Palestinians falsifying evidence for the UN comitte

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm signing in the raaaaaain, just singing in the raaaaaain, nananananan and I feel happy agaaaaaain
parararara
pam pam pam pararam
taratata pararam

[Ecthy]

I knew nothing sensible was to be expected when I noticed you had posted in this thread.

[Bereta_Eder]

I'm (pararararam) dreaming (tarara) of a white (papapararam) Christmaaaaaass
just like the ones I used to know
(pararam pararam)
when the birds lalala
and taraamat
the snowflakes in the snow
(ppararam)
The snow!

[Ecthy]

Who's supposed to be deraaaanged, again?

[Bereta_Eder]

if i stay here with yououoouou girl (tararararam - BAM)
things just wouldn't be the saaaame (tiwiwiwiwiwiwiweeeee)
'cause I'm as free as a bird now (tam taram BAM)
and this bird you cannot chaaaaaaaaange
NOwOwOwOw
and this bird you cannot chaaaange

[Ecthy]

Now I don't recognize that song. Which one is it?

[Bereta_Eder]

SACRILEGE! You don;t know Free Bird by Lynyrd Skynyrd??????


Immidieatly go and buy one of their albums!! (or you can just download the song )

[Ecthy]

I cured him.

[Bereta_Eder]

have another one

I was cutting the rug
Down at a place called The Jug
With a girl named Linda Lu
When in walked a man
With a gun in his hand
And he was looking for you know who.
He said, 'Hey there fellow,
With the hair colored yellow,
Watcha tryin' to prove?
'Cause that's my woman there
And I'm a man who cares
And this might be all for you.'

I was scared and fearing for my life.
I was shakin' like a leaf on a tree.
'Cause he was lean, mean,
Big and bad, Lord,
Pointin' that gun at me.
I said, 'Wait a minute, mister,
I didn't even kiss her.
Don't want no trouble with you.
And I know you don't owe me
But I wish you'd let me
Ask one favor from you.'

(Chorus)
'Won't you give me three steps,
Gimme three steps mister,
Gimme three steps towards the door?
Gimme three steps
Gimme three steps mister,
And you'll never see me no more.'

Well the crowd cleared away
And I began to pray
As the water fell on the floor.
And I'm telling you son,
Well, it ain't no fun
Staring straight down a forty-four.
Well he turned and screamed at Linda Lu
And that's the break I was looking for.
And you could hear me screaming a mile away
As I was headed out towards the door.

(Chorus)

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
That question is totally nonsensical. A massacre is not a technical term, or at least shouldn't be. Any case of murder with many people involved is a massacre, and now don't as kwhat many means.

Good point by Lefty there. It's so easy to say "STOP!" to investigators (and ambulances for that matter) and afterwards say"oh, it's too late now, now stop living in the past and let's look into the future. fine, we won the battle. we want 90%".

So you finally agree that when a Pal. walks into a restaurent or gets on a bus and blows it up it is a massacre? Regardless about the number of deaths. It is apart of the ongoing situation right?

[Ecthy]

Yes, of course it is a massacre.

But, for every massacre there's a cause. For the Israeli army's (supposed, not yet proven) massacre in Jenin, that is a wish for security that is said to be enforced by means that are so drastical that it is hardly to believe they're not undertaken for destroying the Palestinian infratructure as such, thus also destroying their chance to exist as a state.

For the suicide bomb attacks, it's a mix of fanatism of minor groups (a fanatism that does not represent their religion however) and pure desperation of a movement, an idea, a peoples (what a climax! ).

There can't be an excuse for either of those, both kill innocents. I've heard that in both populations the wish for peace and a decent agreement (that is to be read as in compromise) is more important than total victory.

This is moer than you had asked for, and it's pretty basical considering how long they've been debating in threads about it, but I often get the idea people are very much into taking side with either faction rather than looking on the whole picture. Of course it is impossible, but the harder you try the more you get of it, and where innocents die that want peace on both sides, any effort is worth the gain.

[Sirotnikov]

, but his post provides no links and the allegations are made by unnamed "security sources."

security sources = intelligence agencies.

Reportedly, the palestinians are digging up people from cemeteries, palcing them in body bags and dumping them into mass graves, to increase the number of "casualties".

Furthermore, they've ceased burrial of people, to make sure they are all left there.

But Israel refused any external observer during Jenin battle.

Let me quote from a palestinian source (I can give it to you if you want) : "we booby trapped every square meter."

Now, I understand your claims, and I admit it's a serious Israeli fvckup. I also understand it looks suspicious but interviews I've read with several terrorists, some from arab sources, didn't mention massacares, so I still don't believe it.

Or that win-win peace agreement of 2 weeks before Sharon being elected that never got mentioned in the big media

Let me tell you what happenned to it.[/q]

Israelis called the Palestinian negociator Abu Ala and suggested signing the agreement to make it a binding document, to leave chance for peace.

Abu Ala replied : "The Boss doesn't want an agreement" end quote.

[Arrian]

Sorry, but I tend to take stories that rely on "sources say" with a LARGE grain of salt.

It's exactly the type of stuff you would see from the other side, Siro, claiming that Jews kill babies and drink blood. Sorry, but it's a pretty wild accusation, and I'm not buying it until there is some sort of proof.

-Arrian

[Sirotnikov]

Arrian, I understand your fears and doubts, and I completely accept them.

I've sadly seen them do worse. Furthermore many of the palestinians were close friends with the USSR, which taught them every dirty trick in the book.

So to me, it doesn't sound as outrageous.

Furthermore, I wish to differentiate my self from the racist, and explain that I do not claim anything about the palestinain people in general.

Rather, I mean the palestinian officials - the PA / PLO.


I do however wish to point out that IDF was pretty exact until now.

IDF said that palestinians were sacking the church of nativity and holding people hostage.

Teenagers, and recently two priests who managed to leave, proved IDF claims and said that the gunmen have robbed everything and desecrated every holy place in the church.

They said that only those who have guns or are related to the PA get most of the food.

They said that they were often prevented from leaving using force, and an air video captured by an IAF device proved it. (IAF = Israeli Air Force)..

I don't know which type of plane or helicopter shot the pictures, though.

[Ecthy]

The thing is that (logically) I haven't got any first hand info, but many of the things I was told by that German-Palestinian cooperation organizaiton (or solidarity org if you prefer that) were rather interesting. Alas I don'T know half the facts he knows, so I'd rather create a direct conneciton and see what's the result... on a poly thread

Oops, whatever happened to my articles? I hear you ask... yeah yeah, give it time

And thanks for a first... response...

[gopher]

damn threadjackers

[Ned]

For what it's worth, I saw an interview with one of the Jenin fighters on either FOX NEWS or MSNBC, I can't recall which because I am a real channel flipper betweeb the two. The fighter proudly described his fight against the IDF. They had about 100 fighters and they held off the IDF for days, inflicting dozens of casualties on the IDF. Most of the time, the two sides were only meters apart.

Israel ended the struggle by bringing in bulldozers to flatten the defender's buildings.

The fighter reported that he saw no massacres. However, unless those buildings were empty of civilians, a lot of people could still be found in the rubble.

Question: Assuming the building were still occupied by civilians, was Israel justified in using bulldozers in the way it did?

If the answer is no, and war crimes were committed, then the Americans who fought WWII are equally as guilty. We flattened Monte Casino. We firebombed Cologne and Dresden and made a ruin of Hamburg and Berlin. We destroyed virtually every large city in Japan.

The rape of Nanking was small potatoes compared to the mass murder committed by the United States.

Shall we put the American survivors of WWII on trial? Should we ban the Democratic Party as the Nazi party was banned?

I am alive today because my Dad survived WWII. He was a company commander in the Pacific Theater. Undoubtedly, he would have been among the forces that would have landed on the beaches of Japan. Everyone was predicting a bloodbath for American troops. A million dead was the estimate. My Dad would probably have died. So I owe my life, as do many Americans owe their lives, to the actions of the Democratic Party leadership in 1945 that made the calls they did.

These are tough questions.

Now think of a war where the American military was handcuffed by political concerns: Vietnam. Whether the United States ever should have gotten involved in that war is not the question. But the way we fought the war, with one hand tied behind our back, only resulted in a bloodbath for both American and North Vietnamese troops. Despite America's overwhelming superiority in resources, America lost the war and had nothing to show for the sacrifice of so many American citizens. Rather than the world putting the Democratic Party leadership on trial for war crimes, the American people (by voting for Bobby Kennedy) told Johnson to leave, and he did.

Now think of yourself as an American soldier in WWII or Vietnam, or an Israeli solder in Jenin. Would you be willing to lay down your life to protect the lives of enemy civilians? I think not.

These are deeply troubling questions that occur in every war. Choices have to be made. Ugly choices.

So, now, what if the UN determines that flattening those buildings with civilians inside was a war crime? Are they going to try to arrest Sharon and the IDF leadership? That would, I believe, lead to an Israeli withdrawal from the United Nations. It might also lead to an U.S. withdrawal. It certainly will not be conducive to peace, and would further polarize the world.

Whoever is behind the U.N. commission is aggressively anti-Israeli. If the UN ever had any credibility on this conflict, they have now lost it. The spiral into a world war quickens.

Ned

[MrFun]

Let's just let everyone have their fair share of strawberries, and spread the peace and love.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by gopher


So how many bodies does it take to be classified a massacre?

Going on the Boston Massacre....


5

[Urban Ranger]

Siro,

You are going hysterical. Chill out.

[The Mad Monk]

If they are stupid enough to dig up cemetaries to fill mass graves, it will be easy enough to determine by examining the bodies for degree of decomposition.

Do Palestinian burial practice include the use of preservatives, perfumes or other materials?

[Ecthy]

I agree with UR.

[Adalbertus]

Ned,

Terror attacks on civilians, as the bombing of many German cities were, was a war crime. The only reason why this was not sued is the fact that it were the winners who did do so. Especially the bombing of Dresden (January or February 1945) city centre only, lots of refugees, no industry, falls into this category. The war was decided at this time, and it had no military sense. (The same holds for German bomb raids on civilians, of course).

The nuclear bombs on Japan were a different thing. Not that I am really happy about it, and one would have been enough, but it changed the war, and helped to avoid another few million dead people (Americans and Japanese). And I think it helped also to keep the cold war cold and to avoid India and Pakistan going to war on the parliament terract last december or january.

In the example with the building, things are really tougher to decide. This would be a case where I even would advocate chemical warfare: Buildings are an excellent chance to throw in some narcoting substance. Take people outside and look who is civilian, who is terrorist. Even if certainly against some laws, I wouldn't blame Israel for *that*.

More about the Jenin thing: What I really don't understand is that Israel isn't pressing to get the investigators to Jenin. They have a right (and duty) to take care that they have the expertise and are as little biased as possible. But if Israel has nothing to hide it is better to have it done quickly than to give Palestinians the time to cheat.

[Adalbertus]

Let's just let everyone have their fair share of strawberries, and spread the peace and love.

So here you finally show up as the one you really are: An anti-bananaist!!!

[Sirotnikov]

, but it changed the war, and helped to avoid another few million dead people

We could say the same for operation defensive shield.

A conflict requires a quick solution.

If we drag it, the bodies simply pile up.

[Sirotnikov]

German newspaper reported that al-qiada plans to kidnap dozens of germans and french people and demand the release of al-qaida prisoners.

with terrorists it's better to take no prisoners.

[Ecthy]

Now I get that logic... if you take prisoners, others will cause damage to get them free, good point actually.

What can be done about that without killing people? I know a solution: A therapy, then set them free

[Ned]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
Ned,

Terror attacks on civilians, as the bombing of many German cities were, was a war crime. The only reason why this was not sued is the fact that it were the winners who did do so. Especially the bombing of Dresden (January or February 1945) city centre only, lots of refugees, no industry, falls into this category. The war was decided at this time, and it had no military sense. (The same holds for German bomb raids on civilians, of course).

Can Dresden be so easily distinguished? I believe the American purpose in firebombing Dresden was to get the Germans to surrender sooner rather than later. This was the same purpose for our firebombing of Japanese cities and for the use of nuclear weapons.

In early 1945, it was apparent to most Germans that they could no longer win the war with conventional weapons. Hitler however believed he was close to developing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. That was what he was telling the German people even as Allied troops entered German soil and the bombing became Hell on Earth.

After the war, we found that the Germans were indeed very close to building the bomb. They also had advanced jet fighters and long range bombers (actually the prototype of America's B-2 Steatlh bomber) nearly in production. Allied intelligence may and should have known this. This may be a partial explanation for Dresden - the need to end the war quickly before London, Paris and New York were obliterated.

Ned

[Ecthy]

what a lame excuse, given the war had almost been over by then

[Ned]

Ecthelion, Do you think, then, that the United States should admit to war crimes in bombing Dresden, and send to Germany for trial all those who participated who may still be living? There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, still here. Ned