Travesty called the U.N.

[Tornado]

like I said before..substitute Palestinians or hezbollah for the KURDS and substitute Iran for Israel .
see anything ??
in fact I just watched the nightly news...no mention at all ...
odd is it not ?

No, it is not. They don't mention the Kurds because no one cares. Isreal is supported in everything they do by the West, so when Isreal and the Hezbollah started fighting it started a lot of controversy which was what most of the news coverage was about. Iran is supported by no one from the West, and therefore all of their actions are glossed over and uncared for. The situation is practically identicle (whether I agree with either is another matter entirely).

 

[Talentless]

All I know is that, while I'm not anti France, there's really not enough of an excuse for what they did. All the legitimacy in the world can't excuse their apparent double-talk. They could have made a much higher offer if they wanted to, and could have made it contingent on certain factors. Their initial offer was pathetic. The fact of some French soldiers already being there, and previous experience with loss of French soldiers' lives, as cold as this is, is not an excuse. They should have considered that before they interfered to hurry a ceasefire, or made clear at the onset that they would not give much in terms of troop numbers.

It's pathetic and can't be spun otherwise.

 

[KSaiyu]

in fact I just watched the nightly news...no mention at all ...

odd is it not ?

No, because this is happening all over the world, for example in my mums home country of Sri Lanka there are many innocent people dying every day yet nothing is reported on the news unless it's a major strike.

There's also the fact of the scale of the attacks from both sides of the Israeli-Lebanon border that contributed in the interest.

 

[YSSMAN]

All I know is that, while I'm not anti France, there's really not enough of an excuse for what they did. All the legitimacy in the world can't excuse their apparent double-talk. They could have made a much higher offer if they wanted to, and could have made it contingent on certain factors. Their initial offer was pathetic. The fact of some French soldiers already being there, and previous experience with loss of French soldiers' lives, as cold as this is, is not an excuse. They should have considered that before they interfered to hurry a ceasefire, or made clear at the onset that they would not give much in terms of troop numbers.

It's pathetic and can't be spun otherwise.

Kudos to that. Atleast Italy has the guts to back up France's talk by taking the lead with the peacekeeping forces, or atleast thats what I had herd this morning.

 

[magburner]

Remeber when I said this ledhed:

Before the US and the UK decided to lambast their way through the Middle East, there was balance. With the removal of Iraq, there is now a vacuum. Iran wasn't the threat it is now before we invaded Iraq, Saddam was there to make sure they weren't. As much of a ass as he was/is, his 'regime' was a stablising force in the region. There is no point standing round scratching your head and wondering what is going on, when it is pretty obvious - Iran wants to be the dominating force in the Middle East - With the removal of Iraq, it is now a very real possibility. Iran's posturing is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq - afterall, America and the UK managed to do in one year, what Iran could never do in eight.

You replied with this:

magdude take off your stupid blindfold...

Then this:

Abbadabadoobajab is on a roll , he's the new iranian Hitler or whatever their last conquerer was called . Cyrus the great with a bad hair cut . he has imperial ambitions for Iran...AND in case you have not noticed...the US is on two of his borders...so the VACUUM crap is bull.

Well it seems that my theories are true, here is a report that was published today that backs up what I've been saying all along:

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran's regional rival governments - the Taliban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

Full article: Iran 'boosted by war on terror'

Do you still think that I am wearing a 'stupid blindfold'? I see what is happening in the Middle East, maybe not in the same way as you or anyone else here does, but I see it.

 

[///M-Spec]

I left a couple of clues in my posts, you obviously didn't spot them.

Here’s a clue for you: I can tell the difference between someone setting up a bait n' switch and someone so desperately trying to backpedal out of a corner he's painted himself into he'll try anything --including fooling himself-- to do it.

I was being cynically sarcastic, you obviously couldn't see that. You took my cynacism as being anti-American, and my sarcasm as support for Iran.

As provided by ledhed above:

If Israel has the right to defend its borders, then so too has Iran.

The above statement was taken from your very first post in this thread. The sarcasm wasn't spotted because it wasn't there.

The only person you're fooling here is yourself.

I'll admit I'm not a natural debater (and I don't always explain myself clearly enough), but what I believe is the same no matter the situation. If Iran was slaghtering innocent civillians, then I would be kicking up just as much fuss.

They might be, but ther is no evidence of that at present (I have looked, check my first post for what I found). So, because there was little or no proof that innocent civillians were being specifically targeted, I decided to go about things a little differently.

Ohhhh... (here's some sarcasm, just in case anyone was in doubt) "There was little or no specific proof civilians were being specifically targeted."

I see. But wait... what do we have here from the Lebanon thread?

Unless otherwise proven, all dead casualties should be assumed to be civillian (unless you know any different)

Your defending the indefensible. Seeing the terrible images of destruction on the News in Lebanon, its clear that Israel was not just targetting Hezbollah.

How convenient. When Israel's involved, let's not only assume all the dead are civilians, but that the IDF deliberately and systematically targeted them.

But not when Iran's involved. [sarcasm] Nice. [/sarcasm]

The stance taken by many in the Israel and lebanon thread really wound me up. I debated for a good 15 or 16 pages about the fact that innocent civillians were being targeted, and produced much evidence, but the stance stayed the same - the Lebanese government, and ultimately Hezbollah (or vice versa), were to blame for the israeli airstrikes; and any civillian losses were the fault of Hezbollah, and not Israel as they were hiding in urban areas.

It is a FACT that the IDF targets innocent civilians? Systematically and deliberately??

And you have proof?

Oh wait, no you don't. You never produced any evidence in that thread. In this post, you promised Famine that you would, but you never did.

Don't bother reposting the Qana incident. I've read numerous reports on the airstrike. Were the people killed there civilians? Most probably. Were they deliberately targeted by the IDF? No such evidence exists.

If you want to use the term "indiscriminate", I would not argue, because I would agree the IDF does not do enough to distinguish between combatants and civilians. But don't use the term "deliberate" until you have evidence it was, in fact, premeditated. That is a * more serious charge and one you seem to be perfectly willing to fling around just because you are angry.

*EDIT: After some thought, I removed the word "far" from this sentance. Indiscriminate use of fire on it's own is a fairly serious breach of Israel's humanitarian responsiblities in the war. I do not wish to diminish this.

I was baiting plain and simple. The fact that it went unnoticed, goes to show how biased the debates around here are.

And I'm going to come right out say this is a bald faced lie. You can say it enough times to convince yourself, but it won't convince me.

And I would refrain from complaining about other people's biases until you learn to address your own.


M

 

[magburner]

Iran can be trusted to start a war...and soon . Or so it seems .

Proof please, or is this more of your wild speculation?

magdude is fixated on Israel .

Your damn right I am! I was shocked to see a supposedly respectable nation acting no better than the terrorists they were suppossed to be destroying. I'm not anti-Israeli, or anti-semitic or anything else. I had great respect for Ariel Sharon, and there was always a thought in the back of my mind that he would of handled the situation much better. Olmet was trying to score points and failed. If you really believe that Israel has come out of this looking good, your in la-la land.

The whole reason for the comparison by me is to show the double standard that Israel is judged by .

I dont see any demonstrations saying " stop the KURD slaughter " !

As much of a tragedy it is for the families of the two confirmed dead so far, I'd hardly call it a slaughter.

like I said before..substitute Palestinians or hezbollah for the KURDS and substitute Iran for Israel .

see anything ??

in fact I just watched the nightly news...no mention at all ...

odd is it not ?

Yes, very...

Firstly, I must congratualte you ///M-Spec, on a very comprehensive put-down! 👍

I was just about to obey rulee #7 of The Unofficial Opinions Forum Guide, but then I thought I'd stand and face my critics. So out I come firing like Yosemite Sam - lets just hope they're not blanks eh?

Right, on with the show!

Here’s a clue for you: I can tell the difference between someone setting up a bait n' switch and someone so desperately trying to backpedal out of a corner he's painted himself into he'll try anything --including fooling himself-- to do it.

Oh, so because you didn't get it, it isn't so? I'll have to remember that one for the next debate! Firstly, I was only baiting, I had no intention of switching. Do you seriously think that my opinion really changes from thread to thread? You must be softer than I thought!

Also, tell me, if my beliefs are so whimsical (like you would have everyone believe), then why do I go to great lengths to post information and cross-reference it on the internet from many sources? In the 'Israel Lebanon thread', I was the only person that did it with any frequency, and in this thread too, I have done the same. It would of been far easier to just post a few lines, than to go to all the trouble I have.

If Israel has the right to defend its borders, then so too has Iran.

The above statement was taken from your very first post in this thread. The sarcasm wasn't spotted because it wasn't there.

So, every post has to be laced with sarcasm? Does it have to be that obvious? Apparently so.

I see. But wait... what do we have here from the Lebanon thread?

Unless otherwise proven, all dead casualties should be assumed to be civillian (unless you know any different)

Finally, someone that agrees with me! I was comprehensively beaten on that point many times, and you know it.

Back to the subject, there really is very little about the shellings, or the pipeline blast on the net - anywhere. From my debatings in the 'I n L thread' it was made clear to me that they was no real way to tell the difference between a dead civillian and a dead terrorist, even though I tried to claim otherwise.

Do I need to post a dissertation of all the things I've learned in each thread I comment on before I post in a new thread?

Oh wait, no you don't. You never produced any evidence in that thread. In this post, you promised Famine that you would, but you never did.

Your right I never. I did intend to, but a) I didn't have the time to correlate all the inforamation (I have many commitments outside this forum); b) Whats the point in jumping through hoops and going to all the effort, only to be shot down with a two line sentence. With 20/20 hindsight (ain't it a wonderfull thing!), maybe I bit off a little more than I could chew with that one. Thats not to say the evidence was not there, I just didn't have the time to collect it and present it. I've said it before, I'm not the best debater, I'm still learning. Until the 'I n L thread', I had purposly stayed away from this sub-forum (for obvious reasons).

If you want to use the term "indiscriminate", I would not argue, because I would agree the IDF does not do enough to distinguish between combatants and civilians. But don't use the term "deliberate" until you have evidence it was, in fact, premeditated. That is a * more serious charge and one you seem to be perfectly willing to fling around just because you are angry.

*EDIT: After some thought, I removed the word "far" from this sentance. Indiscriminate use of fire on it's own is a fairly serious breach of Israel's humanitarian responsiblities in the war. I do not wish to diminish this.

OK, some of my terminology was inappropriate. I will admit that at times I have used extreme adjectives in my posts, but like I said, I'm still learning. There are debaters here that are very accomplished in their wordplay, and particularly, their craft. I'm still learning, how about a break eh?

And I'm going to come right out say this is a bald faced lie. You can say it enough times to convince yourself, but it won't convince me.

OH! I'm realing from that one. Seriously, I'm no liar, and its hurt me to think that you think I am.

Hey, I've got nothing to prove. I was quite happy posting pictures in the GT4 photo galleries section, but I thought it was time I got to know some of the guys around here and see what they stand for. Maybe it was a mistake, but I'm here now. I've had some great debates with some of you guys (and learned some things in the process).

And I would refrain from complaining about other people's biases until you learn to address your own.

I'm not biased, I jsut don't agree with the rest of you. If thats bias, then maybe I am. Anyway, whats the point of a debate if everyone agrees with each other?

Right, I better done my flame retardant suit...

 

[Swift]

-So, every post has to be laced with sarcasm? Does it have to be that obvious? Apparently so.


-I'm not biased, I jsut don't agree with the rest of you. If thats bias, then maybe I am. Anyway, whats the point of a debate if everyone agrees with each other?

I'll just hit these two.

YOu don't need to lace your post with sarcasam. But at the same time, it's the internet. We can't read your facial expression or tone of voice or body language. So an occasional, or wouldn't hurt when being sarcastic.


Your bias was assuming that Israel was killing civilians on purpose. Your bias was assuming that Israel could and shouldtalk with people that consider them pigs and dogs while their rockets hit the Israeli people.

 

[KSaiyu]

Your bias was assuming that Israel could and shouldtalk with people that consider them pigs and dogs while their rockets hit the Israeli people.

heh, I wasn't going to get into this one but that works both ways - it's universally acknowledged that they both hate each other vehemently, you can't just cast one side in this way.

 

[Swift]

heh, I wasn't going to get into this one but that works both ways - it's universally acknowledged that they both hate each other vehemently, you can't just cast one side in this way.

The USA hated Russia and vise versa during the cold war. But the USA and Russia both acknowledged that the other side was human. This is not the case in this situation. Also, the sole objective of the USA or Russia wasn't to irradicat one of the other side off the face of the earth.

 

[KSaiyu]

One's a terrorist organisation, the others a state - you can have a lot more freedom of speech in the wider world as the former, but rest assured they both harbour as much resentment towards each other.

 

[Swift]

One's a terrorist organisation, the others a state - you can have a lot more freedom of speech in the wider world as the former, but rest assured they both harbour as much resentment towards each other.

Yeah, well that's a given. I would hate a group of people that constantly tried to destroy my country as well. It still doesn't mean that they don't think that the aggressors are human.

 

[niky]

I hate it when I miss discussions like this, and I'd rather sit back and wait before I interject, but of note:

The USA hated Russia and vise versa during the cold war. But the USA and Russia both acknowledged that the other side was human. This is not the case in this situation. Also, the sole objective of the USA or Russia wasn't to irradicat one of the other side off the face of the earth.

The purpose of the cold war was to prevent eradication, a means for both sides to play out their political ambitions without direct military confrontation, but don't doubt for a minute that wiping each other off the face of the Earth wasn't on the minds of the top leadership.

A lot of the same "Evil-evil-evil" rhetoric as George Bush uses for terrorists (I'm not saying that I don't think terrorism is evil... any unnecessary and unwarranted killing is, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still rhetoric)... deep breath... was also used by Reagan. A lot of the same "Ve vill destroy you" rhetoric was on the lips of the communist leaders, too.

The two powers were balanced on the knife edge of direct hostilities, with war occurring through intermediaries, in Afghanistan, Israel vs Egypt & Syria, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba... etcetera. Not just open warfare, but subversion, intrigue and manipulation... the direct result of this is the mess we find ourselves in now.

It never reached open warfare because both sides were afraid of losing. And with a nuclear equipped opponent, who, with his dying breath could knock a couple dozen of your cities off the map and irradiate your prime farmlands with one stroke, losing was the only thing either side could do.

Both sides wanted to completely and irrevocably destroy the other. The only difference was, they recognized the futility of such action. But never did they recognize the other side as "human", either in public rhetoric or behind closed doors. To do such was to show weakness.

But with war being carried out against the shadowy organizations established by former cold war warriors in the Middle East, the remaining powers find themselves shadow-boxing with a foe who has no permanent home or lands that we can hold ransom against them, who don't care whether they live or die... just so long as they can take the rest of us down with them.

To them, enemy civilian deaths are a cause to celebrate.

And "friendly" civilian deaths are a boon... as they draw more and more support for their "cause". Actually, any stimulus that would draw people to their cause is reason to celebrate and shout... that includes cartoons, deaths of child soldiers (this has been a common practice for terrorists/guerillas for a long time... the younger the recruit, the more likely they'll send them on suicide missions), and the deaths of a local imam or two.

Israel may be fighting a cold-blooded war against these terrorists. But they're not aiming to wipe the civilian Muslim population off the map, and they're not playing to the media and public opinion like the guerillas do. To these "freedom fighters" anybody not in their ranks, whether Jewish or Muslim, isn't worth recognizing as human.

 

[magburner]

I'll just hit these two.

YOu don't need to lace your post with sarcasam. But at the same time, it's the internet. We can't read your facial expression or tone of voice or body language. So an occasional, or wouldn't hurt when being sarcastic.

Agreed and duly noted. 👍 I'm slowly finding out that debating over the internet is a dfferent kettle of fish to debating in face to face. Maybe I do need to over-emphasize my expressions to get the point across. I've given this some thought, and I can see how it would seem that my opinions would look contradictory. I have no record down here in the opinions forums, so everything I say is measured against what I've said in previous threads. Maybe I should of waited a little longer for you all to see my posting style before I attempted to try and bait. ///M-Spec stated that I was backed into a corner. I was, but not because my statements were contradictory, but because I had tried to be clever and ended, but it failed and I landed flat on my face!

Your bias was assuming that Israel was killing civilians on purpose. Your bias was assuming that Israel could and shouldtalk with people that consider them pigs and dogs while their rockets hit the Israeli people.

Everyone in that debate chose a side of the fence to stand on. The majority went with Israel, I (and a few others) chose to stand on the side of the Lebananon - it made a great (if sometimes heated debate). Although I was wrong to assume that Israel was purposly targetting civillians, I feel I was right to question if Israel was doing enough to limit human casualties.

Here is an article about Amensty international that also calims that Israel was deliberatley targetting civillian infrastructure.

Amnesty International has accused Israel of committing war crimes by deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

Full article: (BBC) Israel accused over 'war crimes'

 

[ledhed]

Agreed and duly noted. 👍 I'm slowly finding out that debating over the internet is a dfferent kettle of fish to debating in face to face. Maybe I do need to over-emphasize my expressions to get the point across. I've given this some thought, and I can see how it would seem that my opinions would look contradictory. I have no record down here in the opinions forums, so everything I say is measured against what I've said in previous threads. Maybe I should of waited a little longer for you all to see my posting style before I attempted to try and bait. ///M-Spec stated that I was backed into a corner. I was, but not because my statements were contradictory, but because I had tried to be clever and ended, but it failed and I landed flat on my face!



Everyone in that debate chose a side of the fence to stand on. The majority went with Israel, I (and a few others) chose to stand on the side of the Lebananon - it made a great (if sometimes heated debate). Although I was wrong to assume that Israel was purposly targetting civillians, I feel I was right to question if Israel was doing enough to limit human casualties.

Here is an article about Amensty international that also calims that Israel was deliberatley targetting civillian infrastructure.



Full article: (BBC) Israel accused over 'war crimes'

Israel DID without a DOUBT target cic=vilian infasrtructure....roads , bridges and anything the terrorist also use to rearm and resupply .
Why hasn't Amnesty international said anything about the thousands of rockets and missiles that were fired into Israel ?
Don't you find that a bit odd ? that was truly direct targeting of civilians ..not even infastructure , just an attempt to cause civilian deaths..
So I must ask ..whats up with that ? Huh Amnesty ???

Moose poop alert .

BTW ..when is the ROBUST peacekeeping force ever going to arrive ?
just to stay on topic .

It seems the French pushed for a cease fire , they got what they wanted and then ran away ...why am I not suprised ?

And Syria said yesterday that it would consider any international force on its borders a threat...just to stir the soup I guess .

They do not seem to want peacekeepers getting in the way of their goals .
And these goals certainly do not include peace....at least until they finish of Israel .

 

[FoolKiller]

Agreed and duly noted. 👍 I'm slowly finding out that debating over the internet is a dfferent kettle of fish to debating in face to face. Maybe I do need to over-emphasize my expressions to get the point across. I've given this some thought, and I can see how it would seem that my opinions would look contradictory. I have no record down here in the opinions forums, so everything I say is measured against what I've said in previous threads. Maybe I should of waited a little longer for you all to see my posting style before I attempted to try and bait. ///M-Spec stated that I was backed into a corner. I was, but not because my statements were contradictory, but because I had tried to be clever and ended, but it failed and I landed flat on my face!

You just earned a lot of respect from me. Thsi paragraph shows that you have the maturity to admit when you may have made a mistake or error in judgement. 👍

Everyone in that debate chose a side of the fence to stand on. The majority went with Israel, I (and a few others) chose to stand on the side of the Lebananon - it made a great (if sometimes heated debate).

Welcome to the Opinions Forums. I suggest reading through the Creation vs Evolution thread to see how drawn out a debate can become. Although, if you are smart you will avoid getting involved.

Although I was wrong to assume that Israel was purposly targetting civillians, I feel I was right to question if Israel was doing enough to limit human casualties.

I can grant that you had the right to question that, but as is probably clear, I disagree. I'm actually planning a post in the I&L thread a little later on when I have more time to gather my sources.

Here is an article about Amensty international that also calims that Israel was deliberatley targetting civillian infrastructure.

Civilian infrastructure = Hezbollah supply routes.

Or as ledhed said:

Israel DID without a DOUBT target cic=vilian infasrtructure....roads , bridges and anything the terrorist also use to rearm and resupply .

Now to this:

Why hasn't Amnesty international said anything about the thousands of rockets and missiles that were fired into Israel ?

I think your issue should be with the author of the article because the article did say:

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

But after that it just goes on to report on accusations against the Israelis. While many times I think Amnesty Int. seems to take sides (usually opposite of mine) I think that in this case it is a case of poor(biased?) reporting and not Amnesty trying to ignore Hezbollah's actions.

BTW ..when is the ROBUST peacekeeping force ever going to arrive ?
just to stay on topic .

It seems the French pushed for a cease fire , they got what they wanted and then ran away ...why am I not suprised ?

I do believe I predicted this in the Israel and Lebanon thread. The agreement is only a piece of paper and is very unlikely to have the terms come to fruition by either of the two parties or the intermediaries. The UN force has to find volunteers that are willing to stand around down there and that won't happen until someone defines the rules of engagement for them. Of course, based on past records of UN forces that means that anyone can get away with anything they want as long as they don't harm a UN "Peacekeeper." The movie 'Hotel Rwanda' shows this in very good detail. It must be hard to stand by and watch genocide happening all around you but because no one touched any of your force you can only stand and watch.

And Syria said yesterday that it would consider any international force on its borders a threat...just to stir the soup I guess .

They do not seem to want peacekeepers getting in the way of their goals .
And these goals certainly do not include peace....at least until they finish of Israel .

Are you surprised? Everything that happens along Syria's borders appears very questionable.

 

[///M-Spec]

Oh, so because you didn't get it, it isn't so? I'll have to remember that one for the next debate!

Pretty much. Based on my experience with both the content and style of your previous posts, it is clear to me that you were ready to give Iran all the benefit of the doubt in the world, but not Israel.

There's nothing further to discuss on this point because neither argument can be proven. I call 'em as I see 'em and that's the end of story.

Back to the subject, there really is very little about the shellings, or the pipeline blast on the net - anywhere. From my debatings in the 'I n L thread' it was made clear to me that they was no real way to tell the difference between a dead civillian and a dead terrorist, even though I tried to claim otherwise.

Do I need to post a dissertation of all the things I've learned in each thread I comment on before I post in a new thread?

Nope. But I appreciate the brief summary.

Your right I never. I did intend to, but a) I didn't have the time to correlate all the inforamation (I have many commitments outside this forum); b) Whats the point in jumping through hoops and going to all the effort, only to be shot down with a two line sentence. With 20/20 hindsight (ain't it a wonderfull thing!), maybe I bit off a little more than I could chew with that one. Thats not to say the evidence was not there, I just didn't have the time to collect it and present it. I've said it before, I'm not the best debater, I'm still learning. Until the 'I n L thread', I had purposly stayed away from this sub-forum (for obvious reasons).

Let me clarify something. My beef here isn't that I think Israel is squeeky clean.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that they conducted themselves poorly in Lebanon. While I have no problem with their strategic action against Hezbollah, I DO have a problem with their execution on a tactical level. They failed to pick their targets more carefully and thus failed to live up to their moral obligations --not only to the Lebanese people, but to their own. There is some evidence to support this, though nothing irrefutable. And nothing to suggest they do it ON PURPOSE. Bottom line is I don't mind what they did so much as how they did it.

The most fair, accurate and impartial view I have read about this issue is from Human Rights Watch. You can follow the link below.

Israel - Lebanon Conflict

Of particular interest is this article.

Fog of War Is No Cover for Causing Civilian Deaths

And this one.

Lebanon/Israel: U.N. Rights Body Squanders Chance to Help Civilians

Anyway, my beef was that you were ready to accuse the IDF, and by proxy, the Israeli people for something for which you had no proof. Probably because you were upset about how they conducted the war.

Meanwhile in this thread about Iran, you made an entire argument giving Iran the benefit of the doubt over not only their shelling, but over their suspected nuclear program, because there was no proof.

Obviously I wasn't the only one who noticed this, because Foolkiller brought it up before I did.

OK, some of my terminology was inappropriate. I will admit that at times I have used extreme adjectives in my posts, but like I said, I'm still learning. There are debaters here that are very accomplished in their wordplay, and particularly, their craft. I'm still learning, how about a break eh?

You are a surprisingly good sport. So... okay.

OH! I'm realing from that one. Seriously, I'm no liar, and its hurt me to think that you think I am.

Eh, don't take it personally. You don't even know me.

Hey, I've got nothing to prove. I was quite happy posting pictures in the GT4 photo galleries section, but I thought it was time I got to know some of the guys around here and see what they stand for. Maybe it was a mistake, but I'm here now. I've had some great debates with some of you guys (and learned some things in the process).

Again, I'm impressed by what a good sport you are. 👍

I'm not biased, I jsut don't agree with the rest of you. If thats bias, then maybe I am. Anyway, whats the point of a debate if everyone agrees with each other?

So.. when we don't agree with you, we're biased, but when you don't agree with us, you just don't agree with us? I hope this is more sarcasm.

Everyone is biased to some degree. Everyone. About everything. Some are just better at managing it than others. If everyone was perfectly neutral about everything, we'd all arrive at exactly the same conclusion. This leads me to conclude we are all perfectly neutral about Paris Hilton.


M

 

[ledhed]

This just happens to be great oppurtunity for the UN and the leaders in Europe to step up to the plate and actually accomplish something for their own good and the good of the rest of the world .
it is frustrating to see it NOT happening . I am proud that italy has tried to take up some slack ..but ..what of the rest of europe...The same group that cries and complains about the mess in the region and the actions taken by the US and others..that condemns Israel for the way they prosecuted the war.
They have their damned cease fire ! They fought tooth and nail for ...and what do they do with it ? don't they realise that by NOT stepping up now , whatever credibility they may have ever had is GONE .
Imagine what future negotiations will be like with Iran , especially now that the UN and the west has shown themselves to be toothless old ladies.
Europe complains about the US and Britain going around DOING things , but they have been given a chance to show us how it should be done ....and they do nothing...and by doing nothing they make the world a MUCH more dangerouse place to live .
Whats even worse is the WAY they are doing nothing , they are showing themselves to be hopeless aand divided against a common enemy and SCARED .
The " we need a clear MANDATE and RULES of ENGAGEMENT from the UN excuse...well excuse me morons..BUT ...YOU ARE THE FREAKIN UN !!!
Radical Islamic organizations are a threat to us all and not showing some GUTS and some resolve at this point in time is going to come back on all of US ..and its going to come back HARD .

Remember this point of history when the US and its partners go ahead and take care of the threats WITHOUT waiting for approval from France , China , Russia and the rest of the UN . because this is a perfect example of why its a useless organization and not able to be a strong force for peace or change or much of anything except comming in after the slaughter to clean up .

 

[magburner]

Agreed and duly noted. I'm slowly finding out that debating over the internet is a dfferent kettle of fish to debating in face to face. Maybe I do need to over-emphasize my expressions to get the point across. I've given this some thought, and I can see how it would seem that my opinions would look contradictory. I have no record down here in the opinions forums, so everything I say is measured against what I've said in previous threads. Maybe I should of waited a little longer for you all to see my posting style before I attempted to try and bait. ///M-Spec stated that I was backed into a corner. I was, but not because my statements were contradictory, but because I had tried to be clever and ended, but it failed and I landed flat on my face!

You just earned a lot of respect from me. Thsi paragraph shows that you have the maturity to admit when you may have made a mistake or error in judgement. 👍

Thanks man. 👍 I want to try and be a part of the debates down here, that can't be done if I burn all my bridges from the outset. Humble pie can be pretty tasty if its eaten at the right time!

Welcome to the Opinions Forums. I suggest reading through the Creation vs Evolution thread to see how drawn out a debate can become. Although, if you are smart you will avoid getting involved.

I've already had a look at that thread, and your right - I'm smart enough to stay well clear!

I think your issue should be with the author of the article because the article did say:

The group also calls for a UN investigation into whether both Israel and Hezbollah broke humanitarian law.

But after that it just goes on to report on accusations against the Israelis. While many times I think Amnesty Int. seems to take sides (usually opposite of mine) I think that in this case it is a case of poor(biased?) reporting and not Amnesty trying to ignore Hezbollah's actions.

But further down the article it says:

The human rights organisation said it would look into Hezbollah's attacks on Israel separately.

Maybe Amnesty international thought it would be easier to write a report on Israels actions as the evidence was more obvious. We will have to wait and see what they say about Hezbollah...

Anyway, my beef was that you were ready to accuse the IDF, and by proxy, the Israeli people for something for which you had no proof. Probably because you were upset about how they conducted the war.

Meanwhile in this thread about Iran, you made an entire argument giving Iran the benefit of the doubt over not only their shelling, but over their suspected nuclear program, because there was no proof.

I was upset by how Israel conducted the war but I admitted (from the outset) that they had the right to defend its borders. I also stated that I had no problems with the Israeli people, It was the methods the IDF used that really got my goat.

As for the Iranian incident, I have already stated that I was trying to be clever and failed miserably.

Eh, don't take it personally. You don't even know me.

I was a little annoyed with your accusation that I was lying, I can promise you that I wasn't, though the style of my posting might of made you think otherwise. Like you said "You don't even know me". 👍

Again, I'm impressed by what a good sport you are. 👍

Thanks man. 👍 Hopefully, over time, you will see what type of person I am.

I'm not biased, I jsut don't agree with the rest of you. If thats bias, then maybe I am. Anyway, whats the point of a debate if everyone agrees with each other?

So.. when we don't agree with you, we're biased, but when you don't agree with us, you just don't agree with us? I hope this is more sarcasm.

There I go again, not explaining myself clearly enough! Maybe bias was the wrong word, but there was definitely an air of partisanship with some of the posts. As much as my posts were against Israel, I agreed they had the right to retaliate. Apart from danoff (on the Qana bombing), I can't remember (but don't quote me! ), anyone else saying a bad word against Israel. nobody on the Isreali side of the fence seemed to be concerned about anything Israel was doing in Lebanon, thats what I meant by bias. Was it the wrong word to use?

Yummy, that humble pie sure hit the spot! OK, Like I've said before, I've learned from this experience, I hope we can have some more debates in the future guys. Peace! 👍

 

[KSaiyu]

It still doesn't mean that they don't think that the aggressors are human.

So you suggest that there should be no attempts to communicate on the basis that one side has openly equated the other to animals, despite the fact they both hold as much respect for each other equally?

 

[Swift]

So you suggest that there should be no attempts to communicate on the basis that one side has openly equated the other to animals, despite the fact they both hold as much respect for each other equally?

How can one side consider the other vermin, have a charter designed specifically to destroy the other and target civilians on a regular basis be equal?

 

[ledhed]

It seems France has increased their " commitment " to two thousand troops but is still waiting for clear rules of engagement ...

Ummm since france and the EU are a big part of if not THE UN ...why not just do it..make the damn rules .

Sounds like a bogus excuse .

In the mean time Israel ..who is so trusting of the UN and the rest of the world to " diplomaticaly " solve the problem with Iran and others ..has gone and bought two nuclear capable balistic missile subs....so they can work their own diplomacy , even if they ( Israel ) are destroyed bya first strike..or if they feel threatened can take out the threat without relying on a bunch of Chamberlains for their security .

Seems they REALY learned a lesson .

 

[magburner]

Hey! Let's bomb Iran!

 

[YSSMAN]

Funny, ha ha, a good piece of leftist humor against Bush.

...Funny thing is, I doubt it will be the US who will be doing the bombing in Iran. If anything, they will probably pick their own war with Israel, drawing in it's (Israel) allies, and thusly other middle-eastern powers as well.

The thought of World War III comforts me at night...

 

[KSaiyu]

How can one side consider the other vermin, have a charter designed specifically to destroy the other and target civilians on a regular basis be equal?

What I'm trying to express is that it's irrelevant since they both dislike each other, and this is going back THOUSANDS of years. It's naive to think that only one side would equate them to animals, in fact, it goes against what prominent people from both sides of the wars fought before this current conflict have said.

 

[ledhed]

UN will not stop Syria sending weapons to Lebanon
By Harry De Quetteville and Michael Hirst


(Filed: 27/08/2006)

The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request. Syria, meanwhile, accused by Israel of re-arming Hezbollah during the recent conflict, has said the deployment of any UN forces near its border would be considered a "hostile act".

Mr Annan's disclosure of more limits on the UN force's remit will act as a further blow to its credibility as a peacekeeping force. It is already devoid of any mandate to disarm Hezbollah of its existing weapons, and now appears powerless to stop the militia re-arming. Critics point out that new stocks of weapons and missiles could end up being used against the Unifil troops themselves, should their mission go awry and end up in clashes with Hezbollah fighters.

The Israeli government, which has argued that the force lacks a sufficiently robust mandate, said it doubted that Unifil would be able to make any worthwhile contribution if it was not able to prevent Hezbollah re-arming.

"Our expectation is that the international force will help the Lebanese army implement UN resolution 1701, which insists on an international arms embargo," Mark Regev, an Israeli foreign ministry spokesman, said. "If the international force doesn't meet those expectations then this window for changing the current reality will close".

Mr Annan is due to arrive in Beirut tomorrow to discuss the Unifil deployment, as well as measures to secure the border with Syria, with Faoud Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister.

On Friday, European nations pledged up to 7,000 troops to form the core of the force: 3,000 from Italy; 2,000 from France; 1,200 from Spain; 1,000 from Poland; 400 from Belgium and 200 from Finland. Muslim nations including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Burma have also given "firm commitments", said Mr Annan.

The bolstered force will back up 15,000 soldiers from the Lebanese army, who are supposed to be gradually establishing their remit over Hezbollah-held territory in southern Lebanon while Israel pulls out the remnants of its invasion force.

However, there remain serious doubts as to whether the force will be any more effective in curbing Hezbollah's activities than the existing UN troop presence, whose role was merely to observe. While Mr Annan described them the "backbone" of a strengthened UN peacekeeping force, their only clear mandate is to be able to shoot in self-defence.

Further doubts were sown last week by remarks from Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, who said the force would mark out "exclusion zones", in which armed militias would be disarmed, as "the best way to remove Hezbollah's weapons".

Removing Hezbollah's secret weapons stashes is instead a task left to the Lebanese army, but few believe they have the political will to do so.

General Jean Salvan, a French former commander of peacekeeping troops in Lebanon, is among those questioning the mission's potential effectiveness. "Hostilities were called off two weeks ago already," he said. "So Hezbollah has had plenty of time either to hide its equipment very well or to bring it back to secure zones."

He added that there was no guarantee that troops would not be attacked. "A lot of that depends on Syria, it depends on Iran, it depends on Israel and it depends on Hezbollah."

Questions also remain about whether a Lebanese mission could antagonize Islamic communities in contributor European nations - especially France - if clashes with Hezbollah take place. The French have emphasised the importance of including Muslim countries in the force.

This article makes the origioal post's point better than I did . if you were asked to serve as a "peace keeper " under these conditions , would you ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...CFFWAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/08/27/wleb27.xml

 

[FoolKiller]

This article makes the origioal post's point better than I did . if you were asked to serve as a "peace keeper " under these conditions , would you ?

No, because they might as well send them in without any weapons at all. Thsi will be just like before where Hezbollah will be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't have any confrontations with UNIFIL.

Last I remember this caused a UNIFIL position to get caught in some crossfire. You can't get me in a warzone without the ability to protect myself.

 

[Swift]

What I'm trying to express is that it's irrelevant since they both dislike each other, and this is going back THOUSANDS of years. It's naive to think that only one side would equate them to animals, in fact, it goes against what prominent people from both sides of the wars fought before this current conflict have said.

I know it goes back thousands of years and all that. But the difference is that it's not part of the written goal of the government of Israel to destroy every last muslim.

 

[KSaiyu]

Of course it isn't, but honestly that alone shouldn't the reason why there couldn't have been negotiations to prevent war. People have been quick in the other thread to justify collectively punishing Lebanon for the governments failure to act on resolution 1559 to get rid of Hezbollah, yet Israel itself has still held talks and made agreements with it's supporters in Palestine, Iran, Syria etc.

 

[Swift]

Of course it isn't, but honestly that alone shouldn't the reason why there couldn't have been negotiations to prevent war.

I had to stop you right there.

Why would you negotiated with beings that you don't consider worthy to breathe air?

All Hezbolah wants is to destroy Israel, that's it. So of course they don't want to talk with Israel...until Israel puts them in a fold nelson and they finally say uncle for a few years.