Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah

paul_valaru said:
the only isreali terrorist massacre that I can recall was a guy shootin up a mosque.

Baruch goldstein, he was killed after the attack, beaten to death, Israeli gov't has the name of who did it, but have chosen to consider it justice, the after effects and response fromt he israeli gov't was different than arab responses after islamic terrorism bombings.


.
Click to expand...


Here
 
back at you

a google search is not an answer, I can do a search for anything and find those supporting and dissenting.

funny enought one of the first ones to pop was jenin, so that blows you arguement out of the water.

any other "massacres" with inflated body counts?
 
paul_valaru said:
the only isreali terrorist massacre that I can recall was a guy shootin up a mosque.
Click to expand...

Now you can recall more. I don't know about inflated body counts. Are you saying massacres are ok if the body counts have any possibility of being inflated?

How many bodies for a legitimate massacre?
 
spike said:
Now you can recall more. I don't know about inflated body counts. Are you saying massacres are ok if the body counts have any possibility of being inflated?

How many bodies for a legitimate massacre?
Click to expand...

well when there is evidence of a legitimate massacre, then we will know.
 
paul_valaru said:
well when there is evidence of a legitimate massacre, then we will know.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're dismissing them all?

Investigation by UN
The UN appointed military advisor Major-General Franklin van Kappen of the Netherlands to investigate the incident. His conclusions were:

(a) The distribution of impacts at Qana shows two distinct concentrations, whose mean points of impact are about 140 metres apart. If the guns were converged, as stated by the Israeli forces, there should have been only one main point of impact.
(b) The pattern of impacts is inconsistent with a normal overshooting of the declared target (the mortar site) by a few rounds, as suggested by the Israeli forces.

(c) During the shelling, there was a perceptible shift in the weight of fire from the mortar site to the United Nations compound.

(d) The distribution of point impact detonations and air bursts makes it improbable that impact fuses and proximity fuses were employed in random order, as stated by the Israeli forces.

(e) There were no impacts in the second target area which the Israeli forces claim to have shelled.

(f) Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling.

While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors.[17]

[edit]
Investigation by Amnesty International
Amnesty International conducted an on-site investigation of the incident in collaboration with military experts, using interviews with UNIFIL staff and civilians in the compound, and posing questions to the IDF, who did not reply. Amnesty concluded, "the IDF intentionally attacked the UN compound, although the motives for doing so remain unclear. The IDF have failed to substantiate their claim that the attack was a mistake. Even if they were to do so they would still bear responsibility for killing so many civilians by taking the risk to launch an attack so close to the UN compound."[18]

[edit]
View of Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch concurred, "The decision of those who planned the attack to choose a mix of high-explosive artillery shells that included deadly anti-personnel shells designed to maximize injuries on the ground — and the sustained firing of such shells, without warning, in close proximity to a large concentration of civilians — violated a key principle of international humanitarian law."[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana
 
Response of Israel

Israel immediately expressed regret for the loss of innocent lives, saying that the Hezbollah position and not the UN compound was the intended target of the shelling, and that the compound was hit "due to incorrect targeting based on erroneous data." Army Deputy Chief of Staff, Matan Vilnai stated that the shells hit the base not because they were off target, but because Israeli gunners used outdated maps of the area. He also stated that the gunners miscalculated the firing range of the shells.

Prime Minister Shimon Peres claimed that "We did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise."[12] Following the attack, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Shahak, Israel's chief of staff, at a press conference in Tel Aviv on April 18 defended the shelling: "I don't see any mistake in judgment… We fought Hezbollah there [in Qana], and when they fire on us, we will fire at them to defend ourselves… I don't know any other rules of the game, either for the army or for civilians…"[13].

Both the U.S. and Israel accused Hezbollah of "shielding", the use of civilians as a cover for military activities, which is a breach of the laws of war. The U.S. State Department spokesperson, Nicolas Burns stated, "Hezbollah [is] using civilians as cover. That's a despicable thing to do, an evil thing."[14] and Prime Minister Shimon Peres cited the use of human shielding to blame Hezbollah. On April 18 he said, "They used them as a shield, they used the UN as a shield — the UN admitted it."[15] Rabbi Yehuda Amital, a member of Peres' cabinet, called the Qana killings a desecration of God's name (chilul hashem).[16]
Click to expand...

I beleive the israelis. suprised?
 
Gonz said:
I have supported it. It's somewhere in the Real World forum. Look, it's here. Several of them in fact. I've presented my case umpteen times. Look, you'll find it.
Click to expand...

Careful. You'll get called names if you don't patronize. Then it's on to rock, paper, scissors to settle the real tough issues. :p
 
Inkara1 said:
The difference is that you hadn't posted supporting evidence on this very site. Gonz has. It's like you walked into the middle of a long conversation and expect everyone to start over just for you.
Click to expand...

I think he's already been told that once.





Kinda like Palestinians. They used to be called Syrians & Egyptians & Saudis & Jordanians. In other words Arabs. Now they're all just Jew haters.
Click to expand...


And .... I've warned you off about that too, Gonz.

Palestinians are not a nation. They're a tribe. Palestinians in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and anywhere else don't have that country's citizenship. Jsut like if an american native tribe's territory crossed the canada/US border. They're in both countries, but first and formost, they're "tribe".

Americans (and Europeans) have forgotten the importance of tribe, because of their stong "nationalistic" identity. Not all of the rest of the world has. Try calling a Ukranian a Russian and see how long you're standing.
 
Professur said:
Palestinians are not a nation. They're a tribe. Palestinians in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and anywhere else don't have that country's citizenship. Jsut like if an american native tribe's territory crossed the canada/US border. They're in both countries, but first and formost, they're "tribe".

Americans (and Europeans) have forgotten the importance of tribe, because of their stong "nationalistic" identity. Not all of the rest of the world has. Try calling a Ukranian a Russian and see how long you're standing.
Click to expand...
Or a Russian a cossack. Good point.
 
Professur said:
Palestinians are not a nation. They're a tribe. Palestinians in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and anywhere else don't have that country's citizenship.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then I'm wrong about that post. I am/was under the impression that they were a tribe living as citizens of their respective country, when said country was in control of their little section called Palestine.
 
Not according to Hani. And I expect he'd know better than anyone.

If you listen closely to the news coming out of Iraq, you constantly hear about the tribes.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/baram20030708.htm

Don't take it as gospel. I've only scanned the text, not confirmed anything. But it's a good primer into the sort of cultural morass you're dealing with in all the countries down there.
 
spike said:
New thread new conversation. I've been paying attention to the news and if there was hard evidence of Iraq having WMDs or them being transported elsewhere I think it would be a big deal.

Therefore I'd like some exidence. I did a search on "syria wmd" and looked back to '04 without seeing a thread about it.
Click to expand...

Try Google

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514
The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.
Click to expand...

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml


http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
Click to expand...


Spike will need to prove otherwise besides blowing smoke...
 
Oh, and while WMD is a fun buzzword .... any actual reports are more likely to use the actual name of the weapon ... not WMD.
 
Professur said:
Oh, and while WMD is a fun buzzword .... any actual reports are more likely to use the actual name of the weapon ... not WMD.
Click to expand...


Such as the invatory of the B-52?
WMDs have been used to encompass all the bad shit that can be described, from home made devises to chemical warfare, do you realy expect the press to list the chemical properties of each and every device?
 
NBCs is more acurate for a group description but people just wanna know What's On.
 
highwayman said:
Try Google

Spike will need to prove otherwise besides blowing smoke...
Click to expand...

So, no proof? Hearsay, and "can't rule it out"?

That makes it an unsubstantiated claim. Good thing I asked.
 
Professur said:
I think he's already been told that once.
Click to expand...

Turns out to be unsubstantiated so excuse me if I don't accept people not backing up their claims just because they have been a member longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top