Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 5
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

It's much akin to the sources in Iraq claiming 600,000-2 million civilian deaths, when the figures that can actually be verified are under 100,000.



Read this, very fresh article: www.alternet.org...

Now, should I believe you, or this article? If you say, this article is not valid, I say that your numbers of WTC, oklohama etc..are not valid too. This is about being honest, not numbers.




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal

Originally posted by BlueRaja

It's much akin to the sources in Iraq claiming 600,000-2 million civilian deaths, when the figures that can actually be verified are under 100,000.



Read this, very fresh article: www.alternet.org...

Now, should I believe you, or this article? If you say, this article is not valid, I say that your numbers of WTC, oklohama etc..are not valid too. This is about being honest, not numbers.


So a story that starts off with the line-


We are now able to estimate the number of Iraqis who have died in the war instigated by the Bush administration.


is a completely unbiased source? You do understand that the Nation magazine is a far left publication right? You do understand the difference between subjective(opinion) and objective(empirical facts) right?

Let's compare the numbers from the WTC, Oklahoma, military deaths-to Iraqi civilians. Was there a poll taken used to arrive at these numbers, as was used to arrive at the 600k-1 million+, or did they use empirical numbers(i.e. accountability of those known to be missing/killed/wounded, based upon forensic evidence, personnel rolls, etc...)?

They arrived at those numbers by polling ~1,400 getting a subjective idea of how many people had been killed vs. IBC's methodology
www.iraqbodycount.org...

IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.

Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.


This is a far less subjective methodology, without room for personal and political bias/agendas.

www.fas.org...


The first of these studies, published in 2004, used a cluster sample survey of
households in Iraq to develop an estimate ranging from 8,000 to 194,000 civilian
casualties due to violent deaths since the start of the war.9 This report has come under
some criticism for its methodology, which may not have accounted for the long-term
negative health effects of the Saddam Hussein era. Former British Foreign Minister Jack
Straw has written a formal Ministerial Response rejecting the findings of the first Lancet
report on the grounds that the data analyzed were inaccurate.10


www.nytimes.com...


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.


I think I'll give a bit more credence to these sources than anything with an obvious anti-Bush, anti-USA, anti-(fill in the blank) agenda.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You missed my point. Read my last sentence: Honesty is important, not numbers. You can interpret it as you want.
And I am leftist too, and I trust to leftist intuiton for a better world than all this applause to war crimes, or colonialist distortion of the concept of number and statistic.
Now this is my statistic during my bush era experience: for 1 civilized western death person, western countries kills 1000 easterns.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


hamas is a legaly and democratically elected goverment body , who, as it happens, was aided in getting into power by israel because they were not happy with hezzbolah



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


i have provided a ynet source , quoting the female IDF spokesperson saying they deliberatly attacked the school - which refutes your entire post.

either your canadian news story is wrong or the IDF are wrong when they admitted it was deliberatly attacked `according to procedures`.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


You missed my point. Read my last sentence: Honesty is important, not numbers. You can interpret it as you want.
And I am leftist too, and I trust to leftist intuiton for a better world than all this applause to war crimes, or colonialist distortion of the concept of number and statistic.
Now this is my statistic during my bush era experience: for 1 civilized western death person, western countries kills 1000 easterns.


I'm interested in honesty too, which is why I find a lot of claims dubious at best. I never doubted that you were a leftist, but if you're an honest leftist, you'll admit that the left is biased just as the right can be. Is the World Health Organization or the UN Human Rights Report, or the Associated Press, merely a tool of George W. Bush? If not then you need to look at their numbers and compare them to any source that has considerably different numbers, and look at how those figures were arrived at. You also need to consider that propaganda works both ways, before drinking too much Kool Aid.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by THELONIO
reply to post by poet1b
 


hamas is a legaly and democratically elected goverment body , who, as it happens, was aided in getting into power by israel because they were not happy with hezzbolah


Saddam Hussein received 99 percent of the vote too. I think it may be a "slight" exaggeration to say that Israel was happy about Hamas taking power.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
found it: the IDF admit to shelling the school


www.jpost.com...



The army fired three mortar shells, two of which hit the target and one missed by about 30 meters, causing the casualties at the school, whose number the IDF believes was inflated by Hamas.

"We are still sticking by our official position that according to our initial inquiry, the whole thing started when terrorists fired mortar shells from the school compound [at soldiers]," Capt. Ishai David told The Jerusalem Post.

"The IDF returned fire to the source, and the unfortunate result was the death of innocent civilians," David said. He added that two terrorists, who were part of a Kassam squad, were also killed in the incident.

UNRWA has insisted that there were no terrorists in the school compound



Captain David, IDF says they fired on the UN school.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by THELONIO
 


Hamas is legal and democratically elected terror organization. And Israeli secret services indeed helped it to be born, since the logic was that they would fight then Soviet-backed Fatah - (not Hizbollah.It got nothing to do with the story. Hizbollah is Lebanese group). Soviets were fighting in Afghanistan so some "genius" decided probably that to use religious extremists against pro-Soviet secular group would be good idea. Yeah. Backfired a little, did not it? Divide and ...suffer.
But nobody in Israel can influence Hamas for decades.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

I'm interested in honesty too, which is why I find a lot of claims dubious at best. I never doubted that you were a leftist, but if you're an honest leftist, you'll admit that the left is biased just as the right can be. Is the World Health Organization or the UN Human Rights Report, or the Associated Press, merely a tool of George W. Bush? If not then you need to look at their numbers and compare them to any source that has considerably different numbers, and look at how those figures were arrived at. You also need to consider that propaganda works both ways, before drinking too much Kool Aid.


But with honesty I am not talking about "objectivity", if such thing remained. I am talking about being honest to yourself, to your feelings, bias...making self reflection...
I am trying to say here, people trying to show that UN fabricated the school story, people talking about pallywood, people talking about exaggeration, people talking about terrorists here terrorists there, people putting the word civilan in cautation mark should just stop for 1 and 2 sec. and make self reflection: They should reflect about with which language they speak. They speak the language of authorities, of ministry of defence etc..it is not their inner voice, inner thought, because how can a human being try to rationalize killing innocent people? We have to be against some thoughts and behaviours absolutely, and defend some values absolutely. This is honesty in my book.
Of course I am biased.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
You are right, I don't have a point to claim. You won: UN is fabricating, Hamas is using children as human shield.
What is your point then? I want to know, what you all, the defenders of killing, are really want say.
[edit on 3-2-2009 by deccal]


Wow.

'defenders of killing'

Am I reading that right? Are you saying that the posters are defending the killing? I don't see that in any of the posts, including the person that you are responding to. If you can't point to some specific instance of them doing so, that is a despicable claim.

And the main point of the thread is that the UN is skewing the news. I hope that helps.


Eric



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by EricD
 


People who put in their statments the word civilan in quatation marks, or talk about fabrication or talk about pallywood etc. just defend killing of innocent people in indirect ways, and they support it. I am leaving you to connect the dots of logic here.





[edit on 3-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


My term, "40-odd 'civilians'" is somehow disrespectful?

Blow it out your other windpipe.

Of course I qualified that claim that these were all civilians. Every other Hamas yahoo in existence is dressed in civilian clothes.

So, you pop a member of Hamas, someone grabs his AK, he's in civilian clothes, and I guarantee you, he's going to be tallied under the "civilian" column.

There were "civilians" in Viet Nam too! More accurately termed "VC." No uniforms. So, using strict terminology, you can accurately state that Dooper killed civilians.

As fast as I could.

Don't mention that they were armed and shooting - I want you to be able to skewer a point!

You go over footage in Gaza, you see a lot of "civilians" running around with AK's, faces hidden by balaclavas, wearing magazine vests - and CIVILIAN CLOTHES!

I know how it works.

Too bad you don't.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by deccal
 


I know how it works.

Too bad you don't.


I am too glad I dont know and I hope I will never know.
Some clothes that you are talking about were dressed by children. Did you see them too?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

And WHOSE fault is that?

Those that start a conflict?

Or those who shoot back?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by deccal
 

And WHOSE fault is that?

Those that start a conflict?

Or those who shoot back?


What is wrong in your argument is: a conflict can not be started from only one side. Conflict is a dialectical and complex issue.
Fault? My answer: Abstract speaking it is fault of greed. Concrete speaking it is fault of capitalism.


Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by deccal
 


Mod edit: Removed a quote of a deleted post. Sorry.



Well, I don't know. On Internet anyone can be anyone. Maybe he is 16 year old Counter Strike addict. Main point is that in wired world anyone can stick to a any personality.


[edit on 2/4/2009 by seagull]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

So, according to your logic, anyone can walk up and start whipping your ass, and it's your fault.

Is that your argument?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


As I know, conflict is a two sided, long running issue. I understand this word like this. I may be wrong, I am not native English speaker.






top topics



 
38
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join