suicide bombers residential/commercial areas?

www.voanews.com...


Scores of trucks carrying humanitarian supplies have been crossing the border daily, but none of them carry construction materials. The Israeli blockade includes a ban on cement, glass, and steel products - materials Israel says militants could use to step up their attacks.





You seriously need to open you eyes. You are a mess and there really is not point replying to you as you are really F'd up in the head. Seriously.


Translation- I can't debate you based upon the merit of my argument, so I'll resort to ad hominem tactics.



No ethnic cleaning going on? Look at the map from 1917 to the map no. Where is Palestine?


-Israel is here to stay, so get over it
-You may want to ask the Palestinians who've repeatedly refused to negotiate with Israel, where Palestine is.
-How is that pertinent to current events? We're not discussing the establishment of Israel.




We can see millions of pictures of the crime Israel has committed. At the same time, we can't even one 1 or 2 pictures of the crime Hamas has committed. All Israel and show is a firework that was supposedly launched by hamas that hit an empty farm land. And didn't hurt any civilians.


There are countless pics/stories of crimes Hamas/Hezbollah/etc.. have committed against Israeli civilians, but I suppose you're not interested in finding them.



Israel uses that as an excuse to ethnically cleanse the area and steal more land. Heck, just yesterday, Israel grabbed more illegal settlement in the West Bank.



-define ethnic cleansing in your own words as we're obviously using different meanings of the word.

-how much land has Israel grabbed in Gaza?

www.latimes.com...

Israel took its strongest action against Jewish settlers in nearly three years Thursday as riot police stormed a disputed building in Hebron, using tear gas and stun grenades to force out 250 young extremists bent on expanded Israeli occupation of the West Bank.


That doesn't sound like Israel is trying to expand its territory to me. Don't try to confuse Israeli policy, with that of individual citizens behaving in extreme manners.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I still can not see the logical connection between population growth and ethnic cleansing.
I guess I am too dumb


[edit on 18-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by Obliterated
 

I'm not sure how you get that the population in Gaza was over 1 million in 1997. The Gaza population was under 1 million till 1998. See the official Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. You're correct about some of the migration, which was at it's highest in 2000. Since 2000 however, the migration rate has been flat yet the population is still growing at nearly a 4% rate.


I found the following study on the population figures including the growth rate of Palestinians in their territories. The text below can be found on page 41.


Total Population Growth Rates: In 1997, the PCBS projected that its
overall annual population growth rate (PGR) would be 4.4% for the West
Bank and 5.2% for Gaza between 1997 and 2003.91 In fact, the high growth
rates forecast in the PCBS Model were not realized. The study measured a
West Bank annual population growth rate of 1.8% and a 2.9% rate for Gaza
over the same period. Between the narrower time frame of 2000 and 2003,
annual growth was slightly lower at 1.6% for the West Bank and 2.8% for
Gaza.
www.biu.ac.il...

The document explains the 1million person gap and where the population numbers have been incorrect. Here it says that population growth in the West Bank is 1.8% and 2.9% in Gaza.

I think that the growth rate has been exaggerated based on incomplete and incorrect data. The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics has been including the births of those who have a ID so they can return at anytime but who no longer live there. Most of the numbers are predictions which include predictive migration into the area based on figures for people who have not migrated.



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
I still can not see the logical connection between population growth and ethnic cleansing.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by deccal]

I'll explain it for you.

In 1948 and in subsequent years since then, many people were subjected to violence and being killed. They also suffered from expulsion where they were forced to leave their homes. They have also been imprisoned behind walls which stretch across the vacinity of their towns. All of this was done by what is now a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity.

Now this is the definition of the term "Ethnic-cleansing":

the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity www.merriam-webster.com...


Scary similarity isn't it?



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


Thank you.
I was trying to understand the argument of dbates, because he once said, it can not be considered as ethnic-cleansing, because of the flourishing population growth..I couldn't understand the logic behind it.
It is of course an attempt of cleansing for me..
Only the last event:
Population of Gaza: 1,3 million
deaths of last attack: 1300
Population of USA: 300 milion
the rate would be: 300.000 people
isnt it an attempt of cleansing?


[edit on 19-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 19 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


An honest observer might say that your argument doesn't really have much legs...

And is somewhat forced.

Anyone looking at the IDFs capacity for destruction... and what ACTUALLY occurred in terms of collateral casualties...

Would readily see that you're trying just a little to hard to make your case...

An honest observer knows what a genocide looks like... and what happened in Gaza doesn't fit the bill in any way, shape or form.

Finally, as to the notion that ALL of those 1300 casualties were civilians...

Who is doing the counting?

They've never been caught lying about that have they?



I didn't think so.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join