United Nations Is Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity

[Batman]

Please contribute to this thread any articles, past or present that will complete the picture.

This thread will obviously include the United Nations ongoing persecution of Israel. Out of over 700 resolutions against any nation the United nations has more than 300 directed at Israel.....

It's disgusting and intolerable to allow this organization under the guise of UNITED anything to take our taxes for funding its criminal and power hungry support and promotion of terrorism.

Not only that, the leaders of this United Criminals Nations should stand trial for Crimes against Humanity as well as Grand Theft.

(for Theft see post #3&4 here)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.N. Disgraces Itself: Sentences Sudanese to Death (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/hentoff.php)

excerpt:
"On May 4, American ambassador Sichan Siv, walking out of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in disgust after it had re-elected Sudan to membership, said to The New York Sun, "The least we should be able to do is not elect a country to the only global body charged specifically with protecting human rights, at the precise time when tens of thousands of its citizens are being murdered or being left to die of starvation." It's "Never Again" again."

-------------------
The Sudan Genocide (http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0420/hentoff.php)

"Arab Muslims Are Viciously Killing and Raping Black Muslims. So Where Is the World?"

""On Friday, Sudan escaped U.N. censure with barely a slap on the wrist, rather than the harsh denunciation it deserved. The commission voted to express 'concern' about the situation in Darfur, stopping short of a formal condemnation."

Remember the black African parents' choice: You want your children burned alive or shot to death?

Then, on May 4, the primary source of this genocide was elected to serve a three-year term on the U.N. Human Rights Commission! "

Executions, Ill Treatment and Torture in Sudan (http://www.escapinghades.com/darfur_sudan/sudan_042904.html)


Sudanese Arabs have turned on the black Fur minority in Darfur: Genocide Charges (http://www.escapinghades.com/darfur_sudan/sudan_042504.html)

World fails to stop Darfur atrocities (http://www.escapinghades.com/darfur_sudan/sudan_051404.html)

systematic murder & rape of hundreds of women by the government backed Arab armed militia, the Janjawid (http://www.escapinghades.com/darfur_sudan/background.html)

[KSO]

troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp
By Cahal Milmo
25 May 2004
UN troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp

Sex and death in the heart of Africa

Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.

The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers.

Testimony from girls and aid workers in the Internally Displaced People (IDP) camp in Bunia, in the north-east corner of Congo, claims that every night teenage girls crawl through a wire fence to an adjoining UN compound to sell their bodies to Moroccan and Uruguayan soldiers.

The trade, which according to one victim results in a banana or a cake to feed to her infant son, is taking place despite a pledge by the UN to adopt a "zero tolerance" attitude to cases of sexual misconduct by those representing the organisation.

One girl, Faela, 13, whose son, Joseph, is not yet six months old, has described how the social stigma of her fatherless child, the result of repeated rape by militiamen in her village, mean she is treated like a pariah in the chaotic and violent Bunia camp, which is home to 15,000 people.

She said: "It is hard in the camp for the girls like me with little babies and no husbands. We have no men to look after us. We have been dirtied by the soldiers who came to our villages. No one will take us as their wives and it is hard to get food in the camp for us."

She added: "It is easy for us to get to the UN soldiers. We climb through the fence when it is dark, sometimes once a night, sometimes more."

During a five-day period, The Independent spoke to more than 30 girls, half of whom said they made the 20-metre journey from the camp to gaps in the wire fences of the compound run by Monuc, the UN mission in Congo.

One worker, employed by Atlas, the aid group that manages the camp, confirmed that staff were aware of the trade in sex but were too frightened to tackle it.

He said: "There is nothing to stop them and the girls need food. It is best to keep quiet, though. I am frightened that if I say something I may lose my job and I have children of my own to feed."

The UN has announced its own inquiry into the allegations, warning that it will apply "all available sanctions" against those responsible. But doubts remain about the effectiveness of the investigation and the ability of the UN to bring those responsible to justice.

Dominique McAdams, the head of the UN in Bunia, said she believed that there was sexual violence in the camp, but said she had yet to see any evidence.

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=524674&host=3&dir=69

[Batman]

Excerpt :
"Like other United Nations agencies, World Bank rules prevent staff from testifying in public so Wolfensohn was not at the hearing. But senior bank officials on Monday privately briefed lawmakers on its anti-corruption efforts, a bank spokesman said. "



World Bank Corruption May Top $100 Billion (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040513/ts_nm/economy_worldbank_probe_dc)

Thu May 13, 4:14 PM ET

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corrupt use of World Bank (news - web sites) funds may exceed $100 billion and while the institution has moved to combat the problem, more must be done, the chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee said on Thursday.


Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican, charged that "in its starkest terms, corruption has cost the lives of uncounted individuals contending with poverty and disease."


He commended World Bank President James Wolfensohn for bringing greater attention to the issue, but said, "Corruption remains a serious problem."


Lugar opened a hearing on corruption at the multilateral development banks, the first public examination in an ongoing Senate investigation.


He cited experts who calculated that between $26 billion and $130 billion of the money lent by the World Bank for development projects since 1946 has been misused. In 2003, the bank distributed $18.5 billion in developing countries.


Jeffrey Winters, an associate professor at Northwestern University, said his research suggested corruption wasted about $100 billion of World Bank funds, and when other multilateral development banks are included, the total rises to about $200 billion.


Damian Milverton, a bank spokesman, later disputed the $100 billion estimate, insisting it had "no basis in fact."


"We completely reject the figure offered by one of the panelists as an estimate of funding from the World Bank that might have been misused," Milverton told Reuters.


Winters testified that the World Bank's anti-corruption effort was having "minimal effects" and the banks should all focus on supervising and auditing their lending.


"The lion's share of the theft of development funds occurs in the implementation of projects and the use of loan funds by client governments," he said.


Like other United Nations (news - web sites) agencies, World Bank rules prevent staff from testifying in public so Wolfensohn was not at the hearing. But senior bank officials on Monday privately briefed lawmakers on its anti-corruption efforts, a bank spokesman said.


Carole Brookins, the U.S. executive director on the World Bank board, defended the bank saying it was leading efforts to fight corruption, but acknowledged "there is more that could be done to strengthen the system."


More than 180 companies and individuals have been blacklisted from doing business with the World Bank and their names and penalties posted on the bank's public Web site.


Between July 2003 and March 2004, it said it referred 18 cases of fraud or corruption to national justice authorities based on investigations by its anti-corruption unit.


Specific bank projects under review by the committee include the Yacyreta dam on the Argentina-Paraguay border, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project and projects in Cambodia.


Hector Morales, acting U.S. executive director to the Inter-American Development Bank, testified that his institution recently accelerated anti-corruption efforts "but still has much work to do."


Corruption may have cost 100 billion to World Bank projects: US senator (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/040513/afp/040513205635eco.html)

Friday May 14, 4:56 AM

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Corruption may have have sapped as much as 100 billion dollars from World Bank lending projects to help poor countries, a key US senator said.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Richard Lugar said if the figure presented to his panel by one university professor were accurate, it would seriously undermine the organization's efforts to fight global poverty.

The World Bank hotly disputed the figure of 100 billion dollars, adding that there was no basis for that estimate, but said the organization was working to stem corruption.

Lugar, who chaired a hearing on corruption involving multilateral lending agencies, cited an estimate by Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University that the World Bank had participated "mostly passively in the corruption of roughly 100 billion dollars of its loan funds intended for development."

Lugar said, "Other experts estimate that between five percent and 25 percent of the 525 billion dollars that the World Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused. This is equivalent to between 26 billion and 130 billion dollars. Even if corruption is at the low end of estimates, millions of people living in poverty may have lost opportunities to improve their health, education, and economic condition."

"We completely reject the figure offered by one of the panelists," said World Bank spokesman Damian Milverton. "It has no basis in fact."

Milverton said the Bank had no estimate of its own on funds lost to corruption, but said officials took this seriously and had barred 180 companies and individuals from doing business with the Bank because of corruption or other wrongdoing.

[Batman]

Poorest pay for World Bank corruption: US senator (http://www.probeinternational.org/pi/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=10427)

by Emad Mekay
The World Bank has lost about 100 billion dollars slated for development in the world's poorest nations to corruption since 1946, nearly 20 percent of its total lending portfolio, according to a US. Senate committee. Inter Press Service May 14/2004

WASHINGTON: World Bank has lost about 100 billion dollars slated development world's poorest nations corruption since 1946, nearly 20 percent its total lending portfolio, according U.S. Senate committee.
"It critical every development bank dollar reaches its intended recipient," said Sen Dick Lugar, chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on Thursday. "Unfortunately, not happening – corruption remains serious problem."

Lugar cited one panellists source massive figure. Jeffrey Winters Northwestern University, who testified before hearing, estimated World Bank "has participated mostly passively corruption roughly 100 billion dollars its loan funds intended development."

Other experts estimate between five 25 percent 525 billion dollars Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused. amounts 26-130 billion dollars.

"Even if corruption low end estimates, millions people living poverty may have lost opportunities improve their health, education economic condition," Lugar said.

A World Bank spokesman vehemently disputed estimate. "We completely reject figure offered one panellists," said Damian Milverton. "It has basis fact."

Corruption has become global issue developing countries, watchdog groups some economists complain poor nations lose huge funds multilateral development banks (MDBs) like World Bank because misuse money. Yet taxpayers those borrowing countries have still repay banks.

"So, not only are impoverished cheated out development benefits, are left repay resulting debts banks," Lugar added.

The estimates emerged first series oversight hearings into anti-corruption efforts World Bank other multilateral development banks (MDBs), which include Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, European Bank Reconstruction Development.

Testifying Thursday's hearing were U.S. representatives World Bank IDB, well four outside experts.

Manish Bapna, executive director Washington-based watchdog group Bank Information Centre (BIC), said corruption threatens core mission those banks: poverty alleviation.

"While MDBs profess 'zero tolerance' corruption their projects programmes, rhetorical commitment has not always been meaningfully implemented," Bapna said.

Corruption can undermine development impact banks' projects, example, if contractors use diluted cement civil works like road-building, officials perm illegal timber harvesting restricted forest areas, grant profitable public contracts well-connected cronies government officials.

Another example mentioned hearing project Lesotho, Africa. Last year court country convicted director Lesotho Highland Water Authority, well two international contractors who had paid bribes, corruption awarding contracts. World Bank financed part project.

Professor Jerome I Levinson Washington College Law American University referred particular case, suggested remedy such actions.

"The World Bank, potentially, has an effective, if draconian, remedy," he said. "It could place international contractors on a proscribed list barring them bidding on any future World Bank financed projects anywhere world."

The bank says its list barred companies individuals now includes 90 names.

Levinson noted such projects are usually financed administered through an auxiliary parent company, which is created just carry out particular project then dissolved once work completed. That parent should held responsible any corrupt activities, he added.

"If are serious about addressing cancer corruption projects even partially financed with public international funding, I think reasonable insist upon entire project being subject procurement guidelines assure transparency award international contracts thus minimise risk corrupt payments connection with such contracts," he added.

Some witnesses urged multilateral banks ensure funds released non-specific purposes are not subject corruption, suggested audits how money eventually spent, admitting last step could prove difficult.

"Realistically, however, weakest link system," Levinson said. "Money fungible. extremely difficult, if not impossible trace . . . disbursed funds."

Winters, on other hand, suggested MDBs supervised an independent auditing body.

"The MDBs must much better job supervising auditing projects loans," he said. "But only effective way protect against corruption development funds establish an international auditing body independent MDBs private sector auditing firms – nearly which have deep conflicts interest."

Milverton said World Bank already has multiple layers oversight mechanisms, including audits, an inspection panel reviews complaints against Bank projects, institution's governing board, among others.

Carole Brookins, U.S. executive director World Bank, told hearing combating corruption building good governance have been major priorities Washington-based institution since 1996.

"The World Bank continues leader among international development institutions broad range country-based initiatives strengthen governance, build effective local institutions increase transparency," she said.

In last fiscal year, MDBs financed projects worth more than 35 billion dollars areas public administration, transportation, health education, among others.

The United States contributes more than one billion dollars year banks, with large majority money going World Bank's International Development Association, which lends very poorest countries subsidised rates.

[Batman]

Originally posted by KSO
troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp
By Cahal Milmo
25 May 2004
UN troops buy sex from teenage refugees in Congo camp

Sex and death in the heart of Africa

Teenage rape victims fleeing war in the Democratic Republic of Congo are being sexually exploited by the United Nations peace-keeping troops sent to the stop their suffering.

The Independent has found that mothers as young as 13 - the victims of multiple rape by militiamen - can only secure enough food to survive in the sprawling refugee camp by routinely sleeping with UN peace-keepers......

http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=524674&host=3&dir=69

PROOF OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY BY UNITED NATIONS

[Batman]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5863

[Batman]

source from:http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5794

The UN is a Failed Organization (http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3710)
by Rachel Neuwirth
May 23, '04 / 3 Sivan 5764


The United Nations recently passed another blatantly anti-Israel resolution in support of extremist Arab Palestinian claims. There is no longer any point in entering into any serious dialogue with this organization.

In countless ways, over many years, the UN has proven to be a discredited organization, with lawless elements, which can no longer claim to have any moral standing. Very few of its 191 members can be counted upon to put principle ahead of crass expediency.

The hopeful vision that accompanied its founding in 1945 has long since evaporated. It was the United Nations that recognized Israel in 1947. Therefore, the UN has a duty to protect her from forcible extinction and to live up to and enforce the UN Charter. If the UN fails to protect any of her members, including Israel, then all that remains is a stench along the East River.

Mass murder has taken place over the years in a number of places, with no timely response from the UN. There has also been a UN failure to hold responsible human rights violators, and to oppose rogue states seeking the acquisition of weapons of mass murder. The self-interests of dictatorships, police states, anti-Western, anti-democratic and Arab/Islamic-driven theocratic hell-holes continue day in and day out to paralyze any possibility that the UN could ever encourage true justice. Here are just a few examples of major crimes that were ignored by the UN:

* Genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s by the Khmer Rouge, estimated at two million people.

* North Korea starved to death about two million of its own people.

* Saddam Hussein gassed Kurds and slaughtered the Marsh Arabs, while devastating their fragile ecosystem.

* Failure to oppose the spread of WMD in Pakistan, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, etc.

* Moslem genocide of about two million black southern Sudanese Christians over an 18-year period. Currently, one million people in Sudan have been driven from their homes, with the threat of murdering another 400,000 by the end of 2004.

* Slaughter of 800,000 Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda.

* Constant terror attacks on Israel, plus the usual calls from Arab and Muslim countries for the destruction of Israel.

* Failure to implement its own resolution for Syrian troop withdrawal from Lebanon following Israel's exit over four years ago.

The membership list of the UN's Human Rights Commission roster says it all. Included are Libya, Syria and Sudan - rogue states that support terror and major violations of human rights. This list is more appropriate for a lineup before a vice squad than for human rights guardians. The foxes are guarding the UN hen house.

In addition, it was recently revealed how Saddam Hussein figuratively 'bought' the UN under the UN's 1995 Oil for Food Program. He was allowed to illegally divert 10% of all transactions to himself and apparently to officials of various collaborating governments, including France, Germany and Russia. Also dipping his fingers into that "oily tithe" was none other than Kofi Annan's own son, one of those on the "Oil for Food" monitoring agency.

Entirely legally, the UN itself received a "commission" on all "Oil for Food" transactions. This became a major revenue source for the UN, giving it a substantial vested interest in continuation of Saddam's regime, under lucrative (for the UN) sanctions.

In return for billions in bribes and legal revenues, the UN and some members of the Security Council opposed any US military action against Saddam Hussein.

After all, why would they not want to drag on the search for a peaceful solution with more years of useless inspections. The Iraqi oil flowed out of the ground and the revenue from that oil flowed into secret bank accounts. Hungry Iraqi children became dead Iraqi children, and America became the ever-convenient "fall guy."

The record is clear. Too clear. It is time to stop the pretense that the UN is anything other than a hopelessly corrupt, ever mischievous, ever-conniving, ever anti-democratic, failed organization. It is time to stop looking to it for any honest brokering and to establish an alternative mechanism for dealing with the world's ills, and this time, let it be "by invitation only."

The UN must be radically overhauled in a way that requires member states to be at least on the road to democracy and all voting rights to be restricted to established, representative democracies. If not, it is time to put the old slogan into effect: get the US out of the UN, and the UN out of the US.

http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=3710

[Batman]

Presumed guilty (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/printon20030808.shtml)
Oliver North

August 8, 2003


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- "Sentence first, verdict afterwards!" the Queen decrees in Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland," a miscarriage of justice to which poor Alice attempts to object. "Hold your tongue!" the queen retorts, before adding, "Off with her head!"


That may be amusing in a children's book. It is far less so when it describes the judicial philosophy of the United Nation's misbegotten International Criminal Court (ICC).

Created by the so-called Statute of Rome in 1998, the ICC was ratified by fewer than one-third of the world's nations, representing only 17 percent of the world's population. In the closing moments of his ill-fated regime, Bill Clinton made the United States a signatory. But in May 2002, President George W. Bush formally withdrew U.S. recognition from the court and dispatched Undersecretary of State John Bolton to inform United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan of the decision. Bolton describes that act as "the happiest moment of my government service." He ought to be happy.

The noble-sounding ICC presumes to punish four offenses: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and crimes of aggression, although it has yet to define what that is. But since the court opened its doors for business in March this year, just as coalition forces were closing in on Baghdad, all the anxieties about the ICC being used for politically motivated prosecutions and as a global emergency room for international ambulance chasers have proven to be right. Contrary to Anglo-American judicial tradition, the ICC recognizes no statute of limitations on its jurisdiction. And in typical U.N. overreach and pretension, the court claims jurisdiction over countries that are not even signatories.

The ICC is not yet six months old, and it is already being used as a forum for interfering in, and impeding, the legitimate actions of sovereign states. The Athens Bar Association has filed a 47-page criminal complaint with the court against British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon, alleging Britain's military actions against Iraq constitute "crimes against humanity and war crimes." It is the latest of more than 500 complaints filed with the court thus far.

Athens may be the birthplace of democracy, but these days it's a hotbed of anti-Western sentiment that deems Prime Minister Tony Blair to be a greater world menace than Saddam Hussein (the Mother of All Dictators); Muammar Ghadaffi (the U.N.-appointed Human Rights Czar); Yassir Arafat (the Nobel Committee's choice for Terrorist of the Year in 1994) or Kim Jung Il (the real "Human Scum"). Even Lewis Carroll couldn't conceive of such abject absurdity.

The Greek lawyers say they wanted to name U.S. officials in their complaint but reconsidered because the United States has not ratified the treaty. But that hasn't stopped others from filing dozens of complaints with the court against U.S. officials -- both military and civilian.

In Brussels, twice liberated by U.S. arms and home to both NATO and the European Union, America-haters got around the ICC ratification issue by claiming that Belgium's 1993 law against war crimes had "universal jurisdiction." When charges were brought against President George W. Bush, Prime Minister Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Attorney General John Ashcroft and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on June 18, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld branded the Belgian law "absurd" and threatened to boycott NATO meetings. The Belgian government relented and offered diplomatic immunity for world leaders and government officials in the country.

The flood of anti-American legal activity inspired by the ICC is complicating an already difficult diplomatic environment as the United States tries to respond to challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Liberia -- and fight a global war on terrorism. At a recent press conference, Rumsfeld observed: "It seems not to have any endpoint. It seems not to have any focus. A politicized or a loose-cannon prosecutor in a court like that can impose enormous difficulties and disadvantages on people, individuals, governments."

In order to protect U.S. military commanders from the ICC, the Bush administration has been forced to negotiate bilateral accords with 53 countries (and counting) in which U.S. forces are stationed or deployed, in order to guarantee their immunity from the very things about which Rumsfeld warned. The Bush administration has suspended over $70 million in aid to 35 countries for refusing to grant ICC immunity to U.S. citizens. And, as a pre-condition of U.S. participation in the current Liberian peacekeeping mission, the United States required that the United Nations "immunize" American military personnel from prosecution by the ICC.

All of these measures to protect American citizens have been met with extraordinary hostility at the United Nations, where criticism of the United States is unabated. Instead of America-bashing, Kofi and his cronies need to wake up to reality. For example, U.N. Resolution 1455, requires all United Nations member nations to report by August 1 on what actions they're taking to identify Al Qaeda and Taliban members and to freeze associated financial assets. Yet, two-thirds of the members -- including Iran, North Korea and Libya -- failed to do so.

No wonder Saddam Hussein flagrantly flouted over a dozen Security Council resolutions. He knew that the United Nations was more interested in reigning in the United States than it was in pulling the plug on his reign of terror.

[Batman]

UN is guilty of sins of omission (http://www.canadafreepress.com/archives/2004/main040504.htm)
by Judi Mcleod

April 5, 2004

It has to be the Lip Service Epic of all time: The one minute of silence the world will observe at 12 noon, April 7, the International Day of Reflection on the Genocide of Rwanda.

The International Day of Reflection on the Genocide of Rwanda originated with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan at a March 26 one-day memorial conference, in New York.

The conference began with Annan "accepting blame" for the slaughter of 800,000 civilians.

"The international community is guilty of sins of omission," Annan told the crowd gathered in the Big Apple for the summit.

No kidding, Kofi!

Head of the UN peacekeeping department at the time of the Rwanda massacres which saw children hacked to death by machete, Annan said he did what he could.

Like refusing to send more troops as requested by retired Canadian General Romeo Dallaire telephoning from the actual death arena? Or like keeping mum about how the Black Box flight recorder from a shot down 1994 aircraft was discovered in a locked file cabinet in the UN peacekeeping department?

In a speech that could have been delivered by Neville Chamberlain, Annan said: "I believed at the time that I was doing my best. But I realized after (emphasis ours) the genocide that there was more that I could and should have done to sound the alarm and rally support."

Mouthing platitudes never makes up for lost lives.

It was 10 years ago that the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were killed in a mysterious plane crash. "Before the wreckage even stopped smoking, the killing began," said CTV.ca in a Breaking News item. "Spurred on by hateful radio broadcasts. 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in just 100 days."

Close to three million others were left homeless.

Annan’s Lenten New York mea culpa came in yet another UN conference that has the same hollow ring as the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development. In Johannesburg UN delegates dined on caviar, steak and lobster within mere miles of starving African children.

The New York memorial conference on Rwanda attracted the likes of UN sycophant Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, who told the assembly that the world has yet to learn many of the important lessons of Rwanda.

"Or, to put it more starkly, we have learned what we need to do but I suggest, colleagues, we lack the political will to achieve the necessary agreement on how to put in place the type of measures that will prevent a future Rwanda from ever happening again."

For readers beyond the borders of Canada, that’s "starkly", Liberal Bill Graham style.

Even as Annan was receiving the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize 2001 for the Rwanda exercise, Gen. Romeo Dallaire was becoming suicidal after having watched, first-hand hundreds of thousands of Rwandans being slaughtered. Today, he says he cannot forget a massacre infused "in the pores of my skin."

The world-respected Canadian general, who led the peacekeeping mission into Rwanda in 1994, turned up at UN headquarters last week to give his take on the April 7 memorial.

"The principal objective is one, to not let the Rwanda genocide die, to let it disappear from the sights of the developed world in particular, because we tend to have a very short memory," Dallaire told CTV’s Canada AM.

He said the second goal is to take "a hard look at the prospects of such a terrible event happening again."

Dallaire, who had in Rwanda arrived three months before the massacre, reported directly to Kofi Annan, who was then in charge of the UN Peacekeeping department. On site, Dallaire could see that a genocide was coming. He pleaded with the United Nations to send more soldiers and allow troops to shoot not just in self-defence.

But the Calvary never arrived.

On April 21, the Security Council refused to help and instead cut the 2,000-strong force to just 270 troops. Dallaire has said that a force of 5,000 could have stopped the blood bath.

Of himself, Kofi Annan once said, "I’m not one of those people who believe you have to pound the table to be tough."

According to the Independent "When the first cruise missiles slammed into their targets in Baghdad, (Annan) retired to his expansive 38-floor office at UN headquarters, sat at his mahogany desk and slowly smoked a cigar."

Annan has declared April 7, 2004 the International Day of Reflection on the Genocide of Rwanda. There will be one minute of silence observed by the world at 12 noon that day.

Make that one minute of silence for 100 Rwanda days of hell, declared by the Lip-Service King of time immortal.

Canada Free Press founding editor Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 25 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard and the former Brampton Daily Times.

[Batman]

UN guilty of 'sins of omission' yet again (http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0404d&L=sudanese&F=&S=&P=647)

By Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor

23 April 2004
You would think that the United Nations would
be galvanised by a report from its own team
accusing a government of committing
atrocities that may amount to crimes against
humanity.
"This is a matter of concern to all of us," said
the Pakistani ambassador, Shaukat Umer,
yesterday in Geneva, where the UN High
Commission for Human Rights is holding its
annual session. But Mr Umer was not
referring to the allegations in the report, he
was fulminating about the leaking to the press
of the UN team's report on "ethnic cleansing"
in western Sudan.
Thus these bloody events may end up joining
the list of human rights atrocities that the UN
has been alerted to, but failed to act on. In
Rwanda in 1994 as the genocide broke out,
appeals for reinforcements from the
commander of the peacekeepers in Kigali
went unheeded. The UN secretary general,
Kofi Annan, admitted last month "the
international community is guilty of sins of
omission". The UN had to admit similar sins
of omission after the massacre of 8,000
Bosnian Muslims in the "UN-protected"
enclave of Srebrenica in 1995.
Part of the problem lies in the UN system,
which only allows its investigators to
investigate alleged atrocities with the consent
of the country involved. In the case of Sudan,
the Khartoum government first barred the UN
team from travelling to Darfur, which led to its
members interviewing refugees in Chad. The
government has now agreed to admit the UN
team - but not in time for it to report back to the
commission this week, delaying any action
until next year.
A UN team dispatched to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo to investigate human
rights abuses by the then government of
Laurent Kabila met a similar fate in 1998.
Despite being barred from entering the
country, the rapporteur concluded the
atrocities constituted crimes against
humanity. With an estimated three million
dead during the civil war, only now is the
International Criminal Court deciding whether
to follow up accusations of genocide.

[David_in_NYC]

Here's more, this one is about UN involvement in the Balkan sex-slave trade:

The Economics of Immorality (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/crapps/2004/crapps053004.htm)

May 30, 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Samuel L. Crapps, II

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people’s actions are based on self-interest, people respond to incentives, that is, to costs and benefits. When the costs of an activity are raised or the benefits reduced, people do less of the activity. Economists have found that they can use this simple idea of action based on costs and benefits to construct a model (or theory) that explains how many markets work. This model, the model of supply and demand, is perhaps the most basic of the models economists use to explain the world around us. - Professor Robert Schenk, Saint Joseph’s College-Indiana

The global media criticism of the atrocities committed at the Abu Ghraib prison by a small percentage of American soldiers continues unabated. Scarcely a day goes by before “new images” are found and prominently published in major newspapers, or broadcast by major television networks. President Bush stated quite clearly that these actions “(do) not represent the America I know” and reasonable citizens agree with that statement. Yet, if the world chooses to judge America through the actions of a few rogue troops in Iraq, it should give equal prominence in its judgment to another human tragedy caused by uniformed men in another part of the world.

On May 6, 2004 Amnesty International released a report titled “Protecting The Human Rights of Women and Girls Trafficked For Forced Prostitution in Kosovo” and concluded that the presence international civilian workers, including members from the United Nations Mission (UNMIK), and military peacekeepers in Kosovo has a direct correlation to the increase of the illegal smuggling and subsequent sexual slavery of women in that embittered country. "Women and girls as young as 11 are being sold into sexual slavery in Kosovo and international peacekeepers are not only failing to stop it, they are actively fueling this despicable trade by themselves paying for sex from trafficked women," said Kate Allen, Amnesty International's director in Britain.

The economic model of supply and demand is quite effective when utilized as a behavioral tool in both the case of Abu Ghraib and in Kosovo. When it is used against the soldiers who have chosen to misuse their authority against Iraqi detainees, the incentives were clearly a sense of empowerment over a former enemy, pleasure from multiple acts of humiliation, and a degree of gratification from a false belief that there would be no accountability for those ill made decisions.

The cost that eventually translated into the payment for these behaviors is motivated by a code of moral decency and personal accountability that is one of the founding principles that define the best of America in both its civilian and military hierarchies. This to date has been shown in the suspension of Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, the former commander of the sixteen detention facilities in Iraq along with six other officers under her command who are under administrative investigation, and the pending court martial of six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade who directly abused the detainees. A critical point that the global media seems loathe to mention is that the efforts taken here to rectify the abuses at Abu Ghraib from the highest levels of the American government is exclusively for the past indiscretions of its rogue soldiers or reservists.

This is a far cry from the case in Kosovo where the behavioral model of supply and demand is unfortunately used to illustrate an ongoing and expanding market for one of the oldest professions in its most insidious form when children are actively involved. We should not be surprised by these behaviors when we consider that part of the membership of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR) includes Germany where legislation was passed to give labor and social security rights to prostitutes, and the Netherlands where prostitution is legal in specifically designated regions.

When we focus specifically on Germany alone we find a country, according to Deutsche Welle (“What German Prostitutes Want”) that has “some 400,000 prostitutes and an annual 1.2 million men who use their services.” Even more disturbing is the related article, (“Stolen Youth: Child Prostitution Plagues German-Czech Border”) that describes the growing German pedophilia trade along its border with the Czech Republic where according to criminal psychologist Dr. Adolf Gallwitz, “we have men who have a fixation on children and also exploit them. They come from the social mainstream and are totally inconspicuous…but we also have men who turn this into a real family event and bring their wives along.”

The distinction between an America where the cost of inappropriate behavior in its military ranks is translated into the very real actions of court martial, incarceration, internal investigations, loss and or reduction of rank, public disclosure of the soldier or reservist involved with the related embarrassment to themselves and their families, and a Germany where prostitution is recognized as a social service no different than programs for the disabled, housing, or meals could not be more pronounced. This desperate plight of girls and young women who are falsely lured to Kosovo and then are subsequently broken through beatings, rapes, and starvation will not end until the demand for this insidious market is abated through a much higher degree of personal accountability in conjunction with the willingness of military leaders, political leaders, and the international media in Germany and beyond to publicly deal with those who choose to compromise human dignity in this manner.


Samuel L. Crapps, II

[Batman]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Here's more, this one is about UN involvement in the Balkan sex-slave trade:

The Economics of Immorality (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/c-e/crapps/2004/crapps053004.htm)

May 30, 2004
by Samuel L. Crapps, II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 6, 2004 Amnesty International released a report titled “Protecting The Human Rights of Women and Girls Trafficked For Forced Prostitution in Kosovo” and concluded that the presence international civilian workers, including members from the United Nations Mission (UNMIK), and military peacekeepers in Kosovo has a direct correlation to the increase of the illegal smuggling and subsequent sexual slavery of women in that embittered country. "Women and girls as young as 11 are being sold into sexual slavery in Kosovo and international peacekeepers are not only failing to stop it, they are actively fueling this despicable trade by themselves paying for sex from trafficked women," said Kate Allen, Amnesty International's director in Britain.............
....... This desperate plight of girls and young women who are falsely lured to Kosovo and then are subsequently broken through beatings, rapes, and starvation will not end until the demand for this insidious market is abated through a much higher degree of personal accountability in conjunction with the willingness of military leaders, political leaders, and the international media in Germany and beyond to publicly deal with those who choose to compromise human dignity in this manner.

I wonder if the uproar over the Arabs of Iraq being mistreated and abused versus the silence over women and girls who are abused in the Westernized location have to do with gender.

**Is it more ok to abuse women and girls more than it is to abuse men?

**Is it the fact that the men are Moslem and the women are of Western cultures????

In any case this article demonstrate that the United Nations Personnel feels that it has nothing to worry about in abusing civilians of victimized nations and refugee populations. It shows once again as in the Sudan that the United Nations is guilty of misusing its funds (which pay for training/salaries of these 'peacekeepers') and aiding in the promotion of abuse of the weakest class, women and children of war torn areas.

[Oh Jerusalem]

We're on a hot streak here!

SEX & DRUGS AT U.N. (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/25038.htm)

By JAMES BONE

June 1, 2004 -- Three United Nations fieldworkers are publishing details of sex, drugs and corruption inside U.N. missions - despite an attempt by the world body to block their book.

"Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth" chronicles the experiences of a doctor, a human-rights official and a secretary in U.N. operations in Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Bosnia.

The controversial volume, due out next week, charges that some U.N. officials demanded that 15 percent of their local staff's salaries go directly to them instead; that Bulgaria sent freed criminals to serve as peacekeepers; and that incompetent U.N. security has cost lives.

Their first-person account of a decade in U.N. service also includes candid details of drug use - particularly a marijuana cocktail called "The Space Shuttle" - and casual sex.

"Almost a million civilians [whom] our peacekeepers were supposed to protect died in two genocides," said Dr. Andrew Thomson, one of the co-authors. "We didn't set out to write a scandalous book about the U.N., but this is a matter of historical record. Did the U.N. really think that none of us would come home angry and write about it?"

The book takes its title from an episode in Somalia in which Heidi Postlewait, an American secretary, seeks consolation with a local interpreter after a sniper attack.

"I can feel this pounding inside me and I can't wait. It has to be right now, not in 10 minutes, not five. Now," she writes. "An emergency. Emergency sex."

At one point, the former New York social worker has sex with a soldier at their Mogadishu base.

"After, we lay back naked, sweat drying, smoking cigarettes. Nice," she writes. "Then I spotted an observation tower not 50 feet away, where two soldiers with night-vision goggles were peeping down at us . . . I think they set me up."

Particularly galling to the fieldworkers is the murder in Mogadishu of a young American colleague, shot dead as he rode in a U.N. convoy.

Kenneth Cain, an American human-rights official, complains bitterly that the board of inquiry ignored failings in U.N. security.

"The board is stacked with U.N. officials who oversee security," he writes. "I don't trust these f- - -s for a second to truly investigate and hold one of their own accountable."

Bulgaria has denied that it sent freed prisoners as peacekeepers to Cambodia, but some of the other allegations in the book have been substantiated.

For instance, an inquiry into the bombing of the U.N. office in Baghdad last year found the whole U.N. security system to be "dysfunctional."

The U.N. hierarchy tried to block the book using a rule requiring that U.N. staff get approval before writing about their work. Permission was denied.

[Batman]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
We're on a hot streak here!

SEX & DRUGS AT U.N. (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/25038.htm)

By JAMES BONE

June 1, 2004 -- Three United Nations fieldworkers are publishing details of sex, drugs and corruption inside U.N. missions - despite an attempt by the world body to block their book.

"Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth" chronicles the experiences of a doctor, a human-rights official and a secretary in U.N. operations in Cambodia, Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Liberia and Bosnia.

The controversial volume, due out next week, charges that some U.N. officials demanded that 15 percent of their local staff's salaries go directly to them instead; that Bulgaria sent freed criminals to serve as peacekeepers; and that incompetent U.N. security has cost lives.

..............

The U.N. hierarchy tried to block the book using a rule requiring that U.N. staff get approval before writing about their work. Permission was denied.



This is a great start but only the very tiny tip of this monstrous iceberg called the United Mafia Nations. (which is what the UN deteriorated into)

I hope journalists and other UN witnesses worth their salt will tackle this and survive to see it to the end.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Batman
I wonder if the uproar over the Arabs of Iraq being mistreated and abused versus the silence over women and girls who are abused in the Westernized location have to do with gender.


Nope. The exclusive criterion for reportage of human rights disasters is an affirmative answer to the question, "Does this hurt George Bush?"

[cunard]

It is true that the UN has failed in certain circumstances such as Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya and the Israeli and Palestinian conflict and there are others. The UN has failed to stop huge massacres such as in Sudan, Rawanda, and The Congo. But the UN has had huge succeses also such as South Africa, Lebannon, East Timor (though it did take time), Panama, and others. Just like almost every other nation, the UN has failed in its obligations. Even though India and Pakistan are some of the largest donors for Peacekeeping Troops, they themselves have done some of the most repulsive violations of International Law, just like Israel has in the West Bank and Gaza, Canada has such as in Somolia, The US in Afghanistan in which hundreds of captured taliban soliders died in metal crates, China in Tibet, Indonesia in East Timor, India in Kashmir and Gujirat and Punjab, or even Chile and and Argentina against there own people. Every nation has to burdun the blame, the fundamental ideals of the UN are as true as ever before trying to bring peace and liberty to the world, but it is the world which has failed itself for there own selfish reasons. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made by the UN just like the rest of the world.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
they themselves have done some of the most repulsive violations of International Law, just like Israel has in the West Bank and Gaza
Really? And what might that be now? :confused:

[Ahava]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=4898

Excerpts:

The UN and the Jews (http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/andthejews.html)

by Anne Bayefsky - February 26, 2004

It was not an event that any of the big newspapers saw fit to cover, but this past December, a draft United Nations resolution condemning anti-Semitism was quietly withdrawn by Ireland, its sponsor in the General Assembly. In a complicated exchange, Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen had promised the measure to his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom, but in the end Cowen refused to carry out his side of the bargain, pointing to a lack of consensus on the issue. (Several Arab and Muslim states had objections.) Thus went by the boards what would have been the first-ever General Assembly resolution dealing directly with the problem of anti-Semitism.

...

Not until 1959, when some 2,000 anti-Jewish incidents, ranging from serious property damage to threats of bodily harm, were reported in almost 40 countries (a large number of them in West Germany), did the UN’s Commission on Human Rights pass a resolution titled "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism and Other Forms of Racial Prejudice and Religious Intolerance of a Similar Nature." By the time the resolution reached the floor of the General Assembly, however, the term "anti-Semitism" had been dropped.

Drafters of the UN’s key declarations on human rights soon became masters at evading the issue. When, in 1964-65, the American delegation (with the assistance of Brazil) tried to include a reference to anti-Semitism in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the effort failed, thanks to the Soviet Union, its satellites, and its Arab allies, who among other things insisted that anti-Semitism was a question not of race but of religion. When the UN finally got around to adopting its first declaration on religious intolerance in 1981, anti-Semitism was again excluded. By 2003, the lead sponsor of the perennial resolution on religious tolerance, Ireland, insisted with a straight face that anti-Semitism should be omitted because it was more properly considered under the rubric of race.

By the summer of 2001, at the now notorious UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, the notion that Jews were the target of any special animus, now or in the past, was being treated with simple contempt. References to anti-Semitism were removed from almost all parts of the final declaration. Not only was there no mention of the Holocaust in the conference’s demand that those who incite racial hatred should be brought to justice, but absent as well was any mention of the need to study the Nazi war against the Jews. The only references to the Holocaust and anti-Semitism appeared as part of a "Middle East package" in which Palestinians were declared to be victims of Israeli racism.

...

In 1975 the UN General Assembly passed its notorious resolution explicitly equating Zionism with racism. Ever since then, and notwithstanding the formal repeal of the resolution in 1991, the repellent imagery of Israelis as racists has been a staple of UN rhetoric. Today, diplomats from Arab and Muslim states—states that effectively rendered themselves Judenrein in the late 1940’s—refer to Israel’s new security fence against terrorism as an "apartheid wall." Palestinian towns and villages are called "Bantustans." And the Palestinian Marwan Barghouti, on trial in Israel for acts of terrorism, is labeled another Nelson Mandela.
...
Israel has been singled out in other ways as well. In the UN bureaucracy, it is the only country with its own standing inter-state monitor: the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.
..
In 2003 alone, the UN bureaucracy generated 22 reports and formal notes on "conditions of Palestinian and other Arab citizens living under Israeli occupation."

The UN’s response to an Israeli military incursion into the West Bank town of Jenin in April 2002 typifies the organization’s treatment of the Jewish state. At the time, even a report by Yasir Arafat’s Fatah movement recognized Jenin as "the suicider’s capital," a place where organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad had sought shelter, among civilians, for their ongoing murderous operations. But the UN saved its venom for Israel’s armed response to the violence directed against its citizens. Terje Roed-Larsen, the organization’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, described the scene after Israel’s strike—a strike expressly designed to limit civilian casualties—as "horrific beyond belief." Peter Hansen, commissioner general of the UN Relief and Works Agency, called it "a human catastrophe that had few parallels in recent history." A UN press release was headlined, "End the horror in the camps." Only much later, in mid-summer, did the UN Secretary General release a report on Jenin noting that the Palestinian death toll from this "massacre" was 52, approximately 35 of whom were armed combatants.

In 2003, the General Assembly passed eighteen resolutions that singled out Israel for criticism; human-rights situations in the rest of the world drew only four country-specific resolutions. Nor, despite serious and well-documented charges of abuse reported to the UN over the years from, among others, the organization’s own special rapporteurs, has any resolution of the UN Commission on Human Rights ever been directed at China, Syria, Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Pakistan, Malaysia, Mali, or Zimbabwe.

Consider the case of Sudan. This past year, members of the UN Commission on Human Rights had before them the report of their own special rapporteur on torture, which described the articles of the Sudanese penal code mandating "cross amputation"—the amputation of the right hand and the left foot—for armed robbery and, for other offenses, "death by hanging crucifixion." The report also took note of various cases in which Sudanese women had been stoned to death for adultery after trials conducted in a language they did not understand and in which they were denied legal representation.

The response to these gruesome findings? On behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Pakistan vehemently objected to a draft resolution condemning this sort of "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment," declaring such views "an offense to all Muslim countries." The resolution went down to defeat; for good measure, the commission terminated the ten-year-old position of rapporteur on human rights for the long-suffering people of Sudan.

The justifications that are typically given for turning a blind eye to human-rights violations in 95 percent of UN states are predictable enough. In 2003, teaming up to defeat a resolution condemning Russian behavior in Chechnya, Syria and China called it "interference in the internal affairs of that country." India said that "every state had the right to protect its citizens from terrorism." When it came to reproving Zimbabwe, South Africa objected to "naming and shaming," while Libya, complaining that the resolution was "an attempt to make the commission a forum to settle differences between countries," declared its preference for "the language of cooperation and dialogue."

How is it, one might wonder, that such reservations never give the UN a moment’s pause when it comes to the organization’s relentlessly one-sided prosecution of Israel—a democratic state with an independent judiciary that, unlike all these others, can point to a long and distinguished record of respect for human rights? The demonization of Israel would seem to be about something else entirely.

What that something is has become too clear to deny: over the past several decades, the UN has fashioned itself into perhaps the foremost global platform for anti-Semitism.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by cunard
...the fundamental ideals of the UN are as true as ever before trying to bring peace and liberty to the world, but it is the world which has failed itself for there own selfish reasons. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made by the UN just like the rest of the world.

Here we go again... Cunard, there is nothing in the UN charter that even remotely suggests it should be a vehicle to bring liberty to the world. If there were, the USSR and China would never have signed on, and there would be no UN.

The purpose of the UN is to perpetuate the security situation that existed in 1945 with the defeat of Hitler and Tojo. Given the profound changes in the global balance of power since then, there is no mission left for the UN that has any relevance to its original reasons for coming into being.

[cunard]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Really? And what might that be now? :confused:


When I stated that, I included other countires not just Israel in Human Right violations. The Palestinians have also carried put huge repulsive violations of human rights. As has Canada and France and the UK and etc... When i mentioned Israel it was for the demolation of homes between Gaza and Egypt, or in East Jerusalum, or Hebron, or Jenin, while Israel has the right to self defense I higly doubt all 13,361 homes destroyed in the past 3 years leaving thousands homeless was needed or if it at all helped Israel. If anything it only helped the political ideals of right wing fanatics on both sides, reasons for Islamists to hit back and for the Israeli govt to show the public thier tough stance. There have been about 120 attacks inside Israel so that would equal about 120 homes destroyed. Attacks against Military targets are legite just like any other war or conflict in the world, the reaction after such an attack such as holding dead soliders bodies is a violation that the palestinians ahve done but Israel has done the same such as holding the bodies of 600 Lebannese fighters for the 1980's which were used as bargaining chips to get the Israeli businessman and IDF soldiers remains. Like i said before, both sides have done it, both are to blame. Hopefully that some what clears up any questions, if not, please do write comments or email me.

[cunard]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Here we go again... Cunard, there is nothing in the UN charter that even remotely suggests it should be a vehicle to bring liberty to the world. If there were, the USSR and China would never have signed on, and there would be no UN.

The purpose of the UN is to perpetuate the security situation that existed in 1945 with the defeat of Hitler and Tojo. Given the profound changes in the global balance of power since then, there is no mission left for the UN that has any relevance to its original reasons for coming into being.


The only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war. Again it was politics being played. And to the note that they have no relevance today? I would think they would, what would happen to Africa if there was no UN, it would just collapse onto itself and slowlt destabalize which would put even more pressure on the milddle east and i think that we can all agree that the middle east has enough of its own problems to deal with. What I have always wondered is why there are no UN troops along the green line or Gaza and Egypt. I know Palestinians have been calling for this but Israel has refused. You always see (or most of the time see) UN troops being deplyed to certain hot spots such as Haiti and such. Anyways enough of me going on and on, below are a few lines from the UN Charter.


WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,



AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,


HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by cunard
When I stated that, I included other countires not just Israel in Human Right violations. The Palestinians have also carried put huge repulsive violations of human rights. As has Canada and France and the UK and etc... Violation of human rights are wrong, each nation carries it own responsibility for such crimes not to happen on the first place, never to happen in the future as well. Hiding within a group of violators does not deminish the national responsibility of each nation.

If "every body" committ a crime (gang rape, drugs, ect..) and you decide to join the party, do not deminish your blame or criminal responsibility.

When i mentioned Israel it was for the demolation of homes between Gaza and Egypt, or in East Jerusalum, or Hebron, or Jenin, while Israel has the right to self defense I higly doubt all 13,361 homes destroyed in the past 3 years leaving thousands homeless was needed or if it at all helped Israel.
Where the heck you taken that figure from? What is your defenition of a "demolished house" was a house it's garden fence was party demolished, was taken into the list, or not? Who are you, anyway, to judge which house demolition was neccary part of warfare or not? Who are you to judge the decision of brave fighting Jews, when common Israeli citizens are carful to judge? None can enter the shoes of a fighting commander in the midst of battle, critizes him from the armchair across an ocean, while he and his men are on the ground?!

Each of us Israelis spent 3 years in the Army, and then some time each year in reserve duty. We don't need the media to teach us what REALLY happaning. We knows both what the media says and what the pro-Arab media hides. How about you? Do YOU know how to hold a rifle at the very least? And upon your ignorance you critize us and give instructions... What do you think it is? A football match? A thried grade holywood war movie?

If anything it only helped the political ideals of right wing fanatics on both sides, reasons for Islamists to hit back and for the Israeli govt to show the public thier tough stance. Israeli goverment does not have a "tough stance". we are soft beyonned beliefe. Most Israelis are angry with our goverment softness. The actions you see are far less then the minimal actions requiered to combat terrorism. Hard to believe, but this is the truth. It took us 3 years to finish off Yassin and Rantissi. Not because we couldn't, but because we are too soft to act and most undecisive and self critical about taking a life. This is soft.

There have been about 120 attacks inside Israel so that would equal about 120 homes destroyed. Attacks against Military targets are legite just like any other war or conflict in the world, the reaction after such an attack such as holding dead soliders bodies is a violation that the palestinians ahve done but Israel has done the same such as holding the bodies of 600 Lebannese fighters for the 1980's which were used as bargaining chips to get the Israeli businessman and IDF soldiers remains. We have buried enemy bodies, which the enemy don't want back. Israeli soldiers body parts, still decorates many Arabs living rooms to this date. This is the difference between Jews and Arabs.

Arabs hold the remains of a Israeli POW downed pilots who was turtured and murderud in captivity, while the red cross failed to take care for him in accordance with the organization charter and Geneva conventions. Also, the Arabs in Lebanon hold the bodies of 3 more soldiers killed by thier captors in Lebanon war. Both are war crimes the internation community ignores. (what can we expect, when a genocide is taking place in Sudan and the UN compaletly over looking that).

Like i said before, both sides have done it, both are to blame. Hopefully that some what clears up any questions, if not, please do write comments or email me. Both sides maybe to blame, but on far different grounds. Israel should be blamed for not acting swift and mighty enough to end terrorism or any other problem eminates from Arab side.

We Jews and our Arab enemies are two different cultures, working on different motives and holding far different moral values. We can't be judged as equalls. A crimminal is not equall to his victim in any way. Both humans, of course, but the crimminal is evil and demands the treatment used for evil people. So are the Arabs who largely involove and support terrorism, both in Israel and outside.

[Da Chuckstar]

Originally posted by cunard
or Jenin.

Oh here we go. :rolleyes: I take it that you didn't hear about the fact that there was no massacre at Jenin and that the media lied? Or is it because you only hear what you want to hear, which is that Israel is an evil fascist country?

I higly doubt all 13,361 homes destroyed in the past 3 years leaving thousands homeless was needed or if it at all helped Israel.

Well all the facts seem to go against your argument. Because the Palestinians are finding it much much harder to get their grubby little hands on weapons and ammunition. And parents are a lot less likely to let their children blow themselves up for fear of having their house gone, especially since now their buddy Saddam isn't there anymore to compensate them.

If anything it only helped the political ideals of right wing fanatics on both sides

Are you trying to call most of the Israeli public right wing fanatics? Because they support these actions too. Your credibility just keeps sinking lower and lower, especially when you try to compare people who kill innocent civilians on purpose just for being Jews, to people who are just trying to defend themselves from these murderers.

There have been about 120 attacks inside Israel so that would equal about 120 homes destroyed.

Good riddance.

but Israel has done the same such as holding the bodies of 600 Lebannese fighters for the 1980's which were used as bargaining chips to get the Israeli businessman and IDF soldiers remains.

Wrong. They traded 400 "live" Palestinians, 20 "live" Lebanese, and 59 dead Lebanese for the businessman and the three dead soldiers. And some of those released said they were likely to re-offend. You apparently don't know much do you to keep getting all your facts wrong?

both are to blame

No, one side is to blame. That is the Arab world. If they didn't act like such barbarians that still can't seem to get their mindset out of the stone age, then we wouldn't be having all these problems in the Middle East.

[Mil]

Posted by Cunrad:



The only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war.

The real reason why China, USSR and the rest are in the security council because these countries are clearly recognized Super Powers in their prespective regions and internationally; this was especially true in 1945 with China being a later addition.


Again it was politics being played.

No. It was a normal continuation of events. Before UN there was a League of Nations which happened to not include the most important super-powers at the time which were Germany, USSR, and the US - the main reason of why LON failed.


And to the note that they have no relevance today? I would think they would, what would happen to Africa if there was no UN, it would just collapse onto itself and slowlt destabalize which would put even more pressure on the milddle east and i think that we can all agree that the middle east has enough of its own problems to deal with.


That's too subjective.


What I have always wondered is why there are no UN troops along the green line or Gaza and Egypt.

Apparently you haven't really looked at UN troop deployments lately. There are UN troops on the border of Egypt/Israel in the Sinai, Syria/Israel in the Golan, and between Israel and Lebanon. UN troops stayed in Sinai since 1956 and were thrown out by Egypt in 1967 which was one of the main reason of the Six Days War. The UN troops also did not prevent Syrian agression in October 1973 and do not guarantee Israeli security on the Lebanese border.


I know Palestinians have been calling for this but Israel has refused. You always see (or most of the time see) UN troops being deplyed to certain hot spots such as Haiti and such.

Apparently you have never read the Charter on that particular matter.



Anyways enough of me going on and on, below are a few lines from the UN Charter.


I hope you read the Charter in its entirity - I did.

[cunard]

Originally posted by Gilgamesh
Violation of human rights are wrong, each nation carries it own responsibility for such crimes not to happen on the first place, never to happen in the future as well. Hiding within a group of violators does not deminish the national responsibility of each nation.

If "every body" committ a crime (gang rape, drugs, ect..) and you decide to join the party, do not deminish your blame or criminal responsibility.

[/b]
Where the heck you taken that figure from? What is your defenition of a "demolished house" was a house it's garden fence was party demolished, was taken into the list, or not? Who are you, anyway, to judge which house demolition was neccary part of warfare or not? Who are you to judge the decision of brave fighting Jews, when common Israeli citizens are carful to judge? None can enter the shoes of a fighting commander in the midst of battle, critizes him from the armchair across an ocean, while he and his men are on the ground?!

Each of us Israelis spent 3 years in the Army, and then some time each year in reserve duty. We don't need the media to teach us what REALLY happaning. We knows both what the media says and what the pro-Arab media hides. How about you? Do YOU know how to hold a rifle at the very least? And upon your ignorance you critize us and give instructions... What do you think it is? A football match? A thried grade holywood war movie?

[/b] Israeli goverment does not have a "tough stance". we are soft beyonned beliefe. Most Israelis are angry with our goverment softness. The actions you see are far less then the minimal actions requiered to combat terrorism. Hard to believe, but this is the truth. It took us 3 years to finish off Yassin and Rantissi. Not because we couldn't, but because we are too soft to act and most undecisive and self critical about taking a life. This is soft.

[/b] We have buried enemy bodies, which the enemy don't want back. Israeli soldiers body parts, still decorates many Arabs living rooms to this date. This is the difference between Jews and Arabs.

Arabs hold the remains of a Israeli POW downed pilots who was turtured and murderud in captivity, while the red cross failed to take care for him in accordance with the organization charter and Geneva conventions. Also, the Arabs in Lebanon hold the bodies of 3 more soldiers killed by thier captors in Lebanon war. Both are war crimes the internation community ignores. (what can we expect, when a genocide is taking place in Sudan and the UN compaletly over looking that).

Both sides maybe to blame, but on far different grounds. Israel should be blamed for not acting swift and mighty enough to end terrorism or any other problem eminates from Arab side.

We Jews and our Arab enemies are two different cultures, working on different motives and holding far different moral values. We can't be judged as equalls. A crimminal is not equall to his victim in any way. Both humans, of course, but the crimminal is evil and demands the treatment used for evil people. So are the Arabs who largely involove and support terrorism, both in Israel and outside. [/B]



When I mentioned the 600 hundred, I had added all bodies returned to the Lebanese such as 127 in 1996 in which two IDF bodies were given to the Israelis from a 1986 conflict. In the 600 count In included those bodies realised by the Israeli ally The
South Lebanon Army . My apologies for any misunderstanding on that part.


To the point that the IDF has been to soft to which you say that Israelis believe a tougher stance is needed i highly doubt that. Only those such as settlers would agree to a tougher stance. After an attack inside Israel the Israelis would feel in such a way to hit back hard,, but they realize that has soon as they hit back the other side will try just as hard to hit back as well making this bloody cycle continue on and on.

And for the point that it is the arabs this and the arabs that and we are superior antic, I can say nothing on this matter, these views you hold for yourself and i cannot change them. All i can say is that the haterd you have for them, believe me, they will have just as much haterd right back at you so this will get you no where in reality.

To the note that I do not know what war is made me laugh, in 1967 my grandfather was killed by the IDF in Gaza, while he was on a UN patrol part on an Indian UN Force in which he and 13 others were killed. My father was in wars with Pakistan and one with China, the one with China, India was wiped put after wave after wave of Chinese troops attacked, My father served his nation with pride but did the nation come to his defense when Hindu mobs were going out and attacking anyone who was or looked like a sikh in the 80's and 90's. My father died including 19 members of my family while 7 more we do n ot know what happend to them, all 7 missing were just under 30 years old and probably killed in so called fake encounters with police. This day now with those wounds still freash, sikhs and hindus are coming together again, India even elected a Sikh Prime Minister. Jow could this happen after only 20 years of bitter haterd. Because we talked, Those sikhs being held in prisons for nealry two decades were realised and some were compensated, Punjab where sikhs are from had money pumped into it so jobs and prosperity were there. If fanatics have no issue to grasp and bring the masses to, no one in there right mind will leave there warm bed to go fight a war.

To the number of houses demolished the number was taken from the BBC, the CNN estimate was about 500 less while Fox news had even a higher number, so i took the average, For anyone to say that Fox news is being bias will be lying to themsleves. For those in North America know that fox news is right wing.

As before, comments are very much welcomed

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Cunrad:



The only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war.

The real reason why China, USSR and the rest are in the security council because these countries are clearly recognized Super Powers in their prespective regions and internationally; this was especially true in 1945 with China being a later addition.


Again it was politics being played.

No. It was a normal continuation of events. Before UN there was a League of Nations which happened to not include the most important super-powers at the time which were Germany, USSR, and the US - the main reason of why LON failed.


And to the note that they have no relevance today? I would think they would, what would happen to Africa if there was no UN, it would just collapse onto itself and slowlt destabalize which would put even more pressure on the milddle east and i think that we can all agree that the middle east has enough of its own problems to deal with.


That's too subjective.


What I have always wondered is why there are no UN troops along the green line or Gaza and Egypt.

Apparently you haven't really looked at UN troop deployments lately. There are UN troops on the border of Egypt/Israel in the Sinai, Syria/Israel in the Golan, and between Israel and Lebanon. UN troops stayed in Sinai since 1956 and were thrown out by Egypt in 1967 which was one of the main reason of the Six Days War. The UN troops also did not prevent Syrian agression in October 1973 and do not guarantee Israeli security on the Lebanese border.


I know Palestinians have been calling for this but Israel has refused. You always see (or most of the time see) UN troops being deplyed to certain hot spots such as Haiti and such.

Apparently you have never read the Charter on that particular matter.



Anyways enough of me going on and on, below are a few lines from the UN Charter.


I hope you read the Charter in its entirity - I did.

What I ment by UN troops deplyments is why arent there troops posted to seperate both sides so that UN troops can take place of the IDF, also there are no UN troops there epecially between Gaza rafah and Egypt Rafah, there are UN observers in the Sinai as they are there as observers in the Golan and other place there. There only a few dozen troops who act as observers, not as a buffer.

And like i said before the only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war. Tougest in the region is the same thing. the loser wouldnt be the victor or the toughest in the region, Mil, your just playing word games now.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
To the point that the IDF has been to soft to which you say that Israelis believe a tougher stance is needed i highly doubt that. Only those such as settlers would agree to a tougher stance.
Israel's population is split in several ways on such issues. But to think that only Judea, Samaria and Gaza residents are of such an opinion shows your ongoing ignornace.
After an attack inside Israel the Israelis would feel in such a way to hit back hard,, but they realize that has soon as they hit back the other side will try just as hard to hit back as well making this bloody cycle continue on and on.
The old "cycle of violence cliche" ("cliche"? I spoke French! :eek: ) is passe. (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5898) ("Passe"?! Not again! :eek: ).
And for the point that it is the arabs this and the arabs that and we are superior antic,
I don't know what is particulalrly superior about us but I was brought up to understand that people who desire to kill you should be stopped before they succeed. This is not a question of superior/inferior and is not a race issue, at least from the Israeli side. Of course, don't bother mentioning what Moslem Imans and Sheiks preach about superiority from the pulpits of their mosques in Gaza, Mecca, London or Dearborn. That wouldn't be politically correct now, would it?
I can say nothing on this matter
An excellent observation.
these views you hold for yourself and i cannot change them. All i can say is that the haterd you have for them, believe me, they will have just as much haterd right back at you so this will get you no where in reality.
We have no problem with the existance of all of the surrounding Arab countries. They, on the other hand, continue to seek our destruction and annihilation. You are talking to the wrong side. Your failure to recognize this is in fact the same as the failure of the rest of the western oil hungry nations, except that their motive is purely selfish. So what's yours?
To the note that I do not know what war is made me laugh, in 1967 my grandfather was killed by the IDF in Gaza, while he was on a UN patrol part on an Indian UN Force in which he and 13 others were killed. My father was in wars with Pakistan and one with China, the one with China, India was wiped put after wave after wave of Chinese troops attacked, My father served his nation with pride but did the nation come to his defense when Hindu mobs were going out and attacking anyone who was or looked like a sikh in the 80's and 90's. My father died including 19 members of my family while 7 more we do n ot know what happend to them, all 7 missing were just under 30 years old and probably killed in so called fake encounters with police. This day now with those wounds still freash, sikhs and hindus are coming together again, India even elected a Sikh Prime Minister. Jow could this happen after only 20 years of bitter haterd. Because we talked, Those sikhs being held in prisons for nealry two decades were realised and some were compensated, Punjab where sikhs are from had money pumped into it so jobs and prosperity were there. If fanatics have no issue to grasp and bring the masses to, no one in there right mind will leave there warm bed to go fight a war.
I am sorry to hear about your tragic family history. I now undestand better where part of your point of view is coming from.

Had we been at war with Hindus or Sikhs, I bet this would all blow over faster than you can say Katmandu.

Unfortunately, we lucky Israelis live on the doorstep to the heart of the Radical Islamic world. The other side is not interested in accepting our physical existence here, whether we retreat to 1967, 1948 or Partition Plan borders.

Until you recognize just who our enemy is and what they want at the end of the day, you will continue to unfairly slander us as religious fanatics. The funniest thing is that the vast majority of Israelis are secular to begin with but don't let another small fact get in the way of your thinking.

To the number of houses demolished the number was taken from the BBC, the CNN estimate was about 500 less while Fox news had even a higher number, so i took the average, For anyone to say that Fox news is being bias will be lying to
Fine. Now, as already requested by others, why don't you give us a statistical breakdown and analysis as to the circumstances of and the reasons for those houses being demolished.

[cunard]

Unfortunately, we lucky Israelis live on the doorstep to the heart of the Radical Islamic world. The other side is not interested in accepting our physical existence here, whether we retreat to 1967, 1948 or Partition Plan borders.

Until you recognize just who our enemy is and what they want at the end of the day, you will continue to unfairly slander us as religious fanatics. The funniest thing is that the vast majority of Israelis are secular to begin with but don't let another small fact get in the way of your thinking.

Fine. Now, as already requested by others, why don't you give us a statistical breakdown and analysis as to the circumstances of and the reasons for those houses being demolished. [/B][/QUOTE]


To the first point, The Arab world would except an Israeli state (perhaps not all the arab world, just like any society there will be those who will continue in there "only islam is the way to go" speeches and actions) if there was peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Peace will only come when as Ariel Sharon himself said that the " "occupation" of 3.5 million palestinians is not good for them or us." It has to end. The israelis should continue building the wall as long as it doesnt take chunks of land for settlements.
Everyone knows that the Israeli army is undefeatable in a war such as tank vs tank, fighter aircraft vs fighter aircraft, Cause Syria is weak and dirt poor, Iraq dosent really exsit at the moment, Saudi Arabia wouldn't have the guts to do it since all those princes and kings are probably some of the fakest islamists out there and cant risk there army away to protect them, Only other real islamist nation is Iran which is surrounded on both sides by american troops. As soon as this is done peace will come, but it wont be overnight, it will take years!! the situation here in middle east is not any different then those seen in South America such as in Columbia, Chile, Honduras, or Argentina, or in South East Asia in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. When foreign troops who are seen as the enemy in the arab eyes leave and return to there rightful places the cards will fall into place. The arabs know that Israel is not going to go anywhere, and Israelis know that holding 3.5 million hostage to get at those couple hundred militants will go no where either. When the streets are full of all those Palestinians waving Hamas flags, how many of them are actual die hards, perhaps a couple hundred, they show up cause there angry then go home. Hamases only rallying cry is the settlements and israeli checkpoints. Before Rantisi was killed in the air strike, he appeared on NBC Nightly News via Video phone before that Hamas spirtual figure was killed. He said that Hamas would except the 67 green line. Even though this man probably did order attacks, he was a moderate palestinian who was not really relgious, a doctor so he was well educated, He was angry and rightfully so since he became a refugee twice before the age of 20. this man would have been much easier to control and deal with then the new Hamas figure who is in Syria i believe. He was one of the few moderates. I know he gave many firey speechs, but thats what every politician does, give speeches so the masses will follow him.

To the point of recognizing your enemy, ok fine, this is what i see, I see 3.5 million miserable people living under a Iron Curtain for the past nearly 50 years, remember, sucide attacks only started in the 80's so the excuse that the palestinians started in all doesnt quite fly with me or much of the world. To bring in the PLO, the israelis should go after them not the population at large. Cause back in the 70's and early 80's Israeli companys were feaverishly buliding settlements which continue on today. Just last week the Haaretz published in there paper of 30 millions dollars more for settlement construction this year. Now i know while reading through some posts here that the Haaretz in considered to leftist but 30 million dollars towards construction is 30 million dollars towards construction in my books.

To the point that some said i labeld all israelis as right wing fanatics or religious fanatics? NOT TRUE, i called that only to most settlers. To those Israelis that beleived that that statement was directed to all Israelis which it didnt so my sincereist apologies.
And to those who think that I an ARAB lover or muslem lover, nothing could be farther from the truth. As a sikh I envy the nation of Israel that it exsists even with its troubles. Sikhs have wanted and tried for there own independent nation but failed. And for the muslem or Arab lover thing, nothing is farther from the truth, Sikhs lost two of its founding fathers to Muslem rulers in India because they refused to convert to Islam so they were killed. The Golden Temple or also known as Harmander Shaib which is equal to us as is Mecca to muslems, Vatican is to Catholics or the Temple Mount to Jews. The Golden Temple was razed to the ground three times in 150 years by Muslem armies and twice by the indian army (once totally destroyed in 1984 with tanks and once in 1991 there was slight damage with one wall collapsing.)

For the statistics, they will be posted shortly for those who have asked for them.

If there is somthing still unclear about my views do let me know by posting here or emailing me (email is always at the bottem of all my posts) Comments are always welcome, nagative and posative.

[Batman]

Originally posted by cunard
Unfortunately, we lucky Israelis live on the doorstep to the heart of the Radical Islamic world. The other side is not interested in accepting our physical existence here, whether we retreat to 1967, 1948 or Partition Plan borders.

Until you recognize just who our enemy is and what they want at the end of the day, you will continue to unfairly slander us as religious fanatics. The funniest thing is that the vast majority of Israelis are secular to begin with but don't let another small fact get in the way of your thinking.

Fine. Now, as already requested by others, why don't you give us a statistical breakdown and analysis as to the circumstances of and the reasons for those houses being demolished.

To the first point, The Arab world would except an Israeli state (perhaps not all the arab world, just like any society there will be those who will continue in there "only islam is the way to go" speeches and actions) if there was peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Peace will only come when as Ariel Sharon himself said that the " "occupation" of 3.5 million palestinians is not good for them or us." It has to end. The israelis should continue building the wall as long as it doesnt take chunks of land for settlements.
Everyone knows that the Israeli army is undefeatable in a war such as tank vs tank, fighter aircraft vs fighter aircraft, Cause Syria is weak and dirt poor, Iraq dosent really exsit at the moment, Saudi Arabia wouldn't have the guts to do it since all those princes and kings are probably some of the fakest islamists out there and cant risk there army away to protect them, Only other real islamist nation is Iran which is surrounded on both sides by american troops. As soon as this is done peace will come, but it wont be overnight, it will take years!! the situation here in middle east is not any different then those seen in South America such as in Columbia, Chile, Honduras, or Argentina, or in South East Asia in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. When foreign troops who are seen as the enemy in the arab eyes leave and return to there rightful places the cards will fall into place. The arabs know that Israel is not going to go anywhere, and Israelis know that holding 3.5 million hostage to get at those couple hundred militants will go no where either. When the streets are full of all those Palestinians waving Hamas flags, how many of them are actual die hards, perhaps a couple hundred, they show up cause there angry then go home. Hamases only rallying cry is the settlements and israeli checkpoints. Before Rantisi was killed in the air strike, he appeared on NBC Nightly News via Video phone before that Hamas spirtual figure was killed. He said that Hamas would except the 67 green line. Even though this man probably did order attacks, he was a moderate palestinian who was not really relgious, a doctor so he was well educated, He was angry and rightfully so since he became a refugee twice before the age of 20. this man would have been much easier to control and deal with then the new Hamas figure who is in Syria i believe. He was one of the few moderates. I know he gave many firey speechs, but thats what every politician does, give speeches so the masses will follow him.

To the point of recognizing your enemy, ok fine, this is what i see, I see 3.5 million miserable people living under a Iron Curtain for the past nearly 50 years, remember, sucide attacks only started in the 80's so the excuse that the palestinians started in all doesnt quite fly with me or much of the world. To bring in the PLO, the israelis should go after them not the population at large. Cause back in the 70's and early 80's Israeli companys were feaverishly buliding settlements which continue on today. Just last week the Haaretz published in there paper of 30 millions dollars more for settlement construction this year. Now i know while reading through some posts here that the Haaretz in considered to leftist but 30 million dollars towards construction is 30 million dollars towards construction in my books.

To the point that some said i labeld all israelis as right wing fanatics or religious fanatics? NOT TRUE, i called that only to most settlers. To those Israelis that beleived that that statement was directed to all Israelis which it didnt so my sincereist apologies.
And to those who think that I an ARAB lover or muslem lover, nothing could be farther from the truth. As a sikh I envy the nation of Israel that it exsists even with its troubles. Sikhs have wanted and tried for there own independent nation but failed. And for the muslem or Arab lover thing, nothing is farther from the truth, Sikhs lost two of its founding fathers to Muslem rulers in India because they refused to convert to Islam so they were killed. The Golden Temple or also known as Harmander Shaib which is equal to us as is Mecca to muslems, Vatican is to Catholics or the Temple Mount to Jews. The Golden Temple was razed to the ground three times in 150 years by Muslem armies and twice by the indian army (once totally destroyed in 1984 with tanks and once in 1991 there was slight damage with one wall collapsing.)

For the statistics, they will be posted shortly for those who have asked for them.

If there is somthing still unclear about my views do let me know by posting here or emailing me (email is always at the bottem of all my posts) Comments are always welcome, nagative and posative.

ARE YOU REWRITING HISTORY HERE? Your facts are all wrong.

Tell me of a suicide attack that took place in the 1980s?

The fact is that suicide attacks started after the signing of the OSLO AGREEMENT IN 1994.

There are many other wrong facts in your essays. Please do more research on this forum and see the facts.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Batman
.

Tell me of a suicide attack that took place in the 1980s? The Intifada wasn't a terror attack but it was an act of rebellion.
[i]
The fact is that suicide attacks started after the signing of the OSLO AGREEMENT IN 1994.[/B]

After your friend and mine Baruch Goldstein commited the first suicide terror attack in Israel.

[Batman]

Originally posted by KSO
The Intifada wasn't a terror attack but it was an act of rebellion.


After your friend and mine Baruch Goldstein commited the first suicide terror attack in Israel.

That is such bull . You are not going to tell me that Baruch Goldstein is responsible for the massive suicide bombing children camps and education which has been recruiting children since 1977 but was only activated after OSLO.

OSLO IS THE MAGIC WORD HERE AND THE MOTIVATION FOR THE ARABS WHO THINK ISRAEL IS GETTING WEAKER AND LOSING ITS RESOLVE TO FIGHT.
How convenient. One poor Jewish Doctor who lost his mind from his suffering vs. the calculated ARABNAZI PLANNED GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

You gotta do more than just throw the propaganda around, KSO

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
Hamases only rallying cry is the settlements and israeli checkpoints. Before Rantisi was killed in the air strike, he appeared on NBC Nightly News via Video phone before that Hamas spirtual figure was killed. He said that Hamas would except the 67 green line. Even though this man probably did order attacks, he was a moderate palestinian who was not really relgious, a doctor so he was well educated
I don't have time now to comment on all of the falacies you posted but the above one just goes to show your overall level of ignorance as to what's going on in real life.

I suggest you do your homework. Note the dates - before Yassin's demise:

1. Rasha el-Rantissi, wife of Abed el-Aziz el-Rantissi, told the Arab media that she is educating her children to resistance and jihad. She added, "I hope that my husband, my children and I will receive the shahada so that we may prove that we are the first to sacrifice our children for Allah;" "Allah is generous with us, because our children die as fighters, and we wait with them for death for Allah's sake any minute" (el-Bian, 16 June 2003).



2. Hamas Offers Ten-Year Truce in Exchange For Israeli
Withdrawal to 1967 Borders (http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_01/113.html)
[Official PA website]

GAZA, January 26, 2004 (IPC + Agencies) - - The Islamic Resistance Movement
(Hamas) said that it could declare a 10-year truce (ceasefire) with Israel
in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and
the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands Israel occupied in
1967.

Hamas spokesman and co-founder Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi told journalists on
Sunday that the movement had come to the conclusion it was "difficult to
liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."

"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza
Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for [Israel's] withdrawal and
the establishment of a state," Reuters news agency quoted al-Rantissi as
saying.

He added that the proposal did not mean that Hams has to recognize Israel or
spell the belief in the end of the conflict to be true.

Tel Aviv dismisses any talk of Hamas moderation as a smokescreen for
military preparations by a group at the forefront of attacks on Israel,
particularly after the bombing that killed four Israeli soldiers at a border
crossing north of Gaza on January 14.

The spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, recently said the
resistance could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
but had not previously given any indication how long a truce might last.

al-Rantissi added he did not expect Israel to respond favorably to the new
suggestion "when it has rejected the Palestinian Authority's offer for less
land than what we are proposing."

Earlier, Hamas asserted Sunday that it had demanded for international and
regional immediate move to rein in the Israeli threats to assassinate Sheikh
Yassin.

Israeli officials indeed say it would be impossible to return to pre-1967
borders, emphasizing that Palestinians could not expect control over East
Jerusalem and major settlements deemed vital for security.



3. Key Hamas official Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi interview with NEWSWEEK's Dan
Ephron (http://www.msnbc.com/news/785094.asp?cp1=1)
July 24 2002

Q: What do you mean? How does Hamas define civilians?

A: An Israeli civilian is someone who never took part in the fighting. If he
participated in the fighting in the past, years ago, he is not a civilian.
That's why Israelis are still pursuing the Germans who took part in the
Holocaust, though some of these people are in their 80s. They are still
considered soldiers.

Q: So you consider all Israeli men combatants because they at one time or
another served in the army and do reserve duty?

A: Yes.

Q: What about Israeli women?

A: Most Israeli women served in the army.

Q: According to these criteria, what percentage of the Israeli population do
you consider combatants?

A: The majority. We choose military targets. If civilians are liable to die,
that isn't a reason to stop the attack. But we don't set out to kill
civilians.




4. Quotes by Hamas Leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi
Associated Press ^ | Sat Apr 17, 4:02 PM ET | Associated Press


Posted on 04/17/2004 11:58:58 PM PDT by dila813


Quotes by Hamas Leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi Sat Apr 17, 4:02 PM ET

By The Associated Press

Recent quotes from Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who was assassinated Saturday by Israel.

AFP Slideshow: Mideast Conflict

"We knew that Bush is the enemy of God, the enemy of Islam and Muslims. America declared war against God. Sharon declared war against God and God declared war against America, Bush and Sharon. ... The war of God continues against them, and I can see the victory coming up from the land of Palestine by the hand of Hamas." — Last month, after the United States vetoed an United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council resoultion condemning Israel for assassinating Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin.

"We will be unified in the trenches of resistance. We will not surrender, we will never surrender to Israeli terror." — Last month, after being selected Hamas leader in Gaza after Yassin was killed.

"Yassin is a man in a nation, and a nation in a man. And the retaliation of this nation will be of the size of this man. ... You will see deeds not words." — Last month, after Yassin's assassination.

"We will all die one day. Nothing will change. If by Apache or by cardiac arrest, I prefer Apache." — Last month, after Yassin's assassination

_ "This operation, whoever is behind it, is a natural reaction for the bloody aggression against our people." — Last September, after deadly suicide bombings at a bus stop crowded with Israeli soldiers near Rishon Letzion and five hours later at a Jerusalem nightspot.

"They think that targeting leaders will stop Jihad (holy war). They are mistaken. ... All of us in Hamas from top to bottom are looking to become like Abu Shanab." — Last August, after Israel killed Yassin aide Ismail Abu Shanab.

"The word cease-fire is not in our dictionary. ... Resistance will continue until we uproot them from our homeland." — Last June, as Egypt tried to work out a truce.

"The Zionists will pay an expensive price for all of their crimes." — Last June, from his hospital bed after a deadly bus bombing in Jerusalem that followed Israel's attempt to kill him.



5. Have you ever bothered to read the Hamas Charter (http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html)? Get back to use after reading the first 20 or so items.



The factual mistakes you are making over and over again are a perfect example of what Israel has to go through from the nations of the World, USA included.

You seem sincere. Why don't you sit back and think over whether you've been suckered by the free-world press you've been so trusting of all these years, at least when it comes to Israel (though it doesn't stop there).

[KSO]

Originally posted by Batman
That is such bull . You are not going to tell me that Baruch Goldstein is responsible for the massive suicide bombing children camps and education which has been recruiting children since 1977 but was only activated after OSLO.

OSLO IS THE MAGIC WORD HERE AND THE MOTIVATION FOR THE ARABS WHO THINK ISRAEL IS GETTING WEAKER AND LOSING ITS RESOLVE TO FIGHT.
How convenient. One poor Jewish Doctor who lost his mind from his suffering vs. the calculated ARABNAZI PLANNED GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

You gotta do more than just throw the propaganda around, KSO

Yes educating for hate is wrong (http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20hate%20literaures%20for%20children.htm)

and shouldn't be done by anyone (http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
After your friend and mine Baruch Goldstein commited the first suicide terror attack in Israel.
Quick, KSO! You know so much!

How many Israelis were killed and wounded by Pals and how many failed attempts were recorded from the time the Oslo Agreements were signed up until Goldstein's murder spree?

Go on. State the facts. Let us know. You don't want to conceal anything from us, do you?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
Yes educating for hate is wrong (http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20hate%20literaures%20for%20children.htm)
Anyone here have kids who ever read this stuff?

Our kids go to the library, borrow books from friends and we let them choose books at the annual book week fair.

None of these ring a bell.

None of these are promoted in any school programs, either, from what I can see in the article.

Nothing to do but dig up irrelevant dirt, KSO? As usual.

and shouldn't be done by anyone (http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm) [/B]
This article's even a bigger joke.

"Textbooks currently being used in the Israeli school system, says Bar-Tal, contain less direct denigration of Arabs but continue to stereotype them negatively when referring to them".

Not a single quote or title reference given in the article.

"Our books basically tell us that everything the Jews do is fine and legitimate and Arabs are wrong and violent and are trying to exterminate us,” said Daniel Banvolegyi, a 17-year-old high school student in Jerusalem.
Sounds like you, KSO. Does it get any more in-depth?

No. The articles are as shallow as your logic.

[Mil]

Posted by cunrad:


What I ment by UN troops deplyments is why arent there troops posted to seperate both sides so that UN troops can take place of the IDF,


You mean UN troops guarding Israeli territory? There isn't a place in the world where such is the case and Israel is no exception.



also there are no UN troops there epecially between Gaza rafah and Egypt Rafah,


There are no UN troops between Kashmir and Pakistan and India.


there are UN observers in the Sinai as they are there as observers in the Golan and other place there. There only a few dozen troops who act as observers, not as a buffer.

No. These are not a few dozen troops these are a few THOUSAND troops. Look it up at www.UN.org


And like i said before the only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war.


No. These countries were selected for the security council because they were recognized and still are recognized as SUPERPOWERS. I recommend you read up on the history of LON and the UN.


Tougest in the region is the same thing. the loser wouldnt be the victor or the toughest in the region,


No. France clearly lost WWII - for example - but still was included on the Security Council. In 1945 France, Britain, USSR and the United States were clearly recognized superpowers - there weren't any others. Later China was added in. I personally believe that one more country should become the permanent member ..... India. India is a large political, economic and military regional superpower.


Mil, your just playing word games now.

Nope - world is not run by emotions.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Separate thread started on this topic:

UN Troops are raping women in the Congo (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5904)

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
Yes educating for hate is wrong (http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20hate%20literaures%20for%20children.htm)

and shouldn't be done by anyone (http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm)

I seriously question anything written by Israel Shahak. The guy told some of the most disgusting lies about Judaism, they could have been written by Nazis. I've researched many of his assertions, all of them were so blatantly false that his errors could only be intentional. I know his background and it made him a great target for promoting anti-semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda. Anyone who would quote him tells me instantly where they get their information from- propaganda sites, perhaps the same one where you got that bogus Ariel Sharon quote from when you first came on here? The saddest thing is how you went on and on about how you have read all the Zionist literature and so you were establishing your authority, but I had the Amos Oz book that the quote came from and I knew right away that your post was a lie. Weren't you embarrassed by that? Shahak was being paid heavily by various European oganizations and international organizations like the Ford Foundation, which was caught and had to publicly admit to sponsoring anti-semitic materials, and this was going on in the past five years, not the 1940s!!!!http://www.jta.org/page_view_story.asp?strwebhead=Pressure+builds+on+ Ford&intcategoryid=3

I also find very suspect the fact that they translated and reprinted it from Haaretz rather than posting the original article. Can someone find that article? This issue has come up in the local Jewish community where I am from and there is an Israeli guy who has challenged anyone who can find these children's textbooks and he is offering a very large cash reward. So if anyone can come up with real proof, then I will direct you to him.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
I seriously question anything written by Israel Shahak. The guy told some of the most disgusting lies about Judaism, they could have been written by Nazis. I've researched many of his assertions, all of them were so blatantly false that his errors could only be intentional. I know his background and it made him a great target for promoting anti-semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda. Anyone who would quote him tells me instantly where they get their information from- propaganda sites, perhaps the same one where you got that bogus Ariel Sharon quote from when you first came on here? The saddest thing is how you went on and on about how you have read all the Zionist literature and so you were establishing your authority, but I had the Amos Oz book that the quote came from and I knew right away that your post was a lie. Weren't you embarrassed by that? Shahak was being paid by various European oganizations and international organizations like the Ford Foundation, which was caught and had to publicly admit to sponsoring anti-semitic materials, and this was going on in the past five years, not the 1940s!!!! I also find very suspect the fact that they translated and reprinted it from Haaretz rather than posting the original article. Can someone find that article? This issue has come up in the local Jewish community where I am from and there is an Israeli guy who has challenged anyone who can find these children's textbooks and he is offering a very large cash reward. So if anyone can come up with real proof, then I will direct you to him.

I think you confuse Israel Shahak with Israel Shamir, Israel Shamir is a very problematic figure even palestinians accuse him of antisemitism
http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/originalletter.html

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
I think you confuse Israel Shahak with Israel Shamir, Israel Shamir is a very problematic figure even palestinians accuse him of antisemitism
http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/originalletter.html

NO! I have read Israel Shahak and when I say Israel Shahak I mean Israel Shahak. Shamir was at first heavily backed by Palestinians until, as your letter showed (and I had read that letter before) his anti-semitic rants became so far fetched and filled with lunacy that even the Jew haters had to distance themselves from him. I spent a long time researching the assertions that Shahak makes in one of his books on modern Israel and the Jewish people and it is filled with so many lies, so many obvious distortions (taking quotes out of their proper context and then twisting their meaning) and they are so hateful.

I mean look, do I believe that there is racism in Israel? Yes, most definetly. But why not address it in a constructive manner instead of promoting the work of authors who demonize Israel and whoose work borders on blood libels against not just Israel but the Jewish people and religion?

[cunard]

Originally posted by KSO
The Intifada wasn't a terror attack but it was an act of rebellion.


After your friend and mine Baruch Goldstein commited the first suicide terror attack in Israel.


Hezboulla carried out many suicde attacks in the 1980s!!, second of all I have never called the Intifada as a terrorist thing, certain elements of the uprising are though. Attacking buses and cafes is terrorist activity though!! I have also said that the military targets are legit though. Also Israel on its part has done violations of Intl Law too so don't say that im picking sides causemy not! I have also said that the military targets are legit though.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
NO! I have read Israel Shahak and when I say Israel Shahak I mean Israel Shahak. Shamir was at first heavily backed by Palestinians until, as your letter showed (and I had read that letter before) his anti-semitic rants became so far fetched and filled with lunacy that even the Jew haters had to distance themselves from him. I spent a long time researching the assertions that Shahak makes in one of his books on modern Israel and the Jewish people and it is filled with so many lies, so many obvious distortions (taking quotes out of their proper context and then twisting their meaning) and they are so hateful.

I mean look, do I believe that there is racism in Israel? Yes, most definetly. But why not address it in a constructive manner instead of promoting the work of authors who demonize Israel and whoose work borders on blood libels against not just Israel but the Jewish people and religion?

Shouldn't our first priority be to try and minimize Rasicm in Israel as much as possible, starting with our school system! (maybe our neighbours will take an example) I had my share of rasict teachers, with My arabic teacher (how ironic) wished death to all arabs, and my history teacher in high school in general (just to crazy to recall)

[cunard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I don't have time now to comment on all of the falacies you posted but the above one just goes to show your overall level of ignorance as to what's going on in real life.

I suggest you do your homework. Note the dates - before Yassin's demise:

1. Rasha el-Rantissi, wife of Abed el-Aziz el-Rantissi, told the Arab media that she is educating her children to resistance and jihad. She added, "I hope that my husband, my children and I will receive the shahada so that we may prove that we are the first to sacrifice our children for Allah;" "Allah is generous with us, because our children die as fighters, and we wait with them for death for Allah's sake any minute" (el-Bian, 16 June 2003).



2. [b]Hamas Offers Ten-Year Truce in Exchange For Israeli
Withdrawal to 1967 Borders (http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_01/113.html)
[Official PA website]

GAZA, January 26, 2004 (IPC + Agencies) - - The Islamic Resistance Movement
(Hamas) said that it could declare a 10-year truce (ceasefire) with Israel
in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and
the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands Israel occupied in
1967.

Hamas spokesman and co-founder Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi told journalists on
Sunday that the movement had come to the conclusion it was "difficult to
liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."

"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza
Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for [Israel's] withdrawal and
the establishment of a state," Reuters news agency quoted al-Rantissi as
saying.

He added that the proposal did not mean that Hams has to recognize Israel or
spell the belief in the end of the conflict to be true.

Tel Aviv dismisses any talk of Hamas moderation as a smokescreen for
military preparations by a group at the forefront of attacks on Israel,
particularly after the bombing that killed four Israeli soldiers at a border
crossing north of Gaza on January 14.

The spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, recently said the
resistance could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
but had not previously given any indication how long a truce might last.

al-Rantissi added he did not expect Israel to respond favorably to the new
suggestion "when it has rejected the Palestinian Authority's offer for less
land than what we are proposing."

Earlier, Hamas asserted Sunday that it had demanded for international and
regional immediate move to rein in the Israeli threats to assassinate Sheikh
Yassin.

Israeli officials indeed say it would be impossible to return to pre-1967
borders, emphasizing that Palestinians could not expect control over East
Jerusalem and major settlements deemed vital for security.


Ok so you yourself have proved that my point was correct!! the most recent statement made by Rantisi and and his clan were ready to let Israel be as long as there was a palestinian state, even though they said they would not officaly except israel, 10 years of peace and quite would have been a long time for them to think that over as lived in in peace and quite and there economy and the lives of the palestinian people improved.

[cunard]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Quick, KSO! You know so much!

How many Israelis were killed and wounded by Pals and how many failed attempts were recorded from the time the Oslo Agreements were signed up until Goldstein's murder spree?

Go on. State the facts. Let us know. You don't want to conceal anything from us, do you?

Oh Jerusalem, How many palestinians killed and wounded and made homelss by Israelis, how many violations of Lebannese air space? State the facts since I never do right?

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
Shouldn't our first priority be to try and minimize Rasicm in Israel as much as possible, starting with our school system! (maybe our neighbours will take an example) I had my share of rasict teachers, with My arabic teacher (how ironic) wished death to all arabs, and my history teacher in high school in general (just to crazy to recall)

Our first priority should be to get the facts rather than promote hate-inspired lies, KSO. Are there or are there not Israeli government backed textbooks that promote racism against Arabs in the Israeli primary schools? Do Jews receive different textbooks than the 20% of the population that is not Jewish? There are no Jews in the schools operated by Hamas, the PA and Islamic Jihad. There are, however, Arabs living in Israel. I know that Arabs are required to learn about the Holocaust. So do they also receive the same textbooks? Your personal experiences aside, KSO, I want to know whether there is a systemic, institutionalized program for promoting racisim in Israeli schools the way that there was in the territories when the Arabs used Jordanian textbooks.

[cunard]

I highly doubt Israel promotes hate-inspired lies.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
I don't have time now to comment on all of the falacies you posted but the above one just goes to show your overall level of ignorance as to what's going on in real life.

I suggest you do your homework. Note the dates - before Yassin's demise:

1. Rasha el-Rantissi, wife of Abed el-Aziz el-Rantissi, told the Arab media that she is educating her children to resistance and jihad. She added, "I hope that my husband, my children and I will receive the shahada so that we may prove that we are the first to sacrifice our children for Allah;" "Allah is generous with us, because our children die as fighters, and we wait with them for death for Allah's sake any minute" (el-Bian, 16 June 2003).



2. [b]Hamas Offers Ten-Year Truce in Exchange For Israeli
Withdrawal to 1967 Borders (http://www.ipc.gov.ps/ipc_e/ipc_e-1/e_News/news2004/2004_01/113.html)
[Official PA website]

GAZA, January 26, 2004 (IPC + Agencies) - - The Islamic Resistance Movement
(Hamas) said that it could declare a 10-year truce (ceasefire) with Israel
in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and
the establishment of a Palestinian state on the lands Israel occupied in
1967.

Hamas spokesman and co-founder Abd al-Aziz al-Rantissi told journalists on
Sunday that the movement had come to the conclusion it was "difficult to
liberate all our land at this stage, so we accept a phased liberation."

"We accept a state in the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and the Gaza
Strip. We propose a 10-year truce in return for [Israel's] withdrawal and
the establishment of a state," Reuters news agency quoted al-Rantissi as
saying.

He added that the proposal did not mean that Hams has to recognize Israel or
spell the belief in the end of the conflict to be true.

Tel Aviv dismisses any talk of Hamas moderation as a smokescreen for
military preparations by a group at the forefront of attacks on Israel,
particularly after the bombing that killed four Israeli soldiers at a border
crossing north of Gaza on January 14.

The spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, recently said the
resistance could accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip
but had not previously given any indication how long a truce might last.

al-Rantissi added he did not expect Israel to respond favorably to the new
suggestion "when it has rejected the Palestinian Authority's offer for less
land than what we are proposing."

Earlier, Hamas asserted Sunday that it had demanded for international and
regional immediate move to rein in the Israeli threats to assassinate Sheikh
Yassin.

Israeli officials indeed say it would be impossible to return to pre-1967
borders, emphasizing that Palestinians could not expect control over East
Jerusalem and major settlements deemed vital for security.


Ok so you yourself have proved that my point was correct!! the most recent statement made by Rantisi and and his clan were ready to let Israel be as long as there was a palestinian state, even though they said they would not officaly except israel, 10 years of peace and quite would have been a long time for them to think that over as lived in in peace and quite and there economy and the lives of the palestinian people improved.

That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped, thus his comment about a "phased liberation." There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped, thus his comment about a "phased liberation." There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.

Again if we will keep delaying negotations with todays PAL leadership in 5-10 years we will have to negotiate with HAMAS and Jihad leaders, and accept those ridicilous offers because we'll have no choise...

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by cunrad:


What I ment by UN troops deplyments is why arent there troops posted to seperate both sides so that UN troops can take place of the IDF,


You mean UN troops guarding Israeli territory? There isn't a place in the world where such is the case and Israel is no exception.


I did not say guarding Israeli territtory, i said act as a buffer between both sides!

also there are no UN troops there epecially between Gaza rafah and Egypt Rafah,


There are no UN troops between Kashmir and Pakistan and India.

True there are no troops as i have stated to before, but there are UN observers and the LOC (line of control which defines the border now in kashmir ) was drawn up by the UN. The reason there are no UN troops is because India refuses while Pakistan wants them there.

there are UN observers in the Sinai as they are there as observers in the Golan and other place there. There only a few dozen troops who act as observers, not as a buffer.

No. These are not a few dozen troops these are a few THOUSAND troops. Look it up at www.UN.org

There are 336 Indian, Canadian, and Honduran troops there who are acting as observers.


And like i said before the only reason that China, USSR and the rest who are in the security council are cause they were the victors of the war.


No. These countries were selected for the security council because they were recognized and still are recognized as SUPERPOWERS. I recommend you read up on the history of LON and the UN.

The Superpowers were the Victors!!!!!!!!!


Tougest in the region is the same thing. the loser wouldnt be the victor or the toughest in the region,


No. France clearly lost WWII - for example - but still was included on the Security Council. In 1945 France, Britain, USSR and the United States were clearly recognized superpowers - there weren't any others. Later China was added in. I personally believe that one more country should become the permanent member ..... India. India is a large political, economic and military regional superpower.


How did france loose WW2???? They were part of the occupying force in Germany after the war, did germany hold french territory at the end of the war??? No!! it was the other way around!!!!!
France got its but kicked for the first 85% of the war, but they won in the end with the help of the allies!!!

Mil, your just playing word games now.

Nope - world is not run by emotions.

But you are playing with my words though :D

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mira
That's warped. 10 years to become better organized and better equipped. There needs to be a permanent peace agreement. To suggest a full withdrawal without a permanent peace agreement that is binding on both parties is ridiculous. It's not even a real suggestion, unless you are insane.


It was an importent step taken by a radical Islamic group who had come to realize there way was not working. i am sure that the agreement would have been finalized properly with borders defined (even if temporary). Whatever both sides are doing now hasnt worked for decades and makes the lives of people on boths sides miserable.
What I think is INSANE is that we have two people who have both been discarded by the rest of the world for years and years at each others throats. This to me is very INSANE and very sad.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
i am sure that the agreement would have been finalized properly with borders defined (even if temporary). Whatever both sides are doing now hasnt worked for decades and makes the lives of people on boths sides miserable.

Guess what? It's working (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5898).

Sort of. You what what didn't work all these years? Rabin and Peres trying to properly finalize agreements, with borders defined (even if temporary).

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
Again if we will keep delaying negotations with todays PAL leadership in 5-10 years we will have to negotiate with HAMAS and Jihad leaders, and accept those ridicilous offers because we'll have no choise...
Completely wrong.

When they drop their weapons (every last one of them), pull out the white flags, hand over their leaders for trial, then we can start talking with them about the future.

[cunard]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Completely wrong.

When they drop their weapons (every last one of them), pull out the white flags, hand over their leaders for trial, then we can start talking with them about the future.



The chance of that happening is pertty much just as likely as having the Israeli flag flying over Iran's Parliament bulidings hahaha.

Also if the PLA leaders go on trial, im sure Mr. Sharon and his Defense Minister would join Mr. Arafat and his goons in an 8 X 8 cell.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
The chance of that happening is pertty much just as likely as having the Israeli flag flying over Iran's Parliament bulidings hahaha.
And yet that's the dirction it's heading in, as the thread I linked to points out. But you just keep on ignoring the facts. The only thing preventing it is Israel continuing indecisiveness, which I predict is soon going to get worse.
Also if the PLA leaders go on trial, im sure Mr. Sharon and his Defense Minister would join Mr. Arafat and his goons in an 8 X 8 cell.
Why? What did Sharon do? Go on and tell us. That's why we're here. :o

[Oh Jerusalem]

From The Case for Israel (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5910), by Alan Dershowitz:

The fence case is now in the Israeli Supreme Court as well as the International Court of Justice. The Israeli Supreme Court will resolve it fairly. The International Court of Justice won't. Why? Because the International Court of Justice is just like the Mississippi Supreme Court in the 1930's.

There was a Mississippi Supreme Court that could do justice only for cases of a White against a White. It was an all White court. It could in a paternalistic way solve a case of a Black against another Black, but it couldn't do justice in a case involving a Black and White. It would always find in favor of a White in such a case.

The same goes for the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, which is a United Nations court. It can do justice in some disputes, but when Israel is involved it is incapable of doing justice. Like the Mississippi Supreme Court, it used its credibility that existed in some cases to pretend it was doing justice, but no perspicacious students of the International Court of Justice will be fooled. But many people are not perspicacious. They'll see judges with robes declaring the use of a fence to prevent terrorism not only a violation of international law, but a grievous one!

Among cases now pending before the International Court, there are no cases pending involving genocide or slavery, or oppression of women. There are no cases of oppression of people because of their religion. There are no cases involving events in Algeria or the Sudan or Rwanda. But Israel builds a moveable fence, a fence that three times already has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme Court and by the Israeli government in response to changes on the ground, and that seems to be the greatest violation of international law.


Amen to that! ;)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Among cases now pending before the International Court, there are no cases pending involving genocide or slavery, or oppression of women. There are no cases of oppression of people because of their religion. There are no cases involving events in Algeria or the Sudan or Rwanda. But Israel builds a moveable fence, a fence that three times already has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme Court and by the Israeli government in response to changes on the ground, and that seems to be the greatest violation of international law.


I highlighted that last paragraph because it matches the attributes of so many of the Israel-bash-away posters that grace this forum. Our very own little virual reality experience.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
And yet that's the dirction it's heading in, as the thread I linked to points out. But you just keep on ignoring the facts. The only thing preventing it is Israel continuing indecisiveness, which I predict is soon going to get worse.

Why? What did Sharon do? Go on and tell us. That's why we're here. :o

I gess that Cunard wanted to speak about all this stuff:

Assacinations, massacres since 50', deportation, provocations, terror bombing, etc...

The usual stuff. :cool:

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by TDidier
I gess that Cunard wanted to speak about all this stuff:

Assacinations,
You mean eliminating terrorist militant targets, responsible for waging war and masacring another country's people.
massacres since 50'
Don't stop. List them.
deportation
Deporting terrorists is indeed criminal. They should have been shot or trialed and jailed when captured. Letting them go is a crime against humanity.
provocations
How exciting. Maybe you should be on trial for provocations.
terror bombing
Once again, list such an event.
etc...
So on and so forth.

[Batman]

Originally posted by KSO
Yes educating for hate is wrong (http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20hate%20literaures%20for%20children.htm)

and shouldn't be done by anyone (http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm)

KSO, I don't know why you try so hard to prove your hatered or self hatered for anything to do with Israel, but your attempts here to point fingers pale compared to the catastrophic and monumental proof of the horrific ARABNAZI plan for the GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.

REGARDING THE LINKS YOU OFFER:
The first link http:// http://theunjustmedia.com/Israel%20hate%20literaures%20for%20children.htm is from 1974 and it's really THE ONLY ARTICLE I have seen and not very convincing, picking straws etc!

The second link http://amenusa.org/isr34.htm is written by an ANTI ISRAEL PROPAGANDA EXPERT Maureen Meehan
Maureen Meehan is (2001) a free-lance journalist based in the West Bank. She is married to Jiries Atrash, a Palestinian Authority official in Jericho.


COMPARE THIS PETTY PICKIN' YOU OFFER WITH THIS:
the entire web site is replete with proof of the hatered of Arabs ARABNAZI PLAN FOR GENOCIDE OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND ISRAEL (http://www.pmw.org.il/new/) for Israel and Jews.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
You mean eliminating terrorist militant targets, responsible for waging war and masacring another country's people.

When he was a young lieutnant he ordonned to kill 2 womens who crossed Israelian border to carry water... At 100m from their houses. I don't remember the date (50') exactly but I've posted something about that some month later...

during 50' and 60' he conduced operations outside of Israelian borders, so bloody operations that BenGourion himself asked explanations about those "too good" attacks...

He was in charge of sommary assassinations after 1967 in Gaza... And that was a job for him...

etc...


Don't stop. List them.

the two most famous:

-Qibya, 1953- He forced civilians to stay in their houses in this cisjordanian village and... Bombed their house, people inside, Mens, Womens, Childrens.
The escapers were shot in the street...

-Sabra & Shatila , 1982-He was defence minister and commanded Israelian troop in Lebanon invasion, but he gove orders to pro-israelian milicias too.
He gove the top of milician entry in the camps, tsahal troops were waiting outside of the camp during the massacre.
During the day, they shooted the escapers.
During the night they fired lighting mortar shell to permit to the massacre to continue as it was the day...

Deporting terrorists is indeed criminal. They should have been shot or trialed and jailed when captured. Letting them go is a crime against humanity .

During early 70', in Gaza, he was responsable of ten of thousands of deportations, destroying houses and closing water points...
For the lone 1971 August, he erased 2000 houses and deported 12000 Gaza inhabitants...

How exciting. Maybe you should be on trial for provocations.

On AlAqsa, in 2000, that was the beginning of the 2nd Intifada.
He perfectly knew that palestinians would react to his come, Sharon is known as the butcher for them...And he bet on the bloody repression from israelian police.
He bet and he won.

Once again, list such an event.

In 1968, an israelian commando attacked Beyrouth airport, bombing all the civilians aircrafts they found... This operation was leaded by Sharon.

So on and so forth.

War criminal, as I writed most part of his operations during 50'60' were so (unnecessary) bloody that the top governemental administration asked for "explanations"... But there is most clear evidence.

According to the retired general Arye Biro, during Sinaï campaign, 1956, in a prartrooper unit under Sharon's command, he witnessed (and participated) in a massacre of 273 unarmed egyptian soldiers and some sudanese workers.

[Mil]

Posted by Cunrad:

I did not say guarding Israeli territtory, i said act as a buffer between both sides!


That's not what the UN force is for. Go to the security council and readup.


True there are no troops as i have stated to before, but there are UN observers and the LOC (line of control which defines the border now in kashmir ) was drawn up by the UN. The reason there are no UN troops is because India refuses while Pakistan wants them there.


Sure thing. India does not want UN troops on its own territory - which Kashmir is. I don't think Pakistan wants UN troops on its territory either if only in Kashmir across the border - in India that is.


There are 336 Indian, Canadian, and Honduran troops there who are acting as observers.

That's in Egypt.

Again apparently you did not do visit the www.un.org as I suggested:

Golan Heights:

1,044 troops, assisted by some 80 military observers of UNTSO's Observer Group Golan;
and supported by 39 international civilian personnel
and 93 local civilian staff

Lebanon:

1,987 troops, assisted by some 50 military observers of UNTSO;
and supported by 115 international civilian personnel and 300 local civilian staff


The Superpowers were the Victors!!!!!!!!!


They were also the only superpowers. Being Victors had the least to do with anything. Czehoslovakia was also a victor, for example.


How did france loose WW2????


The Germans beat them in the summer of 1940. I would imagine they have History Channel up in Canada.


They were part of the occupying force in Germany after the war, did germany hold french territory at the end of the war???


French actions after the war have nothing to do with French actions before and during the war. There were also Czehoslovakian troops occupying Germany in 1945.



No!! it was the other way around!!!!!


READ IT UP.


France got its but kicked for the first 85% of the war,


First 85%? Actually France lost to Germany fair and square all 100% of it.


but they won in the end with the help of the allies!!!


No. Actually it was the allies who liberated France. French military involvement post Dunkirk in liberation of their own nation was insignificant. You can say that Greece, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland liberated themselves with the help of either the allies or the Red Army.



But you are playing with my words though


No, I am taking your responses very seriously and just point out the flaws to the lack of some of your analysis. First and foremost I recommend you go to the www.un.org and read the charter, then go to the security council and read up on its functions, then to the general assembly and its functions and so on....

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil

No. Actually it was the allies who liberated France. French military involvement post Dunkirk in liberation of their own nation was insignificant. You can say that Greece, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Belgium, and Poland liberated themselves with the help of either the allies or the Red Army.



One point is right, at the end of the war, France and Poland have quite the same number of soldiers, the difference was that for french, they were under french command and for polish, they were under soviet one.

Just a question:
Don't you know that there was a second landing during August 1944, on mediterranean beachs?

If that is right that in Normandie, there was primaly anglo-saxon (not only US, but british and canadian too), but the landing of Marseille saw the landing of the complete french 1st army.

Don't forget (at least) that french (arabs troops in fact, with french officers) have won the Monte-Cassino battle, the most important (and deadly for US) battle of Italy conquest.

Ps. The first troops who crossed the Rhin to invade Germany was the 151e régiment d'infanterie, french first army and personnal regiment of the Marechal DeLattreDeTassigny.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


One point is right, at the end of the war, France and Poland have quite the same number of soldiers, the difference was that for french, they were under french command and for polish, they were under soviet one.

No. The French fought under allied command and with allied weaponry.



Just a question:
Don't you know that there was a second landing during August 1944, on mediterranean beachs?

Actually quite a few French landed in Normandie as well.


Don't forget (at least) that french (arabs troops in fact, with french officers) have won the Monte-Cassino battle, the most important (and deadly for US) battle of Italy conquest.

Ah????? There were many units involved in Monte-Cassino including Americans, Britts, French and Poles. The French were part of the allied invasion of Italy. I am not doubting the courage of French soldiers.


Ps. The first troops who crossed the Rhin to invade Germany was the 151e régiment d'infanterie, french first army and personnal regiment of the Marechal DeLattreDeTassigny.


I know - all done under the allied command. I am not in any way doubt the courage of French soldiers during WWII. France lost WWII and later returned under the allied command and with conjuction with the allied armies liberated their own country. Many indegenious divisions of the previously conquered countries fought with the Allies and the Red Army. The Polish First Army by the end of WWII was almost over 100,000 strong, for example, and for the time was one of the most powerful and best equipped formations of the Red Army.

[cunard]

To Mil,

Actually Kashmir is "disputed territory" After the 1947 partion in whcih East and West Pakistan and India were divided, Kashmirs ruler (a non-elected hindu monarch) decided to join India. This sole man who had no authority over its people decided to decide for a couple million people what to do. Punjab was also asked to decide where it wanted to go, it was told by India that it would be autonomous in India if decided to go with India. That also never happend because as soon as Punjab joined India, it was ruled by the Government in Deli. Because of depends of independence by Kashmiri people for more than 50 years, The United Nations has said that kashmir should be allowed to vote what it wants to do, Stick with India, Join Pakistan, or Become Independant. The Kashmiris them selves are hardly radical people, but after 50 years of having Indian troops in there backyard and with outside extremist elements coming in and with Pakistan trying to push its authority on Kashmir too, the actuall will and desires of Kashmirs people are thrown aside and the whole lot of them are labeld under one big banner of extremits.

Also China holds about a third of Kashmir which it won in the mid Sixties and to this day holds it within its boundries, that India has been disputing with China for many years.

[cunard]

Also, like I said France lost the first 85% of the war with Germany, but in the end who won? it was France, what u said was pertty much just like if the Chicago Blackhawks (France) are down 2 goals in a hockey gave with the Maple Leafs(Germany) and then in third peirod, Blackhawks shoot 3 goals and win the game. So really won(the victor)?? I would say The Blackhawks(France)
I hope that clear enough cuase thats the second or third time i've had to explain that France was a vicotor of WW2.


Now to what Sharon has done. First of all, who has killed more innocent people, Arafat or Sharon? Ans: Sharon, even though in my eyes both are murderous idiots.
Second of all, what hasnt Sharon done, the man is a Pinochett of the Holy Land, he has killed so many people in Lebannon refugge camps, killed thousands of Palestinian people. Destoyed farming land, violated Lebanese air space hundreds of times, holding onto the Syrian and. I doubt Syrian tanks from ancient soviet times are coming towards Israel anythime soon and plus Syria is a secular state which is slowly turning to radical islamist cause of the dragging of the Israeli-Pl conflict. Jordan and Egypt were once hardcore anti-israeli now there somewhat freinds :)
Only real Israeli threat is Iran which wont do anything since Iranians are looking to make there wallets fatter with economic success rather strting a new war no matter what some relgious extreamist in Iran say.

Killed by Israeli security forces
2864

Among them:


Assassinations
178 (which are justified in my view as long as 11
children arent killed along with the bad guy)

Bystanders
78

Children 0-15
286

Children 15-17
254

Journalists
6

Foreigners
5


Killed by Israeli settlers
25

Palestinians who died at checkpoints
82

Total
2971



Cases not included


Palestinian citizens of Israel
17

Suicide bombers
157

Total
3135

And this is for the Israeli Side


Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians
In the Territories
199
In Israel
406

Total
605

Among them children (under 18)
In the Territories
30
In Israel
74
Total
104

Members of the Israeli security forces killed by Palestinians
In the Territories
82
In Israel
185

Total
267

Total

976

These numbers dont even include the 112 Palestinians killed in May or the 13 IDF soldiers also killed in May, or the thousands of innocents who have been injured and scarred for life on both sides. What I have seen for my own views is that the numbers compared to other wars and conflicts going onat this time and of those in the past shows actual casualties are quite low (compared with other conflicts such as Congo, Rawanda, Bosnia, The Blaken States, Iraq and such) the Middle east conflict is slow with causalities here and there, with 5 dead today, or 3 killed tommorow, or 21 killed on Sunday. The toll slowly adds up, but since there are always causlaties to report about the anger never boils down thus continuing this totally unessecary conflict. I guess my question and comment would be that what have the past three years really accomplised? true that attacks inside Israel have dwindled compared to the beginning, but the numbers are still adding with the conflict starting to slowly engulf surrunding areas like Jordan, Lebannon with Hezboulla who have kept most of there conflict between them and the Israelis relted to that, but mroe recently we see that cooperation and tactics now being used are slowly showing the links between the lebanese conflict and the PL conflict. Even though, the peace process in the past did fail to number of reasons including the failures of BOTH sides to implement them, at least there was relative peace, sure there were attacks and counter attacks here and there, but almost nothing compared to what is going on now. I agree that it is time for change on the PLO leadership, but if the leadership changes from PLO to Hamas, the situation would be much worse even with Israel hitting the top leadership of Hamas. Before the name of Marwan Bargoutti

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/profiles/1473585.stm

was floated around quite a bit, even though he has blood on his hands he would have been an ideal person to deal with, he had a break with arafat has rejected suicide bombings in Israel, and he excepts an Israeli state, while having an huge backing from the Pl people. I think the reason he was arrested was to put a dent in the PL people to show that the Israelis could take who ever when ever they wanted and so a emotional setback to the Palestinians in hoping to derail the current intifada. In the past the Israelis have let go of more dangerous people who were still set on destrying the state of Israel, so the justifies reasoning to hold this man who could be the only PLA leader to deliver actual peace agreement just mystifies me.


Again comments are welcome.

[Mira~]

Where did you get that Sharon "killed" * "thousands" in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon?



The Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia was responsible for the massacres that occurred at the two Beirut-area refugee camps on September 16_17, 1982. Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to enter Sabra and Shatila to root out terrorist cells believed located there. It had been estimated that there may have been up to 200 armed men in the camps working out of the countless bunkers built by the PLO over the years, and stocked with generous reserves of ammunition.

When Israeli soldiers ordered the Phalangists out, they found hundreds dead (estimates range from 460 according to the Lebanese police, to 700-800 calculated by Israeli intelligence). The dead, according to the Lebanese account, included 35 women and children. The rest were men: Palestinians, Lebanese, Pakistanis, Iranians, Syrians and Algerians. The killings came on top of an estimated 95,000 deaths that had occurred during the civil war in Lebanon from 1975-1982.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Sabra_&_Shatila.html

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
Again if we will keep delaying negotations with todays PAL leadership in 5-10 years we will have to negotiate with HAMAS and Jihad leaders, and accept those ridicilous offers because we'll have no choise...

What makes you think that the PA is capable of making peace with Israel now? The only reason why the PA hasn't been dismantled entirely at this point is because they are the biggest employer of Palestinians outside of Israel.

[cunard]

Mira, thats the biggest pot of croc-s%&t I have seen in this forum when you said only 35 innocents died. The Lebanese were under Israeli control, just like the Iraqi Fedyaeen were under Saddams control.

By the way, that site couldnt possibly be bias at all :D

Henry Kissinger, a man that even the rest of the world not just arabs deteste, like this man cared for democracy, as long as the government of the other nation liked the US, everything was handy dany, democratic or not

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
It was an importent step taken by a radical Islamic group who had come to realize there way was not working. i am sure that the agreement would have been finalized properly with borders defined (even if temporary). Whatever both sides are doing now hasnt worked for decades and makes the lives of people on boths sides miserable.
What I think is INSANE is that we have two people who have both been discarded by the rest of the world for years and years at each others throats. This to me is very INSANE and very sad.

It's not even a real proposal. All parties understood that the final borders would not be the 1967 borders because of security concerns, that eventually there would be land swaps of some 1948 land for some 1967 land in order to accomadate the needs of both sides. So the idea of going to the 1967 lines in order to have a temporary ceasefire with the terrorist in the hopes that the borders will be readjusted down the raod when Hamas is better organized and equipped is not something to be taken seriously.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
Mira, thats the biggest pot of croc-s%&t I have seen in this forum when you said only 35 innocents died. The Lebanese were under Israeli control, just like the Iraqi Fedyaeen were under Saddams control.

By the way, that site couldnt possibly be bias at all :D

The article didn't say 35 innocents. It said 35 women and children.

Show me the OFFICIAL estimates by both the Lebanese and Israelis that were referenced on the website. According to this website, they say

Lebanese sources: 460

Israeli: 700-800

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mira
It's not even a real proposal. All parties understood that the final borders would not be the 1967 borders because of security concerns, that eventually there would be land swaps of some 1948 land for some 1967 land in order to accomadate the needs of both sides. So the idea of going to the 1967 lines in order to have a temporary ceasefire with the terrorist in the hopes that the borders will be readjusted down the raod when Hamas is better organized and equipped is not something to be taken seriously.


It was a more realitic proposal then what Sharon has had so far, and after negotiating the Pl would have seen that a few weeks of actual realistic negotiations would have gotton them farther then any armed struggle. Im sure when the time came to land swaps, they would have agreed as long as it was realistic. remember shrons and Netenyahus (sorrying for the spelling) idea of a PL state looled like a bunch of islands here and there surrunded by Israelis on all sides. Somthing very unrealistic.


The following website is very very bias and is in favor of the Palestinian cause, a strong stomach is needed to view it. Just as the following pictures show the ugly side Israeli war, there is just as ugly side for the Palestinians who carrry out bombings on buses and cafes in Israel. the reason this site has been posted is to counter the site Mira posted about only 35 women children killed in the Sabra and Shatila conflcit.

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm

[Mira~]

It's right here:


Report of the Commission of Inquiry into
the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut
(The Kahan Commission)
(February 8, 1983)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. But the Commission asserted that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area, Mr. Begin was found responsible for not exercising greater involvement and awareness in the matter of introducing the Phalangists into the camps. Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed. Mr. Shamir erred by not taking action after being alerted by communications Minister Zippori. Chief of Staff Eitan did not give the appropriate orders to prevent the massacre. The Commission recommended that the Defense Minister resign, that the Director of Military Intelligence not continue in his post and other senior officers be removed. Full text follows:




It is impossible to determine precisely the number of persons who were slaughtered. The numbers cited in this regard are to a large degree tendentious and are not based on an exact count by persons whose reliability can be counted on. The low estimate came from sources connected with the Government of Lebanon or with the Lebanese Forces. The letter (exhibit 153) of the head of the Red Cross delegation to the Minister of Defense stated that Red Cross representatives had counted 328 bodies. This figure, however, does not include all the bodies, since it is known that a number of families buried bodies on their own initiative without reporting their actions to the Red Cross. The forces who engaged in the operation removed bodies in trucks when they left Shatilla, and it is possible that more bodies are lying under the ruins in the camps or in the graves that were dug by the assailants near the camps. The letter noted that the Red Cross also had a list of 359 persons who had disappeared in West Beirut between 18 August and 20 September, with most of the missing having disappeared from Sabra and Shatilla in mid-September. According to a document which reached us (exhibit 151), the total number of victims whose bodies were found from 18.9.82 to 30.9.82 is 460. This figure includes the dead counted by the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims. According to this count, the 460 victims included 109 Lebanese and 328 Palestinians, along with Iranians, Syrians and members of other nationalities. According to the itemization of the bodies in this list, the great majority of the dead were males; as for women and children, there were 8 Lebanese women and 12 Lebanese children, and 7 Palestinian women and 8 Palestinian children. Reports from Palestinian sources speak of a far greater number of persons killed, sometimes even of thousands. With respect to the number of victims, it appears that we can rely neither on the numbers appearing in the document from Lebanese sources, nor on the numbers originating in Palestinian sources. A further difficulty in determining the number of victims stems from the fact that it is difficult to distinguish between victims of combat operations and victims of acts of slaughter. We cannot rule out the possibility that various reports included also victims of combat operations from the period antedating the assassination of Bashir. Taking into account the fact that Red Cross personnel counted no more that 328 bodies, it would appear that the number of victims of the massacre was not as high as a thousand, and certainly not thousands.

According to I.D.F. intelligence sources, the number of victims of the massacre is between 700 and 800 (testimony of the director of Military Intelligence, pp. 139-140). This may well be the number most closely corresponding with reality. It is impossible to determine precisely when the acts of slaughter were perpetrated; evidently they commenced shortly after the Phalangists entered the camps and went on intermittently until close to their departure.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

[cunard]

Originally posted by cunard
It was a more realitic proposal then what Sharon has had so far, and after negotiating the Pl would have seen that a few weeks of actual realistic negotiations would have gotton them farther then any armed struggle. Im sure when the time came to land swaps, they would have agreed as long as it was realistic. remember shrons and Netenyahus (sorrying for the spelling) idea of a PL state looled like a bunch of islands here and there surrunded by Israelis on all sides. Somthing very unrealistic.


The following website is very very bias and is in favor of the Palestinian cause, a strong stomach is needed to view it. Just as the following pictures show the ugly side Israeli war, there is just as ugly side for the Palestinians who carrry out bombings on buses and cafes in Israel. the reason this site has been posted is to counter the site Mira posted about only 35 women children killed in the Sabra and Shatila conflcit.

http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/index.htm


While reading the Kahan Report on both sites it was interesting to note how both sides used quotes to justify there own point, political or not.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
It was a more realitic proposal then what Sharon has had so far, and after negotiating the Pl would have seen that a few weeks of actual realistic negotiations would have gotton them farther then any armed struggle. Im sure when the time came to land swaps, they would have agreed as long as it was realistic. remember shrons and Netenyahus (sorrying for the spelling) idea of a PL state looled like a bunch of islands here and there surrunded by Israelis on all sides. Somthing very unrealistic.

I disagree with you, and trust me, I would like to not disagree with you. I would like to resolve this so that both Israelis and Palestinians could move on and maybe one day even benefit from good relations with each other. Contrary to what you always hear, the two sides never even got to the point of drawing up proposed maps. Those maps that are plastered all over various websites are bogus. The two sides only disucssed the division in abstract terms. They couldn't even agree on some of the most basic points of contention. Look, when it comes down to it, Arafat was not willing and probably not able to sign an agreement, especially one that involved forgoing a right of return for Palestinians to Israel. He would have been shot.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
While reading the Kahan Report on both sites it was interesting to note how both sides used quotes to justify there own point, political or not.

The numbers from the Kahne report came from the Lebanese Red Cross, the International Red Cross, the Lebanese Civil Defense, the medical corps of the Lebanese army, and by relatives of the victims. And the Israelis estimated the numbers at even higher than these outside organizations. You threw the number thousands around. Where did you get that estimate from?

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mira
I disagree with you, and trust me, I would like to not disagree with you. I would like to resolve this so that both Israelis and Palestinians could move on and maybe one day even benefit from good relations with each other. Contrary to what you always hear , the two sides never even got to the point of drawing up proposed maps. Those maps that are plastered all over various websites are bogus. The two sides only disucssed the division in abstract terms. They couldn't even agree on some of the most basic points of contention. Look, when it comes down to it, Arafat was not willing and probably not able to sign an agreement, especially one that involved forgoing a right of return for Palestinians to Israel. He would have been shot.

To bad he hasnt been shot so they could move on, but it has to be a PL bullet to kill him or the situation would become even worse. I think if the Israeli had sat down with the PL the Pl would have been caught off gaurd, and coming so close to waht they wanted they would have had to continue negotiations cuase if they walked out the PL people would have there heads.


Also the word thousands was used for the current conflict since 2000. three thousand palestinians dead would be thousands sooo... if you are even saying that those number do not even exsit i would like to see your numbers for the current conflict sicne it is the conflcit today that is holding the cards, the conflcits of the past are now done and over with, them have folded.

BBC show "the accord"
In the evening of September 16th 1982, a group of the Lebanese christian militia of the Falange, entered the Palestinain refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila (near Beirout). During the following 36 hours, they murdered between 800 (official Israeli figures) and 3.500 (according to the investigations of the Israeli journalist Kapeliouk) people, including women and children. On the previous day, the sraeli army had entered this part of the city during its campaign in Lebanon. It sealed the camps from the outside world and stood by to observe the events of 16, 17 and 18 September.



Even if your figures of everyone else being terrorists, by just looking at the picutres u can see they werent, no weapons are lying aginst bodies of man, old and young. the shooting was indiscriminate.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by cunard
To bad he hasnt been shot so they could move on, but it has to be a PL bullet to kill him or the situation would become even worse. I think if the Israeli had sat down with the PL the Pl would have been caught off gaurd, and coming so close to waht they wanted they would have had to continue negotiations cuase if they walked out the PL people would have there heads.


Also the word thousands was used for the current conflict since 2000. three thousand palestinians dead would be thousands sooo... if you are even saying that those number do not even exsit i would like to see your numbers for the current conflict sicne it is the conflcit today that is holding the cards, the conflcits of the past are now done and over with, them have folded.

You edited your post. Originally, you wrote that Sharon killed thousands in Lebanon. Now that I know what I am dealing with, I will remember to quote everything you say directly.

People throw out a lot of different numbers in this war. I've seen many different breakdowns, and I've been told that PA estimates include terrorist who have died as a result of work accidents, as well as Palestinians killed by other Palestinians for allegedly being collaborators, blah, blah, blah.... So it's hard to comment on them in precise detail. I don't think it's necessary though. Israel could level Gaza and the West Bank, but they don't. The numbers seem high, although not terribly high for a war that has been going on for over three years. What is far worse is the psychological toll for both sides, the increased fanatacism, and the damage to the economies, especially the Palestinian economy. The numbers will be much higher if a realistic solution isn't found.

[cunard]

Originally posted by Mira
You edited your post. Originally, you wrote that Sharon killed thousands in Lebanon. Now that I know what I am dealing with, I will remember to quote everything you say directly.

People throw out a lot of different numbers in this war. I've seen many different breakdowns, and I've been told that PA estimates include terrorist who have died as a result of work accidents, as well as Palestinians killed by other Palestinians for allegedly being collaborators, blah, blah, blah.... So it's hard to comment on them in precise detail. I don't think it's necessary though. Israel could level Gaza and the West Bank, but they don't. The numbers seem high, although not terribly high for a war that has been going on for over three years. What is far worse is the psychological toll for both sides, the increased fanatacism, and the damage to the economies, especially the Palestinian economy. The numbers will be much higher if a realistic solution isn't found.


I think your right about the Sharon edit, i have gone back and edited a few post cause of mistakes, i did actually mean the current conflict since 2000. But for your last post I pertty much agree with you, finnaly some common ground :)

[cunard]

Originally posted by cunard
I think your right about the Sharon edit, i have gone back and edited a few post cause of mistakes, i did actually mean the current conflict since 2000. But for your last post I pertty much agree with you, finnaly some common ground :)

[Mil]

Posted by cunrad:


Also, like I said France lost the first 85% of the war with Germany,


You bold theories of winning wars by percentiles should turn military science up-side-down. May be you should write a book. In the real world wars are either won, lost, or stalemated to be later resolved by a political process. In the real world France lost the war to Germany all 100% of it.


but in the end who won?


The allies and the Red Army.



it was France, what u said was pertty much just like if the Chicago Blackhawks (France) are down 2 goals in a hockey gave with the Maple Leafs(Germany) and then in third peirod, Blackhawks shoot 3 goals and win the game. So really won(the victor)?? I would say The Blackhawks(France)


The problem was that France was not just down two goals - it's entire military, over 1.5 million soldiers, was destroyed for all intensive purposes, the country was occupied, it's military leaders were either captured, killed, or exiled.


I hope that clear enough cuase thats the second or third time i've had to explain that France was a vicotor of WW2.


Apparently your knowledge of WWII and of military science and history is next to zero. Lets leave it at that.


Second of all, what hasnt Sharon done, the man is a Pinochett of the Holy Land, he has killed so many people in Lebannon refugge camps, killed thousands of Palestinian people. Destoyed farming land, violated Lebanese air space hundreds of times, holding onto the Syrian and. I doubt Syrian tanks from ancient soviet times are coming towards Israel anythime soon and plus Syria is a secular state which is slowly turning to radical islamist cause of the dragging of the Israeli-Pl conflict. Jordan and Egypt were once hardcore anti-israeli now there somewhat freinds
Only real Israeli threat is Iran which wont do anything since Iranians are looking to make there wallets fatter with economic success rather strting a new war no matter what some relgious extreamist in Iran say.


Your knowledge of the Middle East and its history is simply pathetic mostly driven from specials you probably watch on CBC or the BBC. You probably did not read a single book or are even aware of a single source for things you try to explain to the local audience. I recommend you read up on UN first and then I can recommend a bunch of literature for you to read later - serious literature with serious and confirmed sources.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by cunrad:


it was France, what u said was pertty much just like if the Chicago Blackhawks (France) are down 2 goals in a hockey gave with the Maple Leafs(Germany) and then in third peirod, Blackhawks shoot 3 goals and win the game. So really won(the victor)?? I would say The Blackhawks(France)


The problem was that France was not just down two goals - it's entire military, over 1.5 million soldiers, was destroyed for all intensive purposes, the country was occupied, it's military leaders were either captured, killed, or exiled.
Responding to Cunard's halucinations is even easier than waltzing over the Maginot Line.

[Mil]

Posted by Jerusalem:


Responding to Cunard's halucinations is even easier than waltzing over the Maginot Line.


Actually the Germans did not breach the Maginot line. Out of the entire pre-war planning it was the only plan or the only defensive measure that actually worked as intended!!!! The reason for the catastrophic French collapse was the utter failure of the political and the military establishment to properly mobilize. The smaller German army basically destroyed the entire French army piecemeal as these unorganized pieces moved up to the front.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Jerusalem:


Responding to Cunard's halucinations is even easier than waltzing over the Maginot Line.


Actually the Germans did not breach the Maginot line. Out of the entire pre-war planning it was the only plan or the only defensive measure that actually worked as intended!!!! The reason for the catastrophic French collapse was the utter failure of the political and the military establishment to properly mobilize. The smaller German army basically destroyed the entire French army piecemeal as these unorganized pieces moved up to the front.

And the Soviet Union (who wanted Frances fall) employed many secret agents who worked from within france to weaken the French army...

[Mil]

Posted by KSO:


And the Soviet Union (who wanted Frances fall) employed many secret agents who worked from within france to weaken the French army...


Reading too much Suvorov, are we? The Soviets were not any smarter or learned much from the same spies - in 1941 the Wermacht and allies numbering 4.2 million destroyed a smaller Soviet force of 3.5 millon in the same exact way; piecemeal.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by KSO:


And the Soviet Union (who wanted Frances fall) employed many secret agents who worked from within france to weaken the French army...


Reading too much Suvorov, are we? The Soviets were not any smarter or learned much from the same spies - in 1941 the Wermacht and allies numbering 4.2 million destroyed a smaller Soviet force of 3.5 millon in the same exact way; piecemeal.

Yes there was many traitors in the USSR, If someone can remind me the name of the Leader of the Russian brigade that worked under the nazis and made out of POWs and collaborators.

[Mil]

Vlasov.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by cunrad:



[b] but in the end who won?


The allies and the Red Army.





But France was a part of the allies with independant commandment...

As KSO said the soviet threat was important in France after WW2, if G.DeGaule had not unified the country, WW3 would certainly rise in France during a communist coup...

At the end of the war, France found back an army and materials, for aircraft it was not easy to repair the hundreds saboted messerchmits, but for the tank (less complexe), French built Panzer VI Panther entred "en masse" in sevice.

An administration area in Germany was certainly an ask from Churchild who thought that britain would not be able to support the charge for a long time...
For the administration aera in Austria, it was perfectly fair because it was french army who was the first on the head of allied offensive and invade Austria...

The hunt to Hittler conduced sovietics to Berlin and frenchs to the "eagle nest" (band of brothers) in Austria when US where forced to send their best light troop (101 airborn) to try to capture him befor the heavy armoured french army fighting aigainst the last defensors...

[cunard]

finanly somone agreed with me, i was beginning to think that maybe my history classes in university were wrong :)


i still think and believe France was a victor at the end of the war.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by cunard
i still think and believe France was a victor at the end of the war.
Yes. They definitely were instrumental in defeating the Vichy regime.

[Oh Jerusalem]

To make it more blatantly obvious, the UN would have to hang a big "NO JEWS ALLOWED" sign outside their door:

David Bedein update from Geneva: UN honored my press credentials. Report Available (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=21143)

Wed, 9 Jun 2004
David Bedein
Bureau Chief
Israel Resource News Agency
media@actcom.co.il
¨
Geneva,

The UN had not invited Israel to attend the UN conference which concludes
today
in Geneva on the subject of the future of Palestinian Arab refugees.

Despite the fact that the UN spokesman had said that the UN would not honor
Israeli press credentials at this UN conference, the UN press desk did
recognize the Israel press credentials which I presented at the desk.

(A US State Dep't rep who was present at the meeting confirmed that the US
had
affirmed the decision to exclude Israel from this conference.)

A young Egyptian clerk looked up at me and said, simply, that "we are at
peace
with you", and processed the press pass.

The UNRWA spokesman was livid at his decision, yet could do nothing about
it.

The conclusion of the conference was to help Arab refugees plan for yet
another undetermined amount of time as "temporary" residents of Arab refugee
camps, where they have lingered since 1948.

Israel was not given any opportunity to answer charges that UNRWA leveled
against the Jewish State.

The PLO was given a table at the conference, where they promoted the concept
that Arab refugees could take back the land that they left in 1948, despite
the fact that these lands have been replaced by Israeli villages, collective
farms and woodlands.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:

But France was a part of the allies with independant commandment...


Polish 1st Army also had its own command.


As KSO said the soviet threat was important in France after WW2,


No. The Red Army would have never reached France. Besides KSO said before WWII.


if G.DeGaule had not unified the country, WW3 would certainly rise in France during a communist coup...


With a large Allied contigent present in France that would never happen.


At the end of the war, France found back an army and materials, for aircraft it was not easy to repair the hundreds saboted messerchmits, but for the tank (less complexe), French built Panzer VI Panther entred "en masse" in sevice.


The French Army was equipped with allied weaponry. The Sherman Tank was the main French battle tank. The French also went into production of Panther tanks or rather upkept caputered German tanks. The service of German tanks was not as massive though.



An administration area in Germany was certainly an ask from Churchild who thought that britain would not be able to support the charge for a long time...


Not in Germany but in West Berlin. In any case US could have supported any one of those occupation areas all by itself.

For the administration aera in Austria, it was perfectly fair because it was french army who was the first on the head of allied offensive and invade Austria...


Austria remained occupied by the Red Army and the allies till 1948. My grandfather served in Vienna till 1948.



The hunt to Hittler conduced sovietics to Berlin and frenchs to the "eagle nest" (band of brothers) in Austria when US where forced to send their best light troop (101 airborn) to try to capture him befor the heavy armoured french army fighting aigainst the last defensors...


WHAT?????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hitler was in Berlin. There were no allied armies that stormed Berlin. I don't know about the "Band of Brothers", I tend to ignore Hollywood WWII history, but I am not aware of an incedent of when US 101st was sent into Austria to capture Hitler. If that was in 1944 that would have been a total suicide - if you are talking about 1945 Hitler was already in Berlin since January 1945 and never really left anywhere. By the way most of the burden to the invasion and defeat of Austria was undertaken by the RED ARMY. That included my grandfather who stormed Vienna.

[Mil]

Posted by cunrad:


finanly somone agreed with me, i was beginning to think that maybe my history classes in university were wrong


Given that WWII is a very complex event most people don't know much about it including many university professors.... Here comes your theory of percentiles....


i still think and believe France was a victor at the end of the war.


Now you changed your language. France lost the war to Germany in the summer of 1940. France was COMPLETELY occupied for 5 YEARS till June 6, 1944 when the allies (US, Canadians, British, Poles and some remaining French) stormed the beaches of Normandy in Operation OVERLORD. Without the Allies France would still be occupied.

As I said before Poland also lost the war in the summer of 1939 and was occupied for 6 YEARS till around end of June 1944 when the Soviet Army invaded following a very powerful operation Bagration. Taking part in the invasion was the 1 st POLISH ARMY which was created from Poles living in USSR or who escaped Nazi Germany. As parts of Poland were liberated the Polish Army grew from local reserves to reach strength over 100,000 by the end of the war. However, this does not mean that Poland won the war. As France Poland lost the war to be later liberated by the invading Red Army which included Polish formations.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by cunrad:


Given that WWII is a very complex event most people don't know much about it including many university professors.... Here comes your theory of percentiles....



:D ! The world according to Mil...

Ps: During the last months of the war the french forces directly at German contact reached 500.000... And still rapidly growing.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


The world according to Mil...


Not really. It's the world according to your OWN HISTORY. There is nothing to be ashamed of - Really :)


Ps: During the last months of the war the french forces directly at German contact reached 500.000... And still rapidly growing.


WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! 500,000 and in contact with the GERMANS!!!! In the last few month of the war:

1. It was irrelevant to the final outcome of the war hence war was over for all intensive purposes.

2. 500,000 included all levels of French military structures from privates, to cooks, to just imaginary mobilization numbers. 500,000 was the more then the allies could put directly in contact with the Germans. The most French to directly take part in any kind of fighting was no more then 50 to 60 thousand - if not less. Hell, Read on DeGaulle just a little. I'll look for the source - French military was my topic of interest a few years back. May be I still have the books somewhere.

Just as a comparison the number of people mobilized for army duty in German from 1943 to 1945 stood over 18.5 million people, where the total fighting force numbered no more then 3.5 - 4.0 million. For the Soviets the number stood at 30,000,000 where at the peak the Red Army strength stood at 7.5 million, or 8.5 million - honestly don't remember, by 1945.

As I said before France lost WWII to Germany to be liberated by the allies - the liberation in which French formations did take part.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by TDier:


The world according to Mil...


Not really. It's the world according to your OWN HISTORY. There is nothing to be ashamed of - Really :)
The French don't even know how to be saved graciously. :rolleyes:

I can just see the French country farmer, pitchfork in hand, shouting to an Allied platoon coming up the road:

"It eez a gooood sing you got hair now. I j'ezt chaazed avay zoes Tigair tanks you see retretten over le horeezon."

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Mil

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!! 500,000 and in contact with the GERMANS!!!! In the last few month of the war:

1. It was irrelevant to the final outcome of the war hence war was over for all intensive purposes.

Just as a comparison the number of people mobilized for army duty in German from 1943 to 1945 stood over 18.5 million people, where the total fighting force numbered no more then 3.5 - 4.0 million. For the Soviets the number stood at 30,000,000 where at the peak the Red Army strength stood at 7.5 million, or 8.5 million - honestly don't remember, by 1945.

As I said before France lost WWII to Germany to be liberated by the allies - the liberation in which French formations did take part. [/B]

But at this time France was a rising power with a huge potential that permit to France to be see by the allies as an important ally for the rest of the war and against Stalin...

[Mediocrates]

I think that in the end the French truly understood that WW2 was a cover or a facilitator, as it were. They understood that the point of Hitler was not simply to trample over Europe, it was to neutralize those countries in order so he could cull all the untermenschen and exterminate them. Since the French more or less freely handed over their gypsies and Jews anyway, it really didn't serve their purpose to get obliterated by the Wehrmacht. I think they simply did a quick cost/benefit analysis and weighed their artwork and architecture and 'culture' on the one hand, and the lives of some undesireables in the other, and decided.

[Mil]

Posted by TDier:


But at this time France was a rising power with a huge potential that permit to France to be see by the allies as an important ally for the rest of the war and against Stalin...


On the contry France, as Britain, were seen as powers very much on decline to give way to USA and the USSR. All culminated in 1956 when America very much in a childish way scolded the former "super-powers" for their adventure in the Sinai. The French decline was in 1964-63 following the grandous sagas of Algiers and IndoChina.

Britain followedd soon there when in 1970 it totally abondened its participation East of the Suez.

France was seen more as a counterwait to Germany if anything else. If Stalin in 1945 or 46 or 53 or any Soviet leader would have wanted to invade "fortress" Europe up to 1989 the Red Army would have reached the Canal in three to four weeks with the only serious deterent force being the American GIs.

[red crabtree]

Didier, you are an ungrateful butt and likely wonder why Americans ignore your country at best and despise your country at worst. If you are representative of France it is no wonder at all. While what you have posted is true, the context you put it in is not.

deGaulle could not have accomplished what he did without a base in England, and even then had not Churchill supported him as the British cabinet did not. In June 1940 he appealed to the French to join him in fighting the Nazi's. By July some 7,000 had. Vichy France managed to keep the majority of the forces though. The Free French fought in North Africa and in Italy, as well as a small contingent on D Day under Gen. LeClerc. All of this and more can be found in any basic history book, as well as the fact that LeClerc and de Gaulle marched into Paris ahead of the allies, something that Gen. Eisenhower gave them the honor of, in part to give the French people something to rally around and to avoid embarrassment. The Free French forces were primarily equipped and supplied by America. Anyone who has read anything about this period of WWII should easily be able to understand that without the allies neither de Gaulle, nor LeClerc(a name he adopted so his family would not suffer reprisels from the Germans) would have been very successful.

It is gauling to say the least, as an American, to have you and another on this thread attempting to rewrite history by downplaying what the allies did. France did not win WWII, it lost. The Free French forces with the allies helped liberate it. The Free French forces were supplied and equipped primarily by America. It is this type of attitude that makes Americans wish to tell the French to simply piss off. de Gaulle was allowed to march into Paris first, he didn't manage it on his own. Yet he turned around and shet on the allies and the French have been doing so since. As long as the rest of the world allows France to pull it by the nose than all is good, but since America and Americans won't go along with that the French shout and stomp like 3 year olds. Yet why should we go along with anything the French want? They have treated Americans so badly despite the blood we spilled for you that it is instinctal to dismiss anything the French want from us. On it's own France didn't do squat to defeat Hitler, all it did under Vichy was roll over. You rolled for Hitler, and the country is doing the same in the war on terror. With allies like these who needs enemies?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by red crabtree
It is gauling to say the least, as an American, to have you and another on this thread attempting to rewrite history by downplaying what the allies did.
They didn't call him De Gaulle for nothing. :o

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
They didn't call him De Gaulle for nothing. :o

The French, including our ‘friend’ TDier, are extremely adept at historical revisionism, to fit, their own fabrications of their participation, or lack thereof during WW11.
They remain possessed by Napoleonic-delusions of being a world power; too bad, as they lack the courage to do so. And as always, wait until the ‘allies’ have shed blood, and like jackals await the spoils.
This isn’t to say that there were not courageous French during the war; however, it appears that the Vichy mindset prevailed in the end.

[ibrodsky]

Speech delivered this morning

The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They are the television producers and official benefactors in authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty world conspirators.

Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in response to two suicide bombings which took place in Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: “Once again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such methods.” “The Secretary General condemns the suicide bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any cause.” Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr. Secretary-General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to strike again.

Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti-Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel occupies land taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who sought to destroy it. It is a state of occupation which Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which any abuses are closely monitored by Israel’s independent judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self-determination among Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim brethren—who have rendered the Palestinian civilian population hostage to their violent and anti-Semitic ambitions.

There are those who would still deny the existence of anti-Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N. actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad.

The relative distribution of naiveté, cowardice, opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through their mother’s body in their home in northern Israel while she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat’s al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N. chambers are the same.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005245

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Speech delivered this morning

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005245
Wow! When it's shoved smack in the UN's face and they feel kind of dumb, they actually fess up (a little).

Not that I believe that any practical good will come of it. The Arab and Islamic country pimplomats will make sure the issue covers all semites.

UN Leader Denounces Anti-Semitism (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64434)
10:30 Jun 22, '04 / 3 Tammuz 5764


(IsraelNN.com) United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan came out strongly against remaining silent in the face of the resurgence of global anti-Semitism, speaking at the international body’s conference dealing with the issue. Anan stated remaining silent and “neutral in the face of intolerance” in unacceptable.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom telephoned the UN leader to thank him for his strong statements against anti-Semitism.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Wow! When it's shoved smack in the UN's face and they feel kind of dumb, they actually fess up (a little).

Not that I believe that any practical good will come of it. The Arab and Islamic country pimplomats will make sure the issue covers all semites.

UN Leader Denounces Anti-Semitism (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64434)
10:30 Jun 22, '04 / 3 Tammuz 5764


(IsraelNN.com) United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Anan came out strongly against remaining silent in the face of the resurgence of global anti-Semitism, speaking at the international body’s conference dealing with the issue. Anan stated remaining silent and “neutral in the face of intolerance” in unacceptable.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom telephoned the UN leader to thank him for his strong statements against anti-Semitism.

Great PR move Kofi, but I tend to think there is a bad side to this toothless speech. Now the UN has a card to flash every time they are being accused in AS within still unreformed UN, with 57 Muslim members & their oil-whores. If, G-d forbid, something really bad happens, I won't be surprised if Kofi takes the full credit for trying to prevent it. Meanwhile, the UNWRA ambulances are still being used by HAMAS and their schools still continue jihaducation.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
Meanwhile, the UNWRA ambulances are still being used by HAMAS and their schools still continue jihaducation.
Perfect timing (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=102059#post102059)! ;)

[Mediocrates]

Mayor Bloomberg should declare the UN bldg a terrorist training camp and erect a razorwire fence around it, cut off their water and electricity and give them 72 hrs to surrender or be killed.