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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Originally posted by StellarX



You are always inclined to disbelieve anything that is remotely indicative of a less than humanitarian intent on the part of the US or Israel.
Maybe if you scrutinized the actions of both sides you wouldn't come across as so comically biased?


I'm inclined to disbelieve sources that have been demonstrated to have exaggerated, omitted details, or put out deliberately false information. I've never said that the USA or Israel are perfect, but it's certainly neither countries' policy to intentionally target civilians.



Likely? By who's estimation? Would you rather take Israel's word for it? Any chance you can ask them to stop bombing the infrastructure or agencies that will allow for better accounting of these atrocities?

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.



And the UN organization in other areas are oft filled with locals form the region with a possibly similar bias. Why is it that your so suspicious of the UN accounting methods with relation to the Palestinian death toll but automatically presume that the Israeli's are not burying their soldiers or civilians in mass graves to hide the truth? Why is it that your suspicions are so completely focused on 'them'?


Have you read any of my earlier posts aside from the ones you've quoted?
Hamas' mission statement is the end of the State of Israel. 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.



Where is the BBC slant in favor of Palestinians? How did you come up with that one? When has bombardment from the sky every yield this type of accuracy in built up areas?


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



And according to the methodology employed ( for decades before in various conflict areas) the best estimate was 650 000 in June 2006 and about 1 000 000 at the start of 2008. Of those interviewed for the second 650 000 death certificates where produced 92% of the time with the other eight percent not supplying data that were not born out on the death certificates of the 92%. If there is flaw to be found with this study it would have to be with the choice of locations and with the households interviewed but according to John Zogby ( Zogby , very widely used for many issues including elections/exit polling ) the methodology is sound.


The problem is that we're trying to discover facts, not opinions. The poll 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. Verified fatalities, with names, dates, locations, cause, etc.. are far more telling. 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. I wonder why that is- because it doesn't sufficiently paint the USA/George Bush in a bad light? 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.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 



What did they do in Holland beside killing a racist who thought it was perfectly safe to mock religion anywhere in the world?


WOW Thanks for revealing exactly who you are? I have to wonder how many people believe it is acceptable to assassinate a cartoonist for making fun of an insane situation. So, clearly you don't believe in freedom of speech, and you think it is all right to kill someone for mocking them. What about death threats? If mocking someone is reason enough to kill them, than someone vowing to kill you should give you even more reason to kill them, which means by your logic, Israel is validated in everything they have done. By your logic, Israel has the right to wipe out all of Palestine, and the Muslim world in general, as does the U.S. and a great deal many other powerful countries.

Honestly, I had always thought that you were a moderate.

I have provided links on many of these threads to prove the things I stated in the post you are responding to. After this statement of yours, any further debate on the subject with you is a waste of time. You have fully convinced me that winning the war on terrorism should be out nations first priority.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by FredT
 

They just said that the school had been used to launch rockets before,




IDF releases footage from last year showing UN school used by Hamas to fire mortar shells
The army noted that Tuesday was not the first time Hamas had attacked Israel from within a school. The IDF released a video taken by an unmanned aerial vehicle in late 2007 showing terrorists firing mortars from right outside a school.

jpost.com



[edit on 2-2-2009 by dbates]


I have re-bolded your source. You can't break down propaganda methods and then re-use them for your own cause.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Could be. So all of the other murder, wounded and infrastructure destruction was OK. How many Isrealis had the rockets killed at the time of the start of their massacre, wasn't it THREE?

(If this doesn't get on, it will tell me something about ATS)



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ixnay
 



said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school ..... the agency was "99.9 percent certain there were no militants or military activity in its school."


That is an extract from the same article you posted... it's parts from the first 3 paragraphs.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


So in other words, Hamas was setting the school up to be a target, using children as a shield. Such marvelous people. Yeah, they care about the people of Palestine, Right! Glad we got that established.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
WOW Thanks for revealing exactly who you are? I have to wonder how many people believe it is acceptable to assassinate a cartoonist for making fun of an insane situation.


I suspect there might be a few, the same type's in the US who assassinate doctors who perform abortions because 'god' supposedly said that's bad. So much for some western Christian respect of women? Why single out some individuals as if they represent a whole religion or people? Why only do this when their Muslim or some other faith that isn't your own?


So, clearly you don't believe in freedom of speech, and you think it is all right to kill someone for mocking them.


I believe in freedom of speech but i also , like the founding fathers of the US and most other democratic systems , believe that there are ( and perhaps should be) consequences for hate speech or slander against groups or individuals. I don't believe it's 'allright', to kill people for what they say but i understand that most people when sufficiently personally insulted will try to inflict pain that often leads to people dying in domestic disputes.

Our justice systems where designed with freedom of speech protections in mind but also with a criminal system where we can prosecute those who kill for what they believe or what others say of them. This system isn't perfect but it protects free speech and allows us to lock away those who can't deal with the freedoms of others.


What about death threats? If mocking someone is reason enough to kill them, than someone vowing to kill you should give you even more reason to kill them,


I never said it was reason enough according to my views but when you say inflammatory things or take actions others might not like you are always too one extent or another taking your life into your own hands. Our justice system can not guarantee your safety all hours of the day when you invite retribution by making clearly unwanted social commentary.


which means by your logic, Israel is validated in everything they have done. By your logic, Israel has the right to wipe out all of Palestine, and the Muslim world in general,


Israel as a national entity has the power to do pretty much what it likes in it's local scene and in many ways it has done so for more than half a century. My logic does not lead me to believe that Israel has the right to commit further genocidal actions on the Palestinians but at least i understand that they can and that in our current world system those with the power to stop them has not and wont.

I understand that you want to paint me as some kind of radical, who likes Muslims (!!!) , but i would say the same of Christians only that's not a problem on a forum where Muslim bashing is just about the only religious bashing going on. As always i try to make a distinction between what is the ideal in civilized societies and what we have mostly agreed the consequences should be when some choose to act outside of them.


as does the U.S. and a great deal many other powerful countries.


Only why would the US and other western civilized countries do such things when the crimes committed against them pales in comparison to the crimes the Imperial west has in recent centuries inflicted on the Muslim and third world in general? If their such 'savages' , without much in the way of armed might, and 'we' are such civilized heavily armed folk why choose a extermination policy that isn't supported by the citizens of any of these civilized western countries? Why favor the 'solution's imposed by a few powerful organizations and men in government who wish to use these situations for the same old imperial ambitions?

If the vast majority of the citizens of the west can figure this out what exactly is your problem?


Honestly, I had always thought that you were a moderate.


Right, and despite the fact that i don't see that as a compliment i wonder why you changed your mind based on the fact that i think cartoonist don't often enough get what they deserve for thinly veiled racist/sexist hate or slanderous speech or that some film makers produce material that isn't meant to do much other than to inflame racial prejudices? If you want to change the world and save Muslim women ( as i am sure was never village idiots intent , as Theo supposedly frequently called himself, in the first place) i suggest you do something other than make provocative films with half naked women in praying posture , talking about the abuse as if to Allah, while Qur'anic verses with nasty ideas about women are projected onto them. If you choose such a course while making equally slanderous statements against Jewish people your eventually probably going to get the type of response you seem to so desperately crave.


I have provided links on many of these threads to prove the things I stated in the post you are responding to. After this statement of yours, any further debate on the subject with you is a waste of time.


For every link i have cajoled you into eventually producing i had supplied many more before ( not that numbers matter but perhaps more so than occasional attempts at proof) and if you have now finally come to the conclusions that you can't change my mind with your hate filled agenda of terrorism against a mostly economically impoverished minority that's great; i have ;long ago realised that i don't have the intelligence to impress a more accurate version of history on you.


You have fully convinced me that winning the war on terrorism should be out nations first priority.


Like you care for dissenting opinions that are crazy enough to suggests that violence isn't the solution. Who do you think your fooling here?

Winning the war on 'terrorism'? Who are you fighting that the US national security state didn't originally arm or terrorize into sometimes fanatical resistance?

Stellar



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Think about it. A densley populated area, surrounded by walls. They whole place is civilians. If you have no where to fight back from away from civilians...where do you fight?

I was demonstrating that they were not fired from the school yet it was hit. A street close to the school could have been 1, 2 or even 10 blocks away and still be "close". We don't know the exact proximity, but we know that it wasn't from the school, nor from the street which the school was on.

Regardless, Israel has high tech weapons that will hit whatever they target, if they wanted to hit the "street" from which the rockets were fired from they would have hit that, and not the school. There has been several incidents where they have hit UN run buildings even though they have the GPS locations given to them. They even did it toLebanon in 2006.

What they should be doing is hitting a particular target and not using cluster bombs which spray shrapnal at civilians or bombs which will destroy a 300 meter area.

In 2006-07 Israel fired 14,000 rounds of artillary into Gaza, their actions cannot be portrayed as innocent because they're not.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Who are you fighting that the US national security state didn't originally arm or terrorize into sometimes fanatical resistance?


That is why, I think people like these are so defensive:

they want to hide or dilute the fact that extremist monster they have created (for obvious reasons of gaining power or profit) has turned against them

funny thing is that the 'war on terror' in fact means 'war on ourselves'

and how will this end? the monster will destroy it's creator

there is no doubt about it





posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro


and how will this end? the monster will destroy it's creator

there is no doubt about it




nice analogy. another analogy would be from master and slave dialectic. End is the same



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Yeah, we do have radicals in the U.S., but the murder rate for political purposes in the U.S. is no where near what it is in the Middle East, and more importantly, people like myself condemn these acts, we don't approve of them as you approved of the murder in people in Europe because they insulted Islam. You need to watch "The Sixth of May", a movie by a man who was killed by Islamic extremists. It is an excellent portrayal of a situation, and your approval of the directors murder is beyond reasonable. Here in the U.S. we work hard to eliminate these radical elements, while in the Muslim world they are supported, and the public demonstrations clearly prove that.

Exactly what did these people say or comment on that makes you think they deserved to die? I am not trying to paint you as some kind of a radical, you have done that to yourself by this indefensible statement supporting murder in violation of free speech.


Only why would the US and other western civilized countries do such things when the crimes committed against them pales in comparison to the crimes the Imperial west has in recent centuries inflicted on the Muslim and third world in general?


Really, where is your proof of this. This subject deserves a thread of its own, and this claim is grossly overstated. You want to judge the west by current Western standards, the the radical elements of Islam refuse to accept even today. You go back and examine the actions of the West over the last several centuries, and most often they were more civilized than the people they were confronting as they explored the planet. You read through these claims of Western atrocities, and they are all strawmen arguments based on ludicrous claims that ignore the activities of those that they were dealing with. For example, just because the U.S. once associated with some group or individual, the propagandists want to claim that makes the U.S. responsible for all the atrocities committed by that radical element. This is a ludicrous position. By the same logic, the same arguments makes everyone to blame for the actions of everyone else, and that is total nonsense.

Only Saddam Hussain was responsible for the actions of Saddam Hussain, only the members of the Taliban are responsible for the actions of the Taliban.

I provide links as often as you do, you have made more than your share of audacious claims that you never back up with links.

You want a link to terrorism in Germany, here ya go. You could have done this yourself.

www.google.com...

The evidence is overwhelming.

You are far and away from a vast majority supporting your position, or the idea that we in the West are the root of all evil. You represent a radical element in western liberalism that is attempting to take over the liberal movement and destroy it with kind of biased view against the West that you espouse. This is why GW won over Kerry, it became clear that Kerry has a disdain for the U.S. and the West similar to your own.

Yours is the hate filled agenda, supporting the assassination of people for speaking their minds, supporting terrorism. I consistently come here to speak out against violence like terrorism and honor killings, and stand up for those who act in their own defense. People do have a right to defend themselves against those, like Hamas, who swear to destroy them.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


Why is it so densely populated, why do these people have among the highest birthrates in the world. They are using birthrates and poverty as a means of war, and his is just downright sick. It is a cancer.



posted on Feb, 7 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Maybe it is densley populated because a population which occupied 93% of the land 100 years ago has since been boxed into only 12% of the land?


As for the birth rate, it is higher than usual. But then again, so is the death rate.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


Really? Do you have any links to back up this claim? From the links I have already provided, the population of Palestine is several times what it was a hundred years ago. The reason they are so over crowded is because they are trying to use birth rate as a weapon.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.6 million in 2008, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.
www.un.org...

The population figures prior to the mandate all differ. So i guess an exact number cannot be determined. However by 1950 almost 1million were refugees.

The following is a link to the 396 towns including their population prior to the occupation. www.webgaza.net...

Then in 1967 when israel again extended their borders, more people were made refugees.

In Palestine the average number of births per family is about 4. Where as the Jews average about 3. There isn't much difference



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Please let's not talk about words of propaganda, they don't have any meaning(they loose their meaning at the time frame of propagation). Freedom of speech means different things according to different people because it has been used to propagate Western agendas.

When a historian is arrested and locked up for his views in Europe it is not against freedom of speech, but when people express their anger against cartoons which mocks a culture and a way of life, according to you it is a step against freedom of speech.

So as I said, there is no point arguing on words which has no bases.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Obliterated
 


So in other words, Hamas was setting the school up to be a target, using children as a shield. Such marvelous people. Yeah, they care about the people of Palestine, Right! Glad we got that established.



No they don't .. in case you did not know: Hamas is for the establishment of a muslim state... they don't care if it's called palestine or if palestine people live there..

The people that actually cared about Palestine and an Palestine state was put in jail long ago.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by StellarX



I suspect there might be a few, the same type's in the US who assassinate doctors who perform abortions because 'god' supposedly said that's bad. So much for some western Christian respect of women? Why single out some individuals as if they represent a whole religion or people? Why only do this when their Muslim or some other faith that isn't your own?


If we look at it in a per capita comparison, you're going to find that the number of "Christians" killing abortion doctors(or calling for the killing of those they disagree with) isn't even remotely comparable to the other groups.




I believe in freedom of speech but i also , like the founding fathers of the US and most other democratic systems , believe that there are ( and perhaps should be) consequences for hate speech or slander against groups or individuals. I don't believe it's 'allright', to kill people for what they say but i understand that most people when sufficiently personally insulted will try to inflict pain that often leads to people dying in domestic disputes.


So if you "slander" a group of Muslim extremists, you see no problem with them issuing death threats/murdering people? I suppose you don't see satire as being legitimate?




I never said it was reason enough according to my views but when you say inflammatory things or take actions others might not like you are always too one extent or another taking your life into your own hands. Our justice system can not guarantee your safety all hours of the day when you invite retribution by making clearly unwanted social commentary.


The point many of us are trying to make, is that there's only one major group of people on the planet, that if you criticize them, or satirize them, they're likely to respond with violence.









Right, and despite the fact that i don't see that as a compliment i wonder why you changed your mind based on the fact that i think cartoonist don't often enough get what they deserve for thinly veiled racist/sexist hate or slanderous speech or that some film makers produce material that isn't meant to do much other than to inflame racial prejudices? If you want to change the world and save Muslim women ( as i am sure was never village idiots intent , as Theo supposedly frequently called himself, in the first place) i suggest you do something other than make provocative films with half naked women in praying posture , talking about the abuse as if to Allah, while Qur'anic verses with nasty ideas about women are projected onto them.


How is pointing out institutional sexism and abuse, sexist/racist? If the shoe fits....
If we want to look at the world through a relativist prism, we can rationalize all sorts of injustices. I'm not of the opinion that every culture is of equal merit. If your culture has institutionalized mistreatment of women, or those that think/believe differently, then that's certainly fair game for criticism.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Obliterated
 


The population growth of Palestine is double that of the world, and when you are talking about population growth, that is a huge difference. The Muslim world in general leads the world in population growth, as humans crowd out all other life forms. Essentially, it is turning the human race into a disease, a cancerous growth.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Obliterated
 


The population growth of Palestine is double that of the world, and when you are talking about population growth, that is a huge difference. The Muslim world in general leads the world in population growth, as humans crowd out all other life forms. Essentially, it is turning the human race into a disease, a cancerous growth.


Kindly cite population growth data on people who happen to be Muslim otherwise we will assume that this statement is hate speech.

You know very well that issues of population growth is largely about sustainability in third world countries, China, India, Africa and South America.

Your diatribe is entirely congruent with the genocidal policies of the Israeli state and the destruction of the Palestinians held hostage by the Israeli Occupation Forces.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join