Fred1new
- 06 Jan 2009 19:21
Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?
If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?
Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?
What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?
rawdm999
- 19 Jan 2009 13:25
- 407 of 6906
Ah! Al Jazeera - a breath of fresh air when compared to our media. Balanced reporting.
Didn't know that about the aborted missions, interesting.
riccardo1986
- 19 Jan 2009 14:09
- 408 of 6906
Ah! Al Jazeera - a breath of fresh air when compared to our media. Balanced reporting.
yeah, it must be a cospiricy of our anti semetic media as is everything or everyone that dosent agree 100% with israel, lol
boxerdog
- 19 Jan 2009 14:30
- 409 of 6906
Israel are the true allies of the modern civilised world and should be supported in their quest to resolve law and order and also to defend themselves from any fanatical faction or country determined to harm them.
Europe including the UK, and any developed nation wanting long lasting peace should aid and support Israel in the fight agains terrorism.
Israel are our first line of defence against such enemies of peace and democracy. Stick that in your pipe a smoke it Fred!!!!.
Fred1new
- 19 Jan 2009 14:57
- 411 of 6906
The UN has already condemned israel. I will await the following inquiry.
rawdm999
- 19 Jan 2009 15:05
- 412 of 6906
Fred, as i asked before, do you think the UN SC would condemn Israel if Israel was given the opportunity to join the club? Its politics, all politics.
boxerdog
- 19 Jan 2009 15:07
- 413 of 6906
Didn't the UN also condemn GB & US for their invasion of Iraq ? not much credibility there then Freddie.
Isaacs
- 19 Jan 2009 15:12
- 414 of 6906
Many of the UN members should perhaps focus on their own problems first. China for instance, a SC permanent member, is believed to use the death penalty on 10,000 people per year and you can guarantee they are not getting a fair trial. Purely in terms of loss of human life a much bigger problem than 1,000 killed in Gaza. Then of course a myriad of major human rights abuses throughout the country. Perhaps the United Nations should turn its attention to China?
Fred1new
- 19 Jan 2009 16:01
- 415 of 6906
Time will tell!
halifax
- 19 Jan 2009 16:29
- 416 of 6906
Yes when are George Bush and Tony Blair going to be indicted for crimes against humanity?
Haystack
- 19 Jan 2009 16:33
- 417 of 6906
Never and why should they be?
sivad
- 19 Jan 2009 16:43
- 419 of 6906
WHY BELIEVE HAMAS CASUALTY FIGURES?
The media has, so far, reported Palestinian casualty figures provided by Hamas controlled sources such as the Palestinian Health Ministry in Gaza. Hamas operatives have dressed in civilian clothing and hidden behind Palestinian civilians. Hamas has prevented details of its casualties to prevent a total collapse of morale within the organization and the international media has acquiesced by failing to acknowledge that a significant number of Hamas terrorists have died during Israel's offensive.
Now, if further proof were needed as to the reliability of Hamas's figures, it has arrived as Hamas claims that it has lost only 48 of its operatives in 22 days, the rest of the Palestinian casualties made up of civilians. This claim is so absurd and laughable, how can anyone take this or anything that Hamas says seriously?
TAKING ON WHITE PHOSPHORUS ALLEGATIONS
Writing in The Jerusalem Post, Gerald Steinberg admonishes Human Rights Watch for its white phosphorus allegations against Israel:
HRW's "evidence" was based entirely on innuendo and unverifiable "eyewitness" reports. One report states that "[o]n January 9, Human Rights Watch researchers on a ridge overlooking Gaza from the northwest observed multiple air-bursts of artillery-fired WP that appeared to be over the Gaza City/Jabalya area. In addition, Human Rights Watch has analyzed photographs taken by the media on the Israel-Gaza border." HRW does not name its researchers; it does not provide a detailed location of its observation, nor does it identify the photos it "analyzed" making independent verification of this "evidence" impossible.
Indeed, two days later, the International Committee of the Red Cross, which certainly cannot be accused of a pro-Israeli bias, issued a statement that backed the IDF statements. "Using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law," it said, adding that there was no evidence that Israel was "using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk." (Flares assist search and rescue forces in saving the lives of wounded soldiers and preventing Hamas from snatching the bodies of dead soldiers. To claim that such operations are illegitimate is, in and of itself, immoral.)
Ruth
- 19 Jan 2009 16:46
- 420 of 6906
Fred, you have got a bare faced cheek you really have,
how can you accuse anyone of turning a blind eye?
your the biggest culprit on this site of changing agenda to suit,turning a blind eye,etc
you really should try and remember past posts/threads before opening your mouth .
Fred1new
- 19 Jan 2009 17:09
- 422 of 6906
MCharts, were you looking at your own reflection or perhaps you are projecting your own feelings on to others.
Fred1new
- 19 Jan 2009 17:13
- 423 of 6906
I am glad that Tel Aviv isn't a propaganda outlet. LOL
Gausie
- 19 Jan 2009 17:28
- 424 of 6906
Fred
You're continuing not to make any sense.
cynic
- 19 Jan 2009 17:57
- 425 of 6906
post 387 ...... you are confusing Palestine, which was a British Protectorate, with land that belonged to the Palestinians, which it never did, or at least not unless you accept the double-speak by the British Gov't just after WW1 when the area was promised to both parties