If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Really?
The amount of evidence available for the holocaust and the crimes that occured in that event is overwhelming. Photographs, eyewitness accounts from both sides, diaries, exact records, survivors and their tattoos.
If the evidence available is equivilent, how is it that you have been able to actually produce any except to continue to speak about an event that has proven to be a lie?
Comparisons to Bloody Sunday or Kent State? Very possible, and probably very valid.
Comparisons to the Holocaust? If genocide was what the Israelis were playing at, the Palestinians would be no more. That simple.
Er, have a look at the links that have been posted in this forum alone in the last few months. Or even better, go to the Guardian’s or BBC’s websites and do a search on Middle East, Israel or Ariel Sharon.
There are thousands of photographs, eyewitness accounts from both sides (including many Israelis who are deeply ashamed of their murderous Prime Minister) and survivors’ tales. There are no tattoos to speak of, but I guess we can accept bullet scars as a substitute eh? As for exact records, whatever Palestinian papers survive the bulldozers will be automatically dismissed as lies by you and others.
In any case, what good would all the information be to you when you keep saying that humanitarian organizations are telling lies, the international media is telling lies and of course, the Palestinians always tell lies and cannot be trusted to tell the time of day?
What event would that be? The shooting into crowds of unarmed children or the murder of innocents and firing at ambulance crews in Jenin? In either case there were independent reports by humanitarian organizations and the UN delegations. But I guess they are all anti-semites that can’t be trusted…
As I said, the comparisons are regarding information available about war crimes not genocide or ‘final solutions’. I could take your approach and state that the Holocaust didn’t happen, dismiss all witness accounts as mumbo jumbo and denounce the independent observers as biased. If you think that would be ridiculous, it is exactly as ridiculous for anyone to dismiss reports of Israeli human right abuses
Yes, and so have you (but perhaps you didn't care to comment on that particular one
Still, I guess your position would prevent you from commenting on that one...
And if you really think that Israel has made any attempt at genocide, I suggest you get the same help that Steelgate so desperately needs.
I am certainly not going to waste my time posting links to the BBC, Sky, The Guardian and other websites when
a) you know where they are
b) you keep dismissing them as Palestinian propaganda
Here is the link to the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps massacre since you seem unable to find it yourself. You avoided commenting then so perhaps you would like to enlighten us know.
As for the genocide charge, I have just said that I am not equalling the Holocaust to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of murder and genocide, but in terms of wrongdoing denial. Quit avoiding the issues and departing from the subject at hand.
Funny thing. The links you provide clearly show that Lebanese, not Israelis committed the murders. They also make accusations against Sharon, but they certainly don't prove any such accusations.
In the meantime, the Palestinian terrorist organizations not only strike at Israeli civilians, they happily claim credit for each strike (or didn't you notice that in the initial posts by Reverse).
Come on, where is your proof?
Have civilians died because of the use of arms by Israelis? Yes, without question.
Has it been willful murder? That is your accusation, and I am still waiting to see the proof. Since it is such that you are accusing them of, the proof needs to be good enough to hold up in a court of law.
As for the Holocaust, the evidence did hold up in a court of law. Nuremberg.
this one ,
this one
and especially at this one .
Now why would anyone want to assassinate this Elie Hobeika, a right-wing Christian leader? His removal wraps things nicely for Sharon doesn't it?
The attempted trial in Belgium was abandoned because of technicalities (one of them being Sharon didn't have much intention of attending the trial) and because the star witness was conveniently wasted. But there were still many other witnesses willing to testify, and with or without trial Sharon is guilty as hell of letting the militiamen through fully aware of what was going to happen. But then again, Hitler never went to trial so I guess if he came back from hell for a day and said he wasn't aware of what was going on in the concentration camps, we'd have to believe him. The same can be said of O. bin Laden, an innocent man until proven guilty in a court of law, under your reasoning.
"Lebanese Christian militiamen allied to Israel "
So it wasn't the Israelis...
Link Three:
"Although Mr Verhaeghe said he believed that the documents are genuine, he acknowledged that he could not guarantee their authenticity."
"could not guarantee their authenticity"
Mr Verhaeghe is a bit more honest than some.
Link Four:
"One of the editors said Mr Hobeika told them again recently he held videotapes and documents that would prove his innocence, and challenge the Israeli version of the story of the Sabra and Shatila massacres.
Mr Hobeika also told the editors he was not afraid of being killed, and had taken the necessary precautions to make sure that the evidence in his possession would still be accessible if he disappeared."
If its still accessible, where is it?
As you noticed I started counting at Link Two, saving the best for last. Link One is a thread started by none other that Mr Alladin...
Point is, you haven't proven squat, but you documented some great examples of smoke and mirrors.
Now for your reply. Re link 2: No, Ariel Sharon didn't go down there himself with an assault rifle and opened fire. But if you have read the links you should understand what the charges against him are. Bin Laden didn't fly the planes himself did he?
Re Link 3: As always, grabbing at every one last resort to avoid admitting the Israelis are not perfect. The mountains of circumstantial evidence, survivors accounts and witness accounts leave very little doubt about what happened. Put it this way: there is a much more convincing case against Sharon being behind this atrocity than O. bin Laden being behind the 9/11 atrocity. As a matter of fact, if I were to be as sceptic about the actual evidence the US has presented against bin Laden, I'd say "leave the man alone, he's innocent until proven otherwise, how dare you!". In reality I don't say that, and nor does anyone else who is not a fanatic, because in certain cases it is clear who has done what, regardless of the amount of proof that would be needed to convict someone in court.
Re Link 4: See above with regard to the amount of proof needed by a rational and non-bigoted person to make a judgement. I would imagine this man was trying to protect his own life the best he could, and hoped that by saying that he would put off his assassins as there would be no point in killing him. Unfortunately it wasn't to be.
Re Link 1: I don't know if there is a bug or you clicked at a link in the wrong post, but when I click I get sent to a BBC news story just like the others.
I am sorry, but it becomes clearer and clearer with each post that you and others are avoiding to answer certain questions because you obviously don't see anything wrong with Israeli troops or its Prime Minister committing human right abuses or shooting at unarmed children. You can carry on trying to deconstruct what is a very solid case against Sharon, in the same way as Nazi apologists write 500-page books with very detailed and seemingly convincing evidence that the Holocaust didn’t take place. But at the end of the day, anyone who is not blinded knows what really happened.
You can still cheer for Israel, as others do, without approving of some of the things they have done. The two things are not incompatible, you know?
Don't forget to answer yes or no to that question.
Point is, only you would need an answer, which means your answer is yes..
Alladin, I quoted what those articles stated, now the expectation is to look past facts, to ignore what is there and look at the circumstantial evidence..
Do numbers one and two help explain?
Avoiding, according to the dictionary avoiding is not continued requests for the facts.. So far when it comes to avoiding, you are the man.
Sharon didn't order those Lebanese there (and couldn't of if he had wanted to)..
He didn't order Israeli troops there (which he actually could have done)...
He allowed the Lebanese to pass in.... poor judgement possibly (as it seems an Israeli court has found), but not murder, nor ordering murder.
Keep jumping to conclusions, Aladdin. You see what you want to see.
Now Sharon may have committed a warcrime. It wasn't the one you are accusing him of however. Nor does it or anything else that has happened justify you calling the Israeli troops murderers or claiming that they have been ordered to commit attrocities. Pretty serious charges. Serious enough to expect something more than circumstantial evidence (ever wonder why circumstantial evidence is considered insufficient to convict in a criminal court?).
Btw, come up with a video-taped confession by Sharon. That is the evidence against Bin Laden. Terrorists take credit for their actions.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
And may I remind you that the tape in which bin Laden admits to the 9/11 atrocity only surfaced a couple of months ago- long after the US had dropped some 50,000 tons of high explosives on Afghanistan. Until this tape appeared, all the US had as proof was piss-poor circumstantial evidence compared with the case against Sharon.
Suppose youll believe not only what CNN tells you but also anything the CIA can concoct from archived video footage of Bin Laden. Youd be surprised bow many analysts are taking these sudden revelations with a wink and grain of salt as Bush's arguments fall increasingly flat both at home and abroad.
But then youd be best advised to stick to your military duties and not try to understand what is going on in the negotiating chambers of your political task masters.
And I guess that you know exactly what is going on within the US military... And which material they have their hands on?
Clandestine, would it be inapropriate to ask you what your exact field is?
For your sake though i will reiterate. My principle activity at this stage in my career is as a international policy analyst. I am involved regularly in high level discussions within both NATO and the EU dealing with a range of crisis/response issues including the Middle East conflicts currently at the head of the agenda.
And by the way, the tapes in question are certainly not some aspect of this whole equation within exclusive purview of military expertise. I and many other persons senior to myself in policy circles have seen them and weighed their value. Much is still considered highly suspect as regards their authenticity.
a) One more time... the United States is not a "democracy", but a republic, with elected representatives.
b) Reasons have been stated, over and over. The supportive facts concerning those reasons is withheld so as to not compromise the capability of the military of achieving its mission, and eliminating those reasons.
The United States ( and UK, for that matter...) have entirely too much of an open door policy. Too much complete disclosure would bring a modern day fruition of Krushchevs intent... bury us from within.
The concept of OpSec escape you, completely?
...and is an "American" who uses British spelling and idioms. If you take the clandestine one at face value, I have a load of three dollar bills with Komrad Klinton's face on them that I will sell you at their "face value"...
Also what the hell does it matter where Clandestines from and what reason do we have to believe anything you say over what he says?
Sopite, or should i say Thanatos, still making snide comments without so much as clue I see. Well at least you don't fail to inspire the paranoid faction.
As for my adopted choice of spelling...
An American who has lived more than a decade abroad and worked very closely in British circles amongst others will sometimes choose to adopt the proper English spellings by force of habit. Although i really have no clue why i even bother entertaining your routinely sophmoric responses. :rolleyes:
Accuracy has no merit within your value system, we then must presume...
As to the clandestine one? I witnessed first hand the clandestines turn a military victory into a political defeat. Only need that experience once in a lifetime, thank-you... :rolleyes:
Never trusted anyone who did not work from the basis of what is in their country's best interest. If those of you from the UK took US interest over UK's, I would not trust you, either. But to work at odds to his nation? Get his name on the list of Jane Fonda devotees...
As stated before, the clandestine one is posting BS intentionally because he a) is applying a little dis-information within OpSec, or b) is working in the interest of "his nation's" enemies, or doesn't know because c) he isn't trusted with the information by those who DO know, or d) he simply is not who he claims to be...
What do I think? I think that BS by any name still smells the same...
I assume also that you know what is the countries best interests?
Why? Why would I not trust a traitor from any nation?
They have already betrayed their spoken loyalties once. Once a traitor, always a traitor...
Just like losing your cherry... once it is done, you can never go back...
And btw... I am certainly not alone in that perspective...
I would rather be loyal to a cause or an idea and most importantly I would be loyal to people.......
Accept the "reality" that youre warmongering view of foreign policy is losing ground as the long term effects of it on our nation are being contemplated.
As for face value, sopite, i dont have any doubt that your opinions are entirely based on face value. Nothing youve ever offered has even a dash of substance to it.
Toadborg, we have a well known group in the US that epitomizes the very disposition and accusatory demeanor exemplified by Sopite and several others here. Perhaps youve heard of it, the KKK?
So now I am KKK?
ROTFLMFAO!
Tell you what? Try this place:
http://assaultweb.net/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=General+Discussion&number=1&DaysPrune=1000&LastLogin=
Happy hunting...
And any of your posts should be taking seriously, after that specific remark?
Come on! Thought that you could do better than that.
I wonder how far you get within the EU and NATO, when comparing people whose opinions you don't share, with the KKK?
Seriously the best pile of shit, I've heard since Steelgate left this forum. I applaud you! Takes a master to reach his level.
Me?
I am FAR too moderate to frequent that place. Just thought you might like an environment where you might actually occaisionally be accurate...
But then, you likely cannot distinguish differences between anyone to the right of Monica Lewinsky, correct? After all, Klinton was the "greatest president" of all time, correct?
:eek: Language like that from a "little and naive Danish girl"?!?!?