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.

 

Israel faces child-abuse claims

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 




Defence for Children International (DCI) is an independent non-governmental organisation set up during the International Year of the Child (1979) to ensure on-going, practical, systematic and concerted international and national action specially directed towards promoting and protecting the rights of the child, as articulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Nigel Cantwell was one of its founders and its current president is Rifat Odeh Kassis from the Palestinian Territories.


en.wikipedia.org...

No bias or agenda here, none at all.
2nd line.




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Skellon
 




en.wikipedia.org...

No bias or agenda here, none at all.
2nd line.


If there is evidence, then bias, and agenda is not involved.

This is going to the UN, let them decide.

Do you suppose the war crime evidence which came forward was also related to bias and agenda?



[edit on 6-6-2010 by LittleSecret]



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

Are you speaking of the 'Goldstone Report' ?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

Are you speaking of the 'Goldstone Report' ?



Hi

And yes!

The evidence came from Palestinian eye witnesses, so must be bias.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by Skellon
 




en.wikipedia.org...

No bias or agenda here, none at all.
2nd line.


If there is evidence, then bias, and agenda is not involved.

This is going to the UN, let them decide.

Do you suppose the war crime evidence which came forward was also related to bias and agenda?



[edit on 6-6-2010 by LittleSecret]


You keep ranting in this thread, but I have yet to see more then someone claiming to have evidence. Did I miss the actual evidence or is this simply you grabbing something anti-Israel and/or Jews and running with it out of hatred...again?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

Are you speaking of the 'Goldstone Report' ?



Hi

And yes!

The evidence came from Palestinian eye witnesses, so must be bias.



Hi

And correct!

Thanks for saving me the time LittleSecret.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 


Ranting?

Have you ever seen ranting before?

Me and my fellow ATS member are having a discussion, I don't see any ranting.

The evidence will be presented to the UN.

Funny how your first comment in this thread brings out the magic word "anti-Semite" in to play.

Is that word suppose to give you a VETO and stop the condemnation of Israel by me?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 


Ranting?

Have you ever seen ranting before?

Me and my fellow ATS member are having a discussion, I don't see any ranting.

The evidence will be presented to the UN.

Funny how your first comment in this thread brings out the magic word "anti-Semite" in to play.

Is that word suppose to give you a VETO and stop the condemnation of Israel by me?



1) Yes you are ranting, as you always do in any anti-Israel/Jews thread. This post is a beautiful example.

2) So there is no evidence that is actually public, yet you rant in this thread as if the accusation is a 100% proven fact.

3) Please show me where I said anything about anti-Semitism.

4) Typical response by you, avoid the actual questions and go on the attack.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) Yes you are ranting, as you always do in any anti-Israel/Jews thread. This post is a beautiful example.

2) So there is no evidence that is actually public, yet you rant in this thread as if the accusation is a 100% proven fact.

3) Please show me where I said anything about anti-Semitism.

4) Typical response by you, avoid the actual questions and go on the attack.


1. Prove to me that I'm ranting, and tell us all what ranting means.

2. The evidence is the kids who got "sexually abused", in this case the evidence is the witness, who are the kids.

This is already mentioned in the article if you read it.

3. Anti-Jew = Anti-Semite.

4.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) Yes you are ranting, as you always do in any anti-Israel/Jews thread. This post is a beautiful example.

2) So there is no evidence that is actually public, yet you rant in this thread as if the accusation is a 100% proven fact.

3) Please show me where I said anything about anti-Semitism.

4) Typical response by you, avoid the actual questions and go on the attack.


1. Prove to me that I'm ranting, and tell us all what ranting means.

2. The evidence is the kids who got "sexually abused", in this case the evidence is the witness, who are the kids.

This is already mentioned in the article if you read it.

3. Anti-Jew = Anti-Semite.

4.


1) I love how you ask for proof of something that is one's opinion and then in the next point refuse to show any proof of something you claim is fact.

2) As I said you do not have any 100% proven evidence, you just immediately believe whatever suits your side. I wonder if you would be so quick to grasp on to unproven allegations if they were about Israeli families or soldiers being attacked or abused.

3) Nowhere did I say or imply anti-Semitism. Keep reaching.

4) Yep, thumbs down, that's all you've got because you know what I said is true and your latest post is another glaring example.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) I love how you ask for proof of something that is one's opinion and then in the next point refuse to show any proof of something you claim is fact.

2) As I said you do not have any 100% proven evidence, you just immediately believe whatever suits your side. I wonder if you would be so quick to grasp on to unproven allegations if they were about Israeli families or soldiers being attacked or abused.

3) Nowhere did I say or imply anti-Semitism. Keep reaching.

4) Yep, thumbs down, that's all you've got because you know what I said is true and your latest post is another glaring example.


1. You accuse me of ranting, show me where I'm ranting, and define to me ranting.

2. There is no such thing as 100% proven evidence. That is why this is going to the UN.

3. Anti-Jew means Anti-Semite, there is no difference. You don't need to imply here.

4.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) I love how you ask for proof of something that is one's opinion and then in the next point refuse to show any proof of something you claim is fact.

2) As I said you do not have any 100% proven evidence, you just immediately believe whatever suits your side. I wonder if you would be so quick to grasp on to unproven allegations if they were about Israeli families or soldiers being attacked or abused.

3) Nowhere did I say or imply anti-Semitism. Keep reaching.

4) Yep, thumbs down, that's all you've got because you know what I said is true and your latest post is another glaring example.


1. You accuse me of ranting, show me where I'm ranting, and define to me ranting.

2. There is no such thing as 100% proven evidence. That is why this is going to the UN.

3. Anti-Jew means Anti-Semite, there is no difference. You don't need to imply here.

4.


1) Go back and look at every one of your posts in this thread.

2) And yet your rantings in this thread make it sound like these allegations have been proven.

3) Let me get this straight, you whine about me saying you are ranting and then you make false accusations against me saying I am claiming anti-Semitism?!?!?! Wow.

4) Posting that emoticon does nothing but keep proving what I said about you. Step up big boy, have some balls.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) Go back and look at every one of your posts in this thread.

2) And yet your rantings in this thread make it sound like these allegations have been proven.

3) Let me get this straight, you whine about me saying you are ranting and then you make false accusations against me saying I am claiming anti-Semitism?!?!?! Wow.

4) Posting that emoticon does nothing but keep proving what I said about you. Step up big boy, have some balls.


1. You gave all my post as an example of ranting:

Question: Why do you regard my posts as ranting?

Define ranting.

2.
[a] You were asking for evidence > I said the evidence is the witnesses, the kids who claim they were abused, now it is going to the UN.
You claim that is not 100% evidence > I said there is no such thing as 100% evidence.
[c] Now you say I sound like the allegations have been proven > I sound like the allegation is proven because I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, I mean they have locked 1.5 million people denying them their basic human rights. They have killed activists with bulldozers, they have continued the illegal blockade, the illegal settlement expansion, the illegal wall, the illegal occupation, the restriction of movement, continually breaking International laws, war crimes, the continuous murder of innocent Palestinians etc

So yes, I can understand when I say I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, just like I wouldn't be surprised if America was torturing someone right now.

3. Define Anti-Semite:


someone who hates and would persecute Jews

www.google.co.nz...

Anti Jew = Anti Semite.

4.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by LittleSecret
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 




1) Go back and look at every one of your posts in this thread.

2) And yet your rantings in this thread make it sound like these allegations have been proven.

3) Let me get this straight, you whine about me saying you are ranting and then you make false accusations against me saying I am claiming anti-Semitism?!?!?! Wow.

4) Posting that emoticon does nothing but keep proving what I said about you. Step up big boy, have some balls.


1. You gave all my post as an example of ranting:

Question: Why do you regard my posts as ranting?

Define ranting.

2.
[a] You were asking for evidence > I said the evidence is the witnesses, the kids who claim they were abused, now it is going to the UN.
You claim that is not 100% evidence > I said there is no such thing as 100% evidence.
[c] Now you say I sound like the allegations have been proven > I sound like the allegation is proven because I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, I mean they have locked 1.5 million people denying them their basic human rights. They have killed activists with bulldozers, they have continued the illegal blockade, the illegal settlement expansion, the illegal wall, the illegal occupation, the restriction of movement, continually breaking International laws, war crimes, the continuous murder of innocent Palestinians etc

So yes, I can understand when I say I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, just like I wouldn't be surprised if America was torturing someone right now.

3. Define Anti-Semite:


someone who hates and would persecute Jews

www.google.co.nz...

Anti Jew = Anti Semite.

4.


You crack me up.

1) Because, in my opinion they are.

2) So you claimed to have evidence (which is actually simply unproven allegations) and base every post on these allegations being true, and suddenly say there is no such thing as 100% evidence. Shouldn't all your posts start with "If these allegations are true" instead of posting as if you know they are true? I also wonder how you can say there is no such thing as 100% evidence, when it's actually a fact that 100% proven evidence is a fact.

3) Just because you provide a definition does not mean I said or implied anti-Semitism. Nice job ignoring my point about you whining about me saying you are ranting while you make false accusations...but that is typical of you.

4) Keep running coward.

I am done, my points have been made and you have done a perfect job of making yourself look foolish...again. Enjoy your evening stewing, angry and full of hate...and your desperately needed last word.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
I think most people are sickened by the reemergence of anti-Semitic sentiment in the world, NOT by any of Israel's alleged human rights abuses. Frankly, I don't believe the lies about Israel. I know all about Israel's history, I know about their terrorist tactics — but, you know what? I think WE ALL should answer terrorism WITH terrorism, just as Israel has done.

I mean, it's just like barroom brawl rules: When a guy steps up and hits you with Level 5, you come back at him with Level 10. You don't allow your enemy to even think about a "next time," right.

If the USA had any balls (like Israel), we could've been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan in a year — just NUKE the scum back to the Stone Age. Pull out the "embedded" journalists, clamp down on information leaks, and go in there and WIPE OUT anyone who we even think might be our enemies. For my position, some have called me "brash" and even "intolerant"... But you don't win wars by tolerating your enemy, as we have done in the USA and in Europe.

We are FAILING as nations because we're TOO TOLERANT of our enemies. No, tolerance doesn't make us any better, doesn't make us stand any taller — our tolerance simply makes us a sitting duck for every lame-ass liberal complaint and every half-baked militant activist and terrorist out there.

People who were otherwise too frightened to challenge us in the past now feel free to assail us with impunity, because our spineless politicians and syphilis-infested "leaders" make a grand show of tolerating these attacks from without and from within.

So, I'm with Israel — the only smart defense in today's world is a preemptive strike, nipping any perceived threat in the bud. And, no, I don't believe the "child abuse" gossip — this is the kind of juvenile crap that starts to circulate when your enemies have no sound argument against you. Your enemies will accuse you of racism, of child abuse, or every other low and vile sort of activity (activities in which your enemies are no doubt engaged as part of their "accepted lifestyles"), and mindless liberal parrots the world over pick up the war cry.

Next thing you know, the whole world — or, at least, the liberal-controlled global media — hates you. Next thing you know, the gubbermint trucks are forming a circle around your compound before they storm in and murder every man, woman and child on the premises. Yeah! That'll show those no good child-abusers!

Sheesh. Has the West gone so intellectually flaccid that they can't see through this NeoNazi propaganda spewing forth against Israel?

People, there's a time to talk and a time to fight. Thank God that Israel knows the difference, because we sure as hell don't.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

Please research Colonel Desmond Travers.

He was the 'experienced military source' for the Goldstone report.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by backwherewestarted
 


Here is the summary since you seem to forget too fast:

Your first post:


You keep ranting in this thread, but I have yet to see more then someone claiming to have evidence. Did I miss the actual evidence or is this simply you grabbing something anti-Israel and/or Jews and running with it out of hatred...again?


The answer to the evidence:


The evidence will be presented to the UN.




The evidence is the kids who got "sexually abused", in this case the evidence is the witness, who are the kids.

This is already mentioned in the article if you read it.


Your second post:

So there is no evidence that is actually public, yet you rant in this thread as if the accusation is a 100% proven fact.

As you can see you asked for evidence, now you asking for 100% proven fact.

The answer:


There is no such thing as 100% proven evidence. That is why this is going to the UN.


Once again see the transition from evidence to 100% proven evidence? There is evidence, kids who claim they were sexually abused, just like rape victims claiming someone raped them. That is the biggest evidence, eye witness, especially when there is more than one.

More investigation will be done by the UN.

You next post:


And yet your rantings in this thread make it sound like these allegations have been proven.


Then I said:


[a] You were asking for evidence > I said the evidence is the witnesses, the kids who claim they were abused, now it is going to the UN.
You claim that is not 100% evidence > I said there is no such thing as 100% evidence.
[c] Now you say I sound like the allegations have been proven > I sound like the allegation is proven because I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, I mean they have locked 1.5 million people denying them their basic human rights. They have killed activists with bulldozers, they have continued the illegal blockade, the illegal settlement expansion, the illegal wall, the illegal occupation, the restriction of movement, continually breaking International laws, war crimes, the continuous murder of innocent Palestinians etc

So yes, I can understand when I say I wouldn't be surprised if Israel was doing this, just like I wouldn't be surprised if America was torturing someone right now.


Your next post:


So you claimed to have evidence (which is actually simply unproven allegations)


Unproven allegations? You know, when a rape victim accuses someone of raping her, the claims will be investigated.

And if you read the OP it say specifically by me that it will go to the UN.



This one is going to the UN also


And if you read the article:



Now the organisation has submitted its evidence to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture to try and increase pressure on Israel to stamp out the alleged abuse.


The organization has already submitted its evidence, if it didn't have any evidence then how could it submit it?

That is a good enough summary..

Good day.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
And your anti Semite claim, it was in your first post:



you grabbing something anti-Israel and/or Jews and running with it out of hatred...again?


Which I replied with:


Funny how your first comment in this thread brings out the magic word "anti-Semite" in to play.

Is that word suppose to give you a VETO and stop the condemnation of Israel by me?



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skellon
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

Please research Colonel Desmond Travers.

He was the 'experienced military source' for the Goldstone report.


Thanks..

Second line



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LittleSecret
 


Hi LittleSecret,

I apologise for my brief posts in response but I am so tired of people on here not researching BOTH sides of an issue. How can you formulate an objective opinion of something when you choose not to examine every perspective?

THAT is ignorance. The sites' motto is 'DENY IGNORANCE'.

The point that backwhere was making and that you do not seem to grasp is another classic case of ignorance displayed by not only you but by most of the posters that oppose my opinion.

There is a BIG difference between 'evidence submitted' and guilt or fact.

I could, in theory, allege and submit evidence that you are Guy Fawkes, however unless the evidence is proven in a court of law to be irrefutable and therefore FACT, then the case is thrown out of court.

Check your sources; I personally have a habit of looking for the 'About Us' and 'Contact Us' on sites I consider citing, unless within that article there is a citation to an impartial source if I am going to use that in the context of contradicting someone with 'stronger' evidence than their source.

This is not entirely addressed at you, but at everyone who takes this stance.

As Doc has observed, there is something really quite monumental going on here, in my opinion there are some 'big players' involved in sending Israel to its grave, and those 'big players' seem to have the ear of most of the world's press. Who they are, I cannot be 100% certain of, however I can speculate quite a few of them with valid means and motives.

I urge you to look at the 'other side' if even just to prove this alleged 'IDF agent' wrong.

Kind regards.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by Skellon]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join