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: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

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

WHAT is YOUR motivation?

I don't know... the truth?



Thanks DBates for the significant effort to bring this to ATS attention.



PS. Don't you just hate it Harlequin... when the UN changes it's story?



[edit on 4-2-2009 by golemina]




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
i would suggest you stop propagating your disinformation

The U.N. has now retracted it's original statement and backs up the report in the original post. How is this disinformation?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Geez DBates....

WHAT is YOUR motivation?

I don't know... the truth?



Thanks DBates for the significant effort to bring this to ATS attention.






Ok, a question for you too..
In what sense this "news" is too significant for you? Where should this "truth" direct us?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


i edited the post - but i also stand by Captain David`s (IDF) report when he said they attacked the school - as linked from jpost.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


>'Ok, a question for you too.. '

>'In what sense this "news" is too significant for you? Where should this "truth" direct us?'

I'm sorry Deccal. English isn't my first language (or my 2nd or my 3rd)...

I don't recognize THIS English.



Can you maybe rephrase this into an English that I have at least a 50-50 chance of understanding what you are asking?




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by deccal
 


>'Ok, a question for you too.. '

>'In what sense this "news" is too significant for you? Where should this "truth" direct us?'

I'm sorry Deccal. English isn't my first language (or my 2nd or my 3rd)...

I don't recognize THIS English.



Can you maybe rephrase this into an English that I have at least a 50-50 chance of understanding what you are asking?



No comment...(I will not rephrase my question, because I already got the answer from your post).

Now I am waiting answer from dbates.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


No comment?



I'm going to take a shot at answering your 'question'...

This truth should 'direct' us to the fact that the 'attack on the UN' facility was a Hamasvision production directed at a rather gullible/culpable news media.

Fair enough?

It should also 'lead' us to the conclusion that when the 'event' occurred it was splashed ACROSS ALL OF THE HEADLINES...

And now the UNITED NATIONS RETRACTION is buried in deep, dark corners...

You with me so far...

And finally...

The pro-carnage lobby will behave like this blantant propaganda was NEVER exposed.

Is there anything else I can help you with?



PS. Look! I can revisionist edit my post too!


Touche Seagull. Sorry!


[edit on 4-2-2009 by golemina]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Howdy, this thread has begun treading on dangerously personal ground...let's try to keep it on topic which is: UN fabricates story of Israel shelling UNRWA school in Gaza (confirmed).

So far, with a few hiccups, you've done a great job. But...it's getting a little heated. Let's turn down the rhetorical flourishes a trifle. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


What can you do for me?
Hmm, stop using this icon
as weapon, it is childish.
It seems you could understand my question. I am glad.
But you did not understand what I really meant (sorry, english is my 4th language).
From the beginning I am trying to say: people like you and dbates are not honest with themselves.
Being about honest read my previous posts.
Shortly: Your motivation is to show that Israel was right and Palestinians has deserved.
Your deeper motivation is motivated by colonial idea that Arabs, Muslims, Turks etc..are all same primitive creatures and they deserve what they get. The world would be much better without them.

Am I right? Of course not, you will say. Maybe yes, maybe no, who knows



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 




THAT is genuine laughter. I have a good time... ATS is fun.

I can't speak for the big D... But I am 100% anti-carnage.

The fact is those people died... irregardless of what side of a UN compound they were at...

The salient point is that Hamas sacrificed those supposed 1300 casualties.

That the UN appears to have been a willing participant.

That the IDF, with their unrelenting quest for accuracy, has forensically dissected the details and exposed the truth...

Which apparently a lot of folks seem unable to accept, eh?

That is pretty much the story.

We seemed to have drifted into rehash mode...

So I'm out.

Take care.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Originally posted by audas




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


www.globalsecurity.org...

Here's one example-

A-9. Compliance with the Geneva Conventions
a. As the US is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, all medical personnel should thoroughly
understand the provisions that apply to CHS activities. Violation of these Conventions can result in the loss of the protection afforded by them or prosecution.


www.crimesofwar.org...
and another-

During an armed conflict, only “combatants” are permitted to “take a direct part in hostilities.” Noncombatants who do so lose any protected status that they might have. That is likely to mean that they lose their protection from attack


lawofwar.org...
and another-

Hague Regulation Article 27

In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.


en.wikipedia.org...


Military necessity is governed by several constraints: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.


Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

– Luis Moreno-Ocampo[2]


lawofwar.org...


Under the law of armed conflict, noncombatants must be safeguarded against injury not incidental to military operations directed against combatant forces and other military objectives. In particular, it is forbidden to make noncombatants the object of attack.


and another-


Because only combatants may lawfully participate directly in armed combat, noncombatants that do so are acting unlawfully and are considered illegal combatants.


and another-

8.1 PRINCIPLES OF LAWFUL TARGETING
These legal principles governing targeting generally parallel the military principles of the objective, mass, and economy of force. The law requires that only objectives of military importance be attacked but permits the use of sufficient mass to destroy those objectives.

Military objectives are combatants and those objects which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the enemy's war-fighting or war-sustaining capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization would constitute a definite military advantage to the attacker under the circumstances at the time of the attack. Military advantage may involve a variety of considerations, including the security of the attacking force.

8.6.2 Special protection
Under the law of land warfare, certain persons, places and objects enjoy special protection against attack. Protection is, of necessity, dependent upon recognition of protected status and special signs and symbols are employed for that purpose (see paragraph 11.9). Failure to display protective signs and symbols does not render an otherwise protected person, place or object a legitimate target if that status is otherwise apparent (see paragraph 11.9.6). However, protected persons participating directly in hostilities lose their protected status and may be attacked while so employed. Similarly, misuse of protected places and objects for military purposes renders them subject to legitimate attack during the period of misuse.



Now you were saying......



[edit on 4-2-2009 by BlueRaja]

[edit on 4-2-2009 by BlueRaja]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal
reply to post by golemina
 


What can you do for me?
Hmm, stop using this icon
as weapon, it is childish.
It seems you could understand my question. I am glad.
But you did not understand what I really meant (sorry, english is my 4th language).
From the beginning I am trying to say: people like you and dbates are not honest with themselves.
Being about honest read my previous posts.
Shortly: Your motivation is to show that Israel was right and Palestinians has deserved.
Your deeper motivation is motivated by colonial idea that Arabs, Muslims, Turks etc..are all same primitive creatures and they deserve what they get. The world would be much better without them.

Am I right? Of course not, you will say. Maybe yes, maybe no, who knows


No- the motivation is that Hamas is getting what it deserves. Don't put words into people's mouths.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina


The salient point is that Hamas sacrificed those supposed 1300 casualties.



I just can't underdtand how people can say such big words? Maybe you mean, since Hamas belongs to a primitive culture, and since they are barbars, they can "sacrifice" their own people, regardless woman or child. I only understand this about the statment above, nothing else. And this makes me really sad



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

No- the motivation is that Hamas is getting what it deserves. Don't put words into people's mouths.


Well, then you are accepting my first step. It is really easy to come to the secon deeper motivation from this first motivation. Dont you think? "Deserving"...The poor, the primitive, the barbar always "deserves". Isnt it?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal

Originally posted by golemina


The salient point is that Hamas sacrificed those supposed 1300 casualties.



I just can't underdtand how people can say such big words? Maybe you mean, since Hamas belongs to a primitive culture, and since they are barbars, they can "sacrifice" their own people, regardless woman or child. I only understand this about the statment above, nothing else. And this makes me really sad


Hamas put the lives of non-combatants at risk by staging combat operations in the midst of civilians, knowing that(and counting on the fact) that Israel's response would result in collateral damage.

Perhaps you might consider what another Palestinian has to say about Hamas-(the head of the PLO I might add)

news.bbc.co.uk...

He also accused Hamas of having "taken risks with the blood of Palestinians, with their fate, and dreams and aspirations for an independent Palestinian state".



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by deccal

Originally posted by BlueRaja

No- the motivation is that Hamas is getting what it deserves. Don't put words into people's mouths.


Well, then you are accepting my first step. It is really easy to come to the secon deeper motivation from this first motivation. Dont you think? "Deserving"...The poor, the primitive, the barbar always "deserves". Isnt it?

[edit on 4-2-2009 by deccal]


What is it with your fixation on the poor, the primitive, the barbar? Hamas is a terrorist organization. I don't care if they're Arab, Asian, African, or Caucasian, if it's a terror organization, then being eradicated is what they deserve.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

What is it with your fixation on the poor, the primitive, the barbar? Hamas is a terrorist organization. I don't care if they're Arab, Asian, African, or Caucasian, if it's a terror organization, then being eradicated is what they deserve.


Why are always all terrorists Arabs or Muslims these days?
By the way Hamas is not a terrorist organisation.


Originally posted by BlueRaja

news.bbc.co.uk...

He also accused Hamas of having "taken risks with the blood of Palestinians, with their fate, and dreams and aspirations for an independent Palestinian state".





Many people posted this quote and this quote shows nothing.....
So you mean, not Israel but Hamas was responsible from the deaths of civilans...



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

Now you're just veering off-topic into a general Israel vs. Hamas scenario when that's not the subject at all. If we take this approach then every single discussion boils down to the same discussion with everyone quoting talking points. I deliberately picked the U.N. as the bad guy in this discussion because that was the focus of the disinformation that was being spread. They seemed to be the one propagating it. This isn't about actions or reactions. It's about disinformation.

If you really want to know the purpose or intent of this thread read this post by golemina. He seemed to grasp the idea very well.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by deccal
 

Now you're just veering off-topic into a general Israel vs. Hamas scenario when that's not the subject at all. If we take this approach then every single discussion boils down to the same discussion with everyone quoting talking points. I deliberately picked the U.N. as the bad guy in this discussion because that was the focus of the disinformation that was being spread. They seemed to be the one propagating it. This isn't about actions or reactions. It's about disinformation.

If you really want to know the purpose or intent of this thread read this post by golemina. He seemed to grasp the idea very well.



You are right that my points were going slightly to off-topic. But what I really can not understand this: Do you really claim that UN has a hidden agenda on this?



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 

I mentioned this in one of the original posts. Some people in the UN have a definite agenda. That is to help create a problem that they have to step in to solve. I think they would love to just internationalize the disputed regions in Israel/Palestine. For example read the following and keep in mind that this is an old story.



'International' Jerusalem high on the agenda
As long ago as 1947 the United Nations proposed internationalising the city. Now the idea has reappeared in a controversial new form.

news.bbc.co.uk...

The UN has thus far been unable to secure the disputed areas in Jerusalem as international territory. What's needed is a larger problem they they will need to step in and solve. Why do the powerful want more? To be more powerful of course. Some seem to desire this the way you desire chocolate in the afternoon. It's just something they like having.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join