 |
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
So you say it's ok "cause the arabs do it too"? |
It's not ok. But when 20 people make a crime, 19 of them murder and 1 kills by accident(the relation between deliberate massacres done by Arab states and the relatively low number of "collateral damage" done by Israel) and only the 1 Jew gets accused, interrogated and sent to jail...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oldenbarnevelt
|
 |
in the Dutch swamps
Sep 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
Here's an excellent summary of Israel's objections against the UN "fact-finding mission". Worth reading, especially for those of you who take a sincere and unbiased interest in the (future) findings of such a mission. The big problem is that the UN itself has always been heavily prejudiced against Israel, and Israel's distrust in this case seems fully justified.
quote:
Apr. 29, 2002
Prepare for war crimes indictments
EVELYN GORDON
An outside observer could be forgiven for concluding that Israel must have something to hide in Jenin. Why else would it suddenly refuse to cooperate with a UN fact-finding commission to which it had previously consented? And why else would it demand that Israelis testifying to the commission be promised immunity from prosecution?
Israel’s explanation – that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has designed a commission so slanted as to be virtually incapable of returning any finding but guilty – seems too paranoid for belief. And yet, there appears to be sound basis for this fear.
To start with, even if one could overlook the UN’s normal anti-Israel bias, it is hard to believe in the objectivity of a fact-finding commission when the same UN that is sending the commission has already, without waiting for its conclusions, passed a resolution condemning Israel for “mass killings” of Palestinians in Jenin. Yet that is precisely what the UN Human Rights Commission did last Monday, three days after the Security Council approved the fact-finding mission.
Also problematic is the presence of Cornelio Sommaruga, former head of the International Red Cross, as one of the three commission members. Reports that he has made anti-Semitic statements in the past, such as comparing the Jewish star to a swastika, are obviously troubling. Yet even discounting these reports, the fact remains that as head of the Red Cross, he approved and publicly defended the organization’s singling out of Israel as the only country in the world whose emergency medical service is denied membership. In any court of law, such evidence of bias would disqualify Sommaruga from the jury.
Paradoxically, however, the most serious problem of all is that the facts of the case are not actually in dispute. The Palestinian charge of a massacre has already been discredited, and Israel has never denied the other allegations: Buildings were damaged and destroyed, some civilians were accidentally killed, and people’s civil rights (such as freedom of movement) were violated. All of the above are inevitable when pitched battles are fought in built-up areas. The debate is thus not over what happened, but rather over how to construe it: as legitimate military action or a war crime.
WHAT DISTINGUISHES the former from the latter is not the objective scope of the destruction: Large-scale battles usually cause more damage, but may still be perfectly legitimate. Rather, it is the proportionality of the destruction, as measured by three critical questions: Did the operation have a valid military objective, or was its purpose merely to cause pain to the enemy population? Was the property damage and curtailment of residents’ rights commensurate with the needs of the operation, or did the army engage in wanton destruction and repression? Were reasonable precautions taken to minimize civilian casualties, or were civilians considered fair game?
The answers to all of these questions require fairly specialized military knowledge. The first involves evaluating the extensive intelligence data that led Israel to conclude that the refugee camp was a base for terrorist groups that murdered dozens of Israelis, and therefore a legitimate military target. The second requires determining whether, given the scope of the Palestinian resistance (they killed 23 Israeli soldiers while roughly losing twice that number themselves), the IDF could, with reasonable certainty, have achieved its objectives with less collateral damage to the environment, without also exposing its forces to risks unacceptable in standard military practice. And the third requires determining whether, in light of the armed resistance, the army’s precautions against civilian casualties were consistent with reasonable military concern for its own soldiers’ safety.
Yet none of the three commission members appointed by Annan – former president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, former UN high commissioner of refugees Sadako Ogata, and Sommaruga – has the requisite experience and expertise to even begin to answer any of these questions. (The panel’s one military expert, though upgraded last week from mere adviser status, is still not a full member). Indeed, Ogata and Sommaruga are conditioned by training against even asking such questions. For humanitarian relief agencies, whether the damage was commensurate with military necessity is irrelevant; what matters is its objective scope (which determines what is needed to repair it). But since Israel’s defense rests entirely on the claim that the destruction was commensurate with the needs of a legitimate military operation, a commission incapable of, or uninterested in, considering the validity of this claim can only find it guilty.
Altogether, therefore, there is depressingly strong evidence for the conclusion reached last week by Daniel Bethlehem, an expert in international law from England’s Cambridge University: that the commission is coming not to ascertain the facts, but to prepare the ground for war crimes indictments the UN has already decided it wants. And if so, Israel’s refusal to cooperate is eminently proper.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecowiz Returns
|
 |
Portugal
Aug 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oldenbarnevelt
Please point out the untruths and inaccuracies in it, rather than uttering empty slogans. |
Good chalenge! Let's try:
Inacurate and biased
"To start with, even if one could overlook the UN’s normal anti-Israel bias..."
Plain inacurate
"...the same UN that is sending the commission has already, without waiting for its conclusions, passed a resolution condemning Israel for “mass killings” of Palestinians in Jenin..."
The report itself say that the commision was formed before the statement. And a statement from a commision does not bind those of another. Finally, 23 killings, such as it was arleady mentioned in a thread is already a mass murder.
"Yet none of the three commission members appointed by Annan – former president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, former UN high commissioner of refugees Sadako Ogata, and Sommaruga – has the requisite experience and expertise to even begin to answer any of these questions."
I hope there is no doubts on why this is inacurate.
Inacurate and strongly biased:
"WHAT DISTINGUISHES the former from the latter is not the objective scope of the destruction: Large-scale battles usually cause more damage, but may still be perfectly legitimate. Rather, it is the proportionality of the destruction, as measured by three critical questions: Did the operation have a valid military objective, or was its purpose merely to cause pain to the enemy population? Was the property damage and curtailment of residents’ rights commensurate with the needs of the operation, or did the army engage in wanton destruction and repression? Were reasonable precautions taken to minimize civilian casualties, or were civilians considered fair game? "
These are obviouly not the full amount of issues to account when identifying possible war crimes.
Warcrimes may have been perpetrated outside the scope of commands issued (in most cases they are).
More seriously is the fact that this argument is a simple repetition of the Israelli arguments, without one single shread of critical or even origianl thought.
Even more serious, and this critic is to you Oldenbarnevelt, is the fact that the most serious problem identified in this article was actually solved. The commision had not 3 but 5 membres, 2 of which had military background.
Finally, the acusations of anti-semitism agains former president of the Red Cross didn't have any bearing on his action or on being recognized by any nation, other than Israel as a possibly biased member. The reporter draws conclusions about the decision of not incorporating the Israelli medical support inside the Red Cross organization without presenting one single information about the reasons clamed to justify it. She simply proposes us to believe it was out of prejudice.
That much is also strongly inacurate and biased.
-V-
Well, looks like it wasn't that big a chalenge, after all.
Saint Marcus remark was pretty accurate. It is hard to find sometihing that isn't biased, other than the introduction.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
inacurate and biased
"To start with, even if one could overlook the UN’s normal anti-Israel bias..." |
Really??
Please search the UN resolutions and you see that no other country in the world has as many resolutions passed against it.
quote:
Plain inacurate
"...the same UN that is sending the commission has already, without waiting for its conclusions, passed a resolution condemning Israel for “mass killings” of Palestinians in Jenin..."
The report itself say that the commision was formed before the statement. And a statement from a commision does not bind those of another. Finally, 23 killings, such as it was arleady mentioned in a thread is already a mass murder. |
How is that inaccurate?
The UN already decided that there were mass killings, before counting the bodies, which now reach 50+.
quote:
"Yet none of the three commission members appointed by Annan – former president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, former UN high commissioner of refugees Sadako Ogata, and Sommaruga – has the requisite experience and expertise to even begin to answer any of these questions." |
I hope there is no doubts on why this is inacurate.
I have doubts.
Enlighten me.
quote:
Inacurate and strongly biased:
"WHAT DISTINGUISHES the former from the latter is not the objective scope of the destruction: Large-scale battles usually cause more damage, but may still be perfectly legitimate. Rather, it is the proportionality of the destruction, as measured by three critical questions: Did the operation have a valid military objective, or was its purpose merely to cause pain to the enemy population? Was the property damage and curtailment of residents’ rights commensurate with the needs of the operation, or did the army engage in wanton destruction and repression? Were reasonable precautions taken to minimize civilian casualties, or were civilians considered fair game? "
These are obviouly not the full amount of issues to account when identifying possible war crimes. |
Give more examples.
quote:
Warcrimes may have been perpetrated outside the scope of commands issued (in most cases they are). |
First you have to decide whether there was a warcrime at all.
Furthermore, if single soldiers comitted warcrimes, then the state of Israel isn't the one to blame, but only the soldiers and their direct commanders.
A state can't possible expect every possible crime comitted by every possible soldier.
Israel is doing it's best. I remind you that last week already, there were already close to 30 trials of soldiers who were charged of looting.
quote:
More seriously is the fact that this argument is a simple repetition of the Israelli arguments, without one single shread of critical or even origianl thought. |
So the bottom line is that this article must be wrong since it is pro-israeli.
Thank you for clearing that up. 
quote:
Even more serious, and this critic is to you Oldenbarnevelt, is the fact that the most serious problem identified in this article was actually solved. The commision had not 3 but 5 membres, 2 of which had military background. |
But most - 3 had not such background, and at least 1 was suspect of anti-semitism.
How is that acceptable??
quote:
Finally, the acusations of anti-semitism agains former president of the Red Cross didn't have any bearing on his action or on being recognized by any nation, other than Israel as a possibly biased member. The reporter draws conclusions about the decision of not incorporating the Israelli medical support inside the Red Cross organization without presenting one single information about the reasons clamed to justify it. She simply proposes us to believe it was out of prejudice.
That much is also strongly inacurate and biased. |
You are biased since you assume that there were other reasons.
You blaim the article for not bringing any other reasons, but fail to bring even one.
Comparing a star of david, and emblem of people, to a swaistika, and emblem of hatred, shows clear intentions and line of thinking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:13
|
|
quote:
Given the facts, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. |
FACTS:
The Israeli attack on the USS Liberty was a grievous error, largely attributable to the fact that it occurred in the midst of the confusion of a full-scale war in 1967. Ten official United States investigations and three official Israeli inquiries have all conclusively established the attack was a tragic mistake.
On June 8, 1967, the fourth day of the Six-Day War, the Israeli high command received reports that Israeli troops in El Arish were being fired upon from the sea, presumably by an Egyptian vessel, as they had a day before. The United States had announced that it had no Naval forces within hundreds of miles of the battle front on the floor of the United Nations a few days earlier; however, the USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship assigned to monitor the fighting, arrived in the area, 14 miles off the Sinai coast, as a result of a series of United States communication failures, whereby messages directing the ship not to approach within 100 miles were not received by the Liberty. The Israelis mistakenly thought this was the ship doing the shelling and war planes and torpedo boats attacked, killing 34 members of the Liberty's crew and wounding 171.
Numerous mistakes were made by both the United States and Israel. For example, the Liberty was first reported — incorrectly, as it turned out — to be cruising at 30 knots (it was later recalculated to be 28 knots). Under Israeli (and U.S.) naval doctrine at the time, a ship proceeding at that speed was presumed to be a warship. The day fighting began, Israel had asked that American ships be removed from its coast or that it be notified of the precise location of U.S. vessels.28 The Sixth Fleet was moved because President Johnson feared being drawn into a confrontation with the Soviet Union. He also ordered that no aircraft be sent near Sinai.
According to Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin's memoirs, there were standing orders to attack any unidentified vessel near the shore.29 The sea was calm and the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Liberty's flag was very likely drooped and not discernible; moreover, members of the crew, including the Captain, Commander William McGonagle, testified that the flag was knocked down after the first or second assault.
A CIA report on the incident issued June 13, 1967, also found that an overzealous pilot could mistake the Liberty for an Egyptian ship, the El Quseir. After the air raid, Israeli torpedo boats identified the Liberty as an Egyptian naval vessel. When the Liberty began shooting at the Israelis, they responded with the torpedo attack, which killed 28 of the sailors.
The argument that the attack was a tragic mistake is further reinforced by a new biography of Yitzhak Rabin (Dan Kurzman, Soldier of Peace: The Life of Yitzhak Rabin. NY: HarperCollins, 1998), who was Israel's Chief of Staff during the war, which says the Israelis initially were terrified that they had attacked a Soviet ship and might have provoked the Soviets to join the fighting. The Israelis were relieved when they learned it was an American ship, though Rabin remained concerned the mistake might jeopardize American support for Israel.30
Once the Israelis were sure what had happened, they reported the incident to the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv and offered to provide a helicopter for the Americans to fly out to the ship and any help they required to evacuate the injured and salvage the ship. The offer was accepted and a U.S. naval attaché was flown to the Liberty.
Many of the survivors of the Liberty remain bitter, and are convinced the attack was deliberate as they make clear on their web site. In 1991, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak trumpeted their discovery of an American who said he had been in the Israeli war room when the decision was made to knowingly attack the American ship.31 In fact, that individual, Seth Mintz, wrote a letter to the Washington Post on November 9, 1991, in which he said he was misquoted by Evans and Novak and that the attack, was, in fact, a "case of mistaken identity." Moreover, the man who Mintz originally said had been with him, a Gen. Benni Matti, does not exist.
Also, contrary to claims that an Israeli pilot identified the ship as American on a radio tape, no one has ever produced this tape. In fact, the only tape in existence is the official Israeli Air Force tape, which clearly established that no such identification of the ship was made by the Israeli pilots prior to the attack. It also indicates that once the pilots became concerned about the identity of the ship, by virtue of reading its hull number, they terminated the attack. The tapes do not contain any statement suggesting the pilots saw a U.S. flag before the attack.32
None of Israel's accusers can explain why Israel would deliberately attack an American ship at a time when the United States was Israel's only friend and supporter in the world. Confusion in a long line of communications, which occurred in a tense atmosphere on both the American and Israeli sides (five messages from the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the ship to remain at least 25 miles — the last four said 100 miles — off the Egyptian coast arrived after the attack was over) is a more probable explanation.
Accidents caused by “friendly fire” are common in wartime. In 1988, the U.S. Navy mistakenly downed an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 civilians. During the Gulf War, 35 of the 148 Americans who died in battle were killed by “friendly fire.” In April 1994, two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters with large U.S. flags painted on each side were shot down by U.S. Air Force F-15s on a clear day in the “no fly” zone of Iraq, killing 26 people. In fact, the day before the Liberty was attacked, Israeli pilots accidentally bombed one of their own armored columns south of Jenin on the West Bank.33
Retired Admiral, Shlomo Erell, who was Chief of the Navy in Israel in June 1967, told the Associated Press (June 5, 1977): “No one would ever have dreamt that an American ship would be there. Even the United States didn't know where its ship was. We were advised by the proper authorities that there was no American ship within 100 miles.”
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told Congress on July 26, 1967: “It was the conclusion of the investigatory body, headed by an admiral of the Navy in whom we have great confidence, that the attack was not intentional.”
In 1987, McNamara repeated his belief that the attack was a mistake, telling a caller on the “Larry King Show” that he had seen nothing in the 20 years since to change his mind that there had been no “coverup.”34
Israel apologized for the tragedy and paid nearly $13 million in humanitarian reparations to the United States and to the families of the victims in amounts established by the U.S. State Department. The matter was officially closed between the two governments by an exchange of diplomatic notes on December 17, 1987.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oldenbarnevelt
|
|
in the Dutch swamps
Sep 2001
time: 06:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns
Inacurate and biased
"To start with, even if one could overlook the UN’s normal anti-Israel bias..."
|
That's not what I would call pointing out inaccuracies or bias. A very thick tome could be written about the way the UN has singled out Israel all the time, from the Zionism=Racism resolution to the appalling anti-Semitic circus in Durban.
quote:
Plain inacurate
"...the same UN that is sending the commission has already, without waiting for its conclusions, passed a resolution condemning Israel for “mass killings” of Palestinians in Jenin..."
The report itself say that the commision was formed before the statement. And a statement from a commision does not bind those of another. |
That's utter nonsense. It's a clear indication that the UN wasn't interested in the facts.
quote:
Finally, 23 killings, such as it was arleady mentioned in a thread is already a mass murder. |
You're begging the question here. A murder is only a murder if the victim was deliberately targeted, AND if the victim was NOT a combatant (soldier, "militant", "activist"). EITHER the UN knew (= could prove) beforehand that murders were committed in Jenin, in which case the mission wasn't necessary, OR the UN didn't know about murders in Jenin, in which case all accusations to that effect betray their prejudice.
quote:
"Yet none of the three commission members appointed by Annan – former president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, former UN high commissioner of refugees Sadako Ogata, and Sommaruga – has the requisite experience and expertise to even begin to answer any of these questions."
I hope there is no doubts on why this is inacurate. |
Hahaha, you must be joking. Where's the argument?
The article makes it very clear that these people lack the requisite experience, and why this is the case.
quote:
Inacurate and strongly biased:
"WHAT DISTINGUISHES the former from the latter is not the objective scope of the destruction: Large-scale battles usually cause more damage, but may still be perfectly legitimate. Rather, it is the proportionality of the destruction, as measured by three critical questions: Did the operation have a valid military objective, or was its purpose merely to cause pain to the enemy population? Was the property damage and curtailment of residents’ rights commensurate with the needs of the operation, or did the army engage in wanton destruction and repression? Were reasonable precautions taken to minimize civilian casualties, or were civilians considered fair game? "
These are obviouly not the full amount of issues to account when identifying possible war crimes.
Warcrimes may have been perpetrated outside the scope of commands issued (in most cases they are).
More seriously is the fact that this argument is a simple repetition of the Israelli arguments, without one single shread of critical or even origianl thought. |
I don't understand what originality has to do with it.
I agree that war crimes are often committed "outside the scope of commands issued", but the article does not in any way exclude this kind of crime. Nowhere does the writer say or suggest that criminal acts by individual soldiers should fall outside the scope of the fact-finding mission.
quote:
Even more serious, and this critic is to you Oldenbarnevelt, is the fact that the most serious problem identified in this article was actually solved. The commision had not 3 but 5 membres, 2 of which had military background.
|
Please elaborate, I must have missed it. As far as I'm aware, there have been three, and only three, full members from the start. The status of the American general was graded up, but still not to full member status.
quote:
Finally, the acusations of anti-semitism agains former president of the Red Cross didn't have any bearing on his action or on being recognized by any nation, other than Israel as a possibly biased member. The reporter draws conclusions about the decision of not incorporating the Israelli medical support inside the Red Cross organization without presenting one single information about the reasons clamed to justify it. She simply proposes us to believe it was out of prejudice.
That much is also strongly inacurate and biased.
|
Excuse me for LOL again. All Red Cross/Red Crescent organizations in the world, including those in the most roguish and criminal states, are recognized by the Red Cross. Only Israel is singled out. If you can't see why this makes the head of the Red Cross a bad choice as a member of an unbiased committee, I give up. Every independent judge in the world would disqualify a juror with this kind of background.
quote:
Well, looks like it wasn't that big a chalenge, after all.
Saint Marcus remark was pretty accurate. It is hard to find sometihing that isn't biased, other than the introduction. |
You didn't convince ME.
-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecowiz Returns
|
|
Portugal
Aug 2001
time: 05:13
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Please search the UN resolutions and you see that no other country in the world has as many resolutions passed against it.
|
Do you have that count?
Of course if they took the in such account as the last two of them (one rehinforcing the other with no visible effect)...
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Plain inacurate
"...the same UN that is sending the commission has already, without waiting for its conclusions, passed a resolution condemning Israel for “mass killings” of Palestinians in Jenin..."
The report itself say that the commision was formed before the statement. And a statement from a commision does not bind those of another. Finally, 23 killings, such as it was arleady mentioned in a thread is already a mass murder. |
How is that inaccurate?
The UN already decided that there were mass killings, before counting the bodies, which now reach 50+.
|
They must have known, don't they? There were already reports about deaths and burrials, at that time.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
"Yet none of the three commission members appointed by Annan – former president of Finland Martti Ahtisaari, former UN high commissioner of refugees Sadako Ogata, and Sommaruga – has the requisite experience and expertise to even begin to answer any of these questions." |
I hope there is no doubts on why this is inacurate.
I have doubts.
Enlighten me.
|
I hoped this one would be easy to recognize: there were 5, and not 3 the members. Either the report is oudated or omissive. Either way it is inacurate.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Inacurate and strongly biased:
"WHAT DISTINGUISHES the former from the latter is not the objective scope of the destruction: Large-scale battles usually cause more damage, but may still be perfectly legitimate. Rather, it is the proportionality of the destruction, as measured by three critical questions: Did the operation have a valid military objective, or was its purpose merely to cause pain to the enemy population? Was the property damage and curtailment of residents’ rights commensurate with the needs of the operation, or did the army engage in wanton destruction and repression? Were reasonable precautions taken to minimize civilian casualties, or were civilians considered fair game? "
These are obviouly not the full amount of issues to account when identifying possible war crimes. |
Give more examples.
|
I'm no speciallist. However, I recall one being mentioned and that isn't present: denying medical support.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Warcrimes may have been perpetrated outside the scope of commands issued (in most cases they are). |
First you have to decide whether there was a warcrime at all.
Furthermore, if single soldiers comitted warcrimes, then the state of Israel isn't the one to blame, but only the soldiers and their direct commanders.
A state can't possible expect every possible crime comitted by every possible soldier.
Israel is doing it's best. I remind you that last week already, there were already close to 30 trials of soldiers who were charged of looting.
|
To decide wheater some thing is a warcrime you have the Law.
To figure if a warcrime occured you need to investigate.
Furthermore, if single soldiers comitted warcrimes, the State of Israel is not to be blamed. But if the Israelli Goverment boicots the investigation that would potentially uncover those crimes it becomes an accomplice - agian not the State of Isreal, but it's Governement.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
More seriously is the fact that this argument is a simple repetition of the Israelli arguments, without one single shread of critical or even origianl thought. |
So the bottom line is that this article must be wrong since it is pro-israeli.
|
No, the article is not wrong because it is pro-israeli. It is baised, due to it. A biased view can sometimes be more accurate than one that tries not to be biased. It's only harder, and much less likelly to occur.
But, since the reporter proposes to make clear the reasons behind Israelli boicot, she should have done that in a critical fashion, presenting her own ideas or, at least, critically commenting Israelli's justifications
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Even more serious, and this critic is to you Oldenbarnevelt, is the fact that the most serious problem identified in this article was actually solved. The commision had not 3 but 5 membres, 2 of which had military background. |
But most - 3 had not such background, and at least 1 was suspect of anti-semitism.
How is that acceptable??
|
Sorry Siro, not you or I are equiped to question the best way to make such a commission. You argue that 2 out of 5 members having military background is not enough. Based on what?
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
quote:
Finally, the acusations of anti-semitism agains former president of the Red Cross didn't have any bearing on his action or on being recognized by any nation, other than Israel as a possibly biased member. The reporter draws conclusions about the decision of not incorporating the Israelli medical support inside the Red Cross organization without presenting one single information about the reasons clamed to justify it. She simply proposes us to believe it was out of prejudice.
That much is also strongly inacurate and biased. |
You are biased since you assume that there were other reasons.
You blaim the article for not bringing any other reasons, but fail to bring even one.
|
You are naive if you think there weren't.
The article is missing the official justification given to the atitudes reported. If I were a reported I would, at least present those.
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Comparing a star of david, and emblem of people, to a swaistika, and emblem of hatred, shows clear intentions and line of thinking. |
I had heared that story before. First time I heared it it lack context, but had much more than this. The comparison was made when it was proposed to have a branch of the Red Cross with the Star of David. The comparison is absurd and most unhappy, but, given the fact that only one nation is officially of jewish religion, the proposal is a bit absurd by itself too.
However, can you explain me why wasn't he sumarilly discharged for such a hatefull comment? Maybe those that know him, know also that he is not anti-semitic. The fact that no onter country presented reservations regarding him, also point to the fact that that expression was an unfortunate incident.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:13
|
|
Dal, if you see a guy with a gun approaches someone, shoots him in the head and runs away, will you think it's a mistake because you dont know the motive?
It's crystal clear that the attack was deliberate. I believe that the issue is much more complicated than "the IAF sank an American ship" and even the US has it's reasons to "ignore" the attack. I dont think that the true story around the incident will be ever uncensored.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2002 18:22
Come on, Sprayber. When I say Israel has to pay I mean the state of Israel NOT "kill all jews". You know that damn well! 
|