I am getting tired of the rampant anti-israeli comments on this board

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,631
7,075
113
bver_hunter said:
Don't you remember that the Israelis warned that any vehicle that moved was a potential target be it ambulances or UN observer trucks. Did you not see on TV how ambulances and other Lebanese medical cars and vans were destroyed. For heaven's sake, the UN buildings were hit and they sported large UN insignias. In the first couple of days when the UN reported first hand of how shocked they were at the scale and brutality of the bombing, little did they know that they were going to be the next target of the indiscriminate bombing from Israeli jets. They did not manage to venture far enough after that. I did not hear of Hezbollah bullets or missiles that were aimed at the UN compound. Did you?
Does this explain why UNIFIL had no report on the kidnapping?

I could also give links questioning the veracity of the ambulance missle strikes including the comparison of known missle strikes and the little holes in the roof of ambulances or give quotes from Hezbollah how their ambulances are being used in the rebuilding.
 

Dev0

Guest
Jan 18, 2004
276
0
0
This thread has more than ran its course. Maybe its time to ask the mods to lock it down. Time for some fresh debate.
 
Last edited:

Ulyssses

Member
Jan 16, 2004
271
3
18
I'm all for fresh debate, but a better idea than shutting down this thread would be to imposed a rule that if you post something you actually have to SAY SOMETHING. Might force the post-a-link-then-post-another weenies (cough - smyth - cough - Markjfr - cough) to actually formulate a thought of their very own. How many new "see this link" threads did mark put up today - 6 or 8? Puhleeze.

Roger
 

Dev0

Guest
Jan 18, 2004
276
0
0
Ulyssses said:
I'm all for fresh debate, but a better idea than shutting down this thread would be to imposed a rule that if you post something you actually have to SAY SOMETHING. Might force the post-a-link-then-post-another weenies (cough - smyth - cough - Markjfr - cough) to actually formulate a thought of their very own. How many new "see this link" threads did mark put up today - 6 or 8? Puhleeze.

Roger
If your for fresh debate, why are you taunting smyth-Markjfr? Do you honestly think they will just ignore your comments?

Time to put this thread out of its misery.
 

bver_hunter

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2005
29,969
7,882
113
basketcase said:
Does this explain why UNIFIL had no report on the kidnapping?

I could also give links questioning the veracity of the ambulance missle strikes including the comparison of known missle strikes and the little holes in the roof of ambulances or give quotes from Hezbollah how their ambulances are being used in the rebuilding.
The only way that they can report on a kidnapping mission is to accompany Hezbollah on that mission. But then Israel did kidnap scores of Palestinians and Lebanese. I guess you read a lot of UNIFIL reports on those kidnappings.

You must have missed the coverage on pro_Israeli CNN, regarding the vehicles in the UN organised convoy that were hit by warplanes. Some of the destroyed vehicles were ambulances whereas, others were carrying refugees away form the battle zones.
 

Edifice

New member
Jul 27, 2003
2,878
0
0
Gee, should I just start a thread called

" I am getting tired of the rampant anti-islamic comments on this board"

and see how many posts it gets? :cool:
 

*d*

Active member
Aug 17, 2001
1,621
12
38
Found it

Well I didn't find it, a colleague of mine pointed it out to me. And I feel foolish because I do try to stay up on this stuff and I thought I looked through the UN site thoroughly. But obviously I missed it. So I apologize.

As per the UNSC Secretary General's report, S/2006/560 --
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/4829399.html
"The crisis started when, around 9 a.m. local time, Hizbollah launched several rockets from Lebanese territory across the withdrawal line (the so-called Blue Line)towards Israel Defense Forces (IDF) positions near the coast and in the area of the Israeli town of Zarit. In parallel, Hizbollah fighters crossed the Blue Line into Israel and attacked an IDF patrol. Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers, killed three others and wounded two more. The captured soldiers were taken into Lebanon. Subsequent to the attack on the patrol, a heavy exchange of fire ensued across the Blue Line between Hizbollah and IDF."

So the kidnapping took place in Israel. I'm not going to debate if that info is right or wrong, I was only interested in finding something official on the subject instead of the many conflicting news reports. The UN Secretary General's report is official enough for me. Again, I apologize to all those concerned for the confusion I may have caused.
 
Last edited:

hapkido

New member
Jun 15, 2003
1,473
0
0
from another poster https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=127706

Subject: A German Editorial Europe, thy name is
Cowardice A GERMAN EDITORIAL

If any of you still feel that this war on terror is a
mistake, here is an opinion from an unexpected source.
It`s fascinating that this should come out of Europe.
Mathias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German
publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering
attack in DIE WELT, Germany`s largest daily paper,
against the timid reaction of Europe in the face of
the Islamic threat.

This is a must-read by all Americans. History may well
certify its correctness.


EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE
(Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag,
"Europe - your family name is appeasement." It`s a
phrase you can`t get out of your head because it`s so
terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their
lives, as England and France, allies at the time,
negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed
that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless
agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in
the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest
of Eastern Europe, where for decades, inhuman,
suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as
the ideologically correct alternative to all other
possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant
in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of
ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated
and debated, and were still debating when finally the
Americans had to come from halfway around the world,
into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East,
European Appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy
word "equidistance," now countenances suicide bombings
in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe
to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam`s torture
and murder machinery and, motivated by the
self-righteousness of the peace movement, has the gall
to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is
uncovered that the loudest critics of the American
action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of
billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program.

And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque
form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the
escalating violence by Islamic Fundamentalists in
Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really
should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial
fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls
are to be believed, the German people, actually
believe that creating an Official State "Muslim
Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the
fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall
Britain`s Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable
treaty signed by Adolph Hitler and declaring European
"Peace in our time".

What else has to happen before the European public and
its political leadership get it? There is a sort of
crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade
consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians, directed against our free, open
Western societies, and intent upon Western
Civilization`s utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer
than any of the great military conflicts of the last
century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot
be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is
actually spurred on by such gestures, which have
proven to be, and will always be taken by the
Islamists for signs of weakness. Only two recent
American Presidents had the courage needed for
Anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.

His American critics may quibble over the details, but
we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand:
Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the
German people from nearly 50 years of terror and
virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the
Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction,
recognized the danger in the Islamic War against
Democracy. His place in history will have to be
evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic
self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead
of defending liberal society`s values and being an
attractive center of power on the same playing field
as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in
contrast to those "arrogant Americans", as the World
Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany`s
Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we`re so moral? I fear it`s more
because we`re so materialistic, so devoid of a moral
compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar,
huge amounts of additional national debt, and a
massive and persistent burden on the American economy
- because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes
what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of
America because they seem too sure of their
priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare
systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive!
We`d rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or
our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid
vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the
need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and
forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who,
with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces
of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a
neighbor`s house.

Appeasement?

Europe, thy name is Cowardice
 

toni59

New member
Jul 24, 2006
9
0
0
Rules Relevant to the Middle East + Statement by Leading Intellectuals on Pale

Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation".

Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".

Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians; this is called "self-defense", or these days "collateral damage".

Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".

Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.

Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism".

Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran".

Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.

Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox.

Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".

Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn't democracy wonderful?).
 

sorely

New member
Sep 10, 2001
1,994
1
0
toni59 said:
Rule # 1: In the Middle East, it is always the Arabs that attack first, and it's always Israel who defends itself. This is called "retaliation".

Rule # 2: The Arabs, whether Palestinians or Lebanese, are not allowed to kill Israelis. This is called "terrorism".

Rule # 3: Israel has the right to kill Arab civilians; this is called "self-defense", or these days "collateral damage".

Rule # 4: When Israel kills too many civilians, the Western world calls for restraint. This is called the "reaction of the international community".

Rule # 5: Palestinians and Lebanese do not have the right to capture Israeli military, not even a limited number, not even 1 or 2.

Rule # 6: Israel has the right to capture as many Palestinians as they want (Palestinians: around 10000 to date, 300 of which are children, Lebanese: 1000s to date, being held without trial). There is no limit; there is no need for proof of guilt or trial. All that is needed is the magic word: "terrorism".

Rule # 7: When you say "Hezbollah", always be sure to add "supported by Syria and Iran".

Rule # 8: When you say "Israel", never say "supported by the USA, the UK and other European countries", for people (God forbid) might believe this is not an equal conflict.

Rule # 9: When it comes to Israel, don't mention the words "occupied territories", "UN resolutions", "Geneva conventions". This could distress the audience of Fox.

Rule # 10: Israelis speak better English than Arabs. This is why we let them speak out as much as possible, so that they can explain rules 1 through 9. This is called "neutral journalism".

Rule # 11: If you don't agree with these rules or if you favor the Arab side over the Israeli side, you must be a very dangerous anti-Semite. You may even have to make a public apology if you express your honest opinion (isn't democracy wonderful?).
LMAO, but it's really not funny
 

LancsLad

Unstable Element
Jan 15, 2004
18,089
0
0
In a very dark place
sorely said:
LMAO, but it's really not funny

I found it pretty much sums things up.


Just watch the TERB division of the ADL will be all over this one.
 
Toronto Escorts