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

page: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Your article justifies them shooting at the school if that is in fact is what happened. You can't shoot at your enemy, then hide behind your children as shields and not expect any collateral damage.

Can you name ONE SINGLE COUNTRY who would not have returned fire in the same situation?




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 

Which school? There are more than one school in Gaza. The incident this article was referring to was on Jan. 6, 2008. They claim to have a teacher from that school, the owner of an auto-body shop across the street, and the UNRWA's operations director in Gaza as witnesses who all have the same story.



Physical evidence and interviews with several eyewitnesses, including a teacher who was in the schoolyard at the time of the shelling, make it clear: The 43 people who died in the incident were all outside, on the street, where all three mortar shells landed.




Hazem Balousha, who runs an auto-body shop across the road from the UNRWA school, was down the street, just out of range of the shrapnel, when the three shells hit. He showed a reporter where they landed: one to the right of his shop, one to the left, and one right in front.

"There were only three," he said. "They were all out here on the road."





John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza, acknowledged in an interview this week that all three Israeli mortar shells landed outside the school and that "no one was killed in the school."


You must be thinking of the other school incident. I'm not discussing that one in this thread.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
Oh, well, Thank God! I mean, at least it was 43 innocent civilians in the street outside the school as opposed to in the schoolyard. I take back everything bad I've ever said about the Zionists as this makes all the difference in the world. Now we shall take you back to your regularly scheduled genocide against the Palestinians... cuz, the Zionists aren't shelling UN schools after all.


God I have just met you and already i love you!!
Texas Filisteenil



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Just to add to the other stupid comments... Well done! good research.

To the Op
I noticed the picture of the school is a 3D computer image, not a photo?

I found some photos to support your claim.... news.xinhuanet.com...

And here is another....
english.aljazeera.net...

So if someone draws a 3D floor plan with no bombs on it, it must be true. Right?




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


the IDF said they attacked the school directly :

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.

He is the soldier that fired the shots into the UN school on jan 6th.

how much clearer can that be , when the officer responible said they fired into the school?


as i said in my first post - for every reoprt that says it was outside the walls , there is another saying it was inside , you provide `eye witness` reports from people and i provide them from the soldier that fired.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 



"I know no one was killed in the school," Mr. Ging said. "But 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. Many of those people had taken refuge in the school and wandered out onto the street.

But ofcurse it was Hamas throwing rockets from that street, the same old excuse, hey they even said we responded to gunmen from the UN school. Does this story destroy the credibility of Israel or the UN? That's the important question.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ownification
 


The U.N-run school did get hit. I think 4 people died in the school and the rest of the people died outside the school from the shrapnal that sprayed out from the shells which targetted the school. The U.N didn't lie. The article on this thread has just tried to twist the truth.


GAZA (Reuters) - Israeli shelling killed more than 40 Palestinians on Tuesday at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, .....
....People cut down by shrapnel lay in pools of blood in the street. Witnesses said two shells exploded outside the school, killing at least 42 civilians and wounding dozens among people who had taken refuge there and residents of nearby buildings. www.reuters.com...


The truth is, the U.N school was hit. And people died because of it. It was a place where civilians seek refuge, yet knowingly the shcool and the area was attacked. No matter how you twist the story, it is still inhumane and criminal. To justify it, is almost as pathetic.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 

I suppose you didn't notice the caption beside the image in the article you cited.



The site of an IAF strike near a UN school which killed dozens of Palestinians, Jabalya, northern Gaza Strip, two weeks ago.


That is NEAR a school, not in a school. That's the whole point of this thread. The strike in this case was not an attack on the school. No one in the school died from this attack. You're just propagating a myth when you stretch the truth in this manner.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Obliterated
The U.N-run school did get hit. I think 4 people died in the school.

www.reuters.com...

The truth is, the U.N school was hit.

Seriously, please read the articles you're citing. They all say the same thing. Let me quote from the news link you have just provided.



Witnesses said two shells exploded outside the school


Saying that the school itself was attacked is a U.N. sponsored myth that everyone seems eager to embrace for some reason. The school was not attacked.


+10 more 
posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Well, well, well. Look at the latest press release from the U.N. about the situation.



Clarification: While correctly reported on 6 January that Israeli shells landed outside an UNRWA school in Jabalia, resulting in an initial estimate of 30 fatalities, the Situation Report of 7 January referred to 'the shelling of the UNRWA school in Jabalia.' The Humanitarian Coordinator would like to clarify that the shelling, and all of the fatalities, took place outside rather than inside the school.
un.org

There you have it folks. Straight from the horse's mouth. I wonder if they would have ever given in to admitting they were wrong if it wasn't for some hard-hitting stories like those linked in the original post. Everyone else was just content to roll over and let the U.N. make up any story they wanted.



They still have the lies published on their site however. I wonder if this bit will ever come off?


Over 40 Palestinians were killed and over 50 injured following shelling of an UNRWA school in Jebalya Camp on Tuesday afternoon.

un.org



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by deccal



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]



No one here is saying that it's a good thing when innocent people get killed. Don't you think that it should be noted when a group/organization(especially one of the stature of the UN) puts out deliberately false information though, in order to portray events that never happened? Put yourself in the place of the Israeli PM, and a terrorist group is killing your civilians. Do you not respond to defend your population because you may kill civilians on the other side? Doing nothing isn't an option, and in combat, there is always collateral damage. The way to avoid prolonging suffering is to have a decisive victory, so that the hostilities can cease. This is far superior to having a long drawn out war of attrition, from both a military and civilian perspective. I hold Hamas responsible for the blood of Palestinian civilians.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by BlueRaja]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by deccal



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.


As opposed to the 100+ million killed in the 20th Century as a result of Communism/Fascism? No other system in the history of mankind has brought more freedom, or the opportunity to improve one's status in life than Capitalism. Have there been people that abused it? Yes. Does that negate its benefits? ABSOLUTELY NOT!



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
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.



What do you think the responsibility of a nation's leader is to its people, when under attack? Should they sit on their hands because conflict is bad?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by slicobacon
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Your article justifies them shooting at the school if that is in fact is what happened. You can't shoot at your enemy, then hide behind your children as shields and not expect any collateral damage.

Can you name ONE SINGLE COUNTRY who would not have returned fire in the same situation?


Not to mention that under the Laws of War, any site that is used unlawfully(i.e. schools, hospitals, etc...) for military purposes, loses its protected status, and becomes a legitimate military target.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
May I ask to dbates, what his really motivation is?
Because I see in his posts that he WANTS to be confirmed that this event was a fabrication. It means, dbates is not presenting this as a news, but with some motivation. May I ask what your motivation is, dbates?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

My motivation? I just get tired of seeing facts stretched or twisted to meet an agenda. Also, I love pointing out how pathetic the U.N. is at anything. It's an irrelevant incompetent organization.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by slicobacon
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Your article justifies them shooting at the school if that is in fact is what happened. You can't shoot at your enemy, then hide behind your children as shields and not expect any collateral damage.

Can you name ONE SINGLE COUNTRY who would not have returned fire in the same situation?


Not to mention that under the Laws of War, any site that is used unlawfully(i.e. schools, hospitals, etc...) for military purposes, loses its protected status, and becomes a legitimate military target.


NO it does not - that's just a a blatant lie - don't make up stuff you CLEARLY have no idea about.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   
[edit on 4/2/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by deccal
 

My motivation? I just get tired of seeing facts stretched or twisted to meet an agenda. Also, I love pointing out how pathetic the U.N. is at anything. It's an irrelevant incompetent organization.



May I continue to ask?
Which and whose agenda you are talking about?
Is UN only incompetent or does UN has a hidden plot?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by deccal]





new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join