naomiglover

They did not, as you said: Stop lying.

Lie. They did not. Every time you make such an assertion in the face of video that we have all seen, you look like a liar. You keep missing the point. They were not insurgents.

You don't think insurgents would hear and notice the helicopters flying over them? Would they be casually walking around chit chatting? Can you show me where it is proven that they were insurgents? I can show you where they were announced to be civilians. I will assume you're lying because you have lied about reading reports and investigations before. Speaking of reading. Did you get around to reading the international court ruling in regards to East Jerusalem being Palestinian territory? Just a reminder: You failed in getting back to the topic and finishing the conversation. People who care about honesty might care. The US military's version of the event is different than what we saw in the video. The US military said that these people were attacking them. It is clear that this was a lie. I saw the video. weaponds? visable? Do you have fat fingers? One or two typos and mistakes are fine, but you've taken this to another level. Besides the 1 guy who looks to have a gun, who else has one? Do you also consider cameras to be RPG's? The army said: The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed. Unless if you are distant from reality and believe that shooting at people strolling on the ground from an apache helicopter, while not being fired at, a 'fight', then you are wrong. The army also said that they killed 9 insurgents. It turns out that they killed civilians. Really? Is this from the Dancer's fantasy rules of engagement book? Does this rule also apply to false statements such as the one made by the trigger happy, salivating young man who said: "Have five to six individuals with AK47s. Request permission to engage"? I'm sorry that I keep bringing reality and honesty into the picture. But I'm sure that will not stop you from your continuous efforts to try to cover for obvious atrocities committed by the teams you are cheering for.

Do the people strolling around, chit chatting, with 2 military helicopters flying over them, really look like insurgents? get real. We have US military personnel falling over themselves to make the snap judgment that the civilians are armed insurgents and that one of them, peeking round a corner, is carrying an RPG. All salivating and wanting to pull the trigger. Just like most of you, I have not read the report released after US military's investigation, but the US military did release a statement after the incident which the New York Times published: “According to the statement, American troops were conducting a raid when they were hit by small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. The American troops called in reinforcements and attack helicopters. In the ensuing fight, the statement said, the two Reuters employees and nine insurgents were killed.” The video we have seen shows clearly that the above statement is fiction. Not one shot was fired from the men in the video and the man around the corner did not have an RPG as the US military personal in the helicopter wanted to suggest.

What I see is three people carrying something. One is carrying a gun and two are carrying something that looks nothing like a gun. While the camera of the apache is on them, the soldier announces that 5 of them have weapons, setting the stage for the carnage. What exactly and why exactly are you trying to cover this blatant screw up? I'm talking about youtube uploaded videos as compared to what they were seeing. You don't think there is a difference in quality? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8603938.stm High-quality video The video, released on Monday, is of high quality and appears to be authentic, the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says.

I will look into discussing this topic with you once you are able to go back to the thread where you ran off after mentioning that you haven't had a chance to read a simple paragraph where the ruling was made by the court.

I'm not discussing the investigation. I am discussing the video posted. The camera looks nothing like an RPG. Did you get a chance to look into what the ICJ has ruled on Jerusalem? You went silent after the information was passed onto you.

Wow. Unless you are legally blind, it is obvious that the camera does not look anything like an RPG. Not to mention that the video we are seeing is not in as good of a quality as what the people in the apache helicopter were seeing. These young, trigger happy soldiers should release their need to pull the trigger by playing video games. Not by playing with innocent people's lives. This is just one tape. Who knows what else is out there locked in the archives hidden away as classified documents. Apparently Wikileaks also has tapes showing civilian killings in Afghanistan.

The same Democrat Truman that fought for Medicare for most of his career until it was realized in 1965 while Johnson was president? Great comparison.

Any ideology or movement that accepts the sacrificing of people's rights for the sake of the movement is wrong. The same generalization can also be applied to other ideologies and movements. Just because there were nice people who followed and accepted Nazism, it doesn't mean we can't apply a sweeping generalization on Nazism. How am I hiding myself? Why do you have a problem with wanting the world to follow international law and human rights?

Instead of rushing to use tragedies around the world to excuse Israel, you should look into what the story is about so you wouldn't look like an idiot: Human Rights Watch, working with local organisations, has verified 321 deaths - but other activists have given far higher estimates. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8592142.stm

No one here is supporting or excusing Lord's Resistance Army's slaughter in Congo. Unfortunately, some here support Israel's discriminating and illegal actions against the Palestinians. There is a difference. And JBG: What is your excuse for never posting about the hardship in Africa, yet having numerous anti-Muslim threads?

Get back to me when you have read it. It shouldn't take too long. It's right there in the writing and the link has been provided to you from the ICJ.

I am assuming from Dancer's silence that he has accepted that the International Court has re-confirmed/ruled that East Jerusalem is part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. I'm glad we could get to the bottom of that.

If this is what you 'honestly' believe, then your perspective is severely skewed. The major problem of this conflict is Israel's refusal to follow international law. They refuse to give an inch to the Palestinians while continuing to annex more of their land. That is the problem. Everything else is a symptom.

I welcome the news. Could it be that an American president is finally following international law and is able to stand up to AIPAC? We'll see.

Nice. Thank you for the clarification. Wrong. Although Israel grants citizenship to the resident Arab minority, it does not permit Arab immigration, even by former residents of its territory. Israeli immigration is essentially for Jews only, and this is the most obviously racist policy of present Zionism.

Here is the Summaries of Advisory Opinions and Orders from The International Court of Justice: Page 8 and 9 - http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf Secondly, with regard to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Court takes note that differing views have been expressed by the participants in these proceedings. Israel, contrary to the great majority of the participants, disputes the applicability de jure of the Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court recalls that the Fourth Geneva Convention was ratified by Israel on 6 July 1951 and that Israel is a party to that Convention; Here is the court responding to your point in regards to the applicability of the laws: In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Palestinian territories which before the 1967 conflict lay to the east of the Green Line and which, during that conflict, were occupied by Israel, there being no need for any enquiry into the precise prior status of those territories. The Court observes that the Israeli authorities have indicated on a number of occasions that in fact they generally apply the humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention within the occupied territories. However, according to Israel’s position, that Convention is not applicable de jure within those territories because, under Article 2, paragraph 2, it applies only in the case of occupation of territories falling under the sovereignty of a High Contracting Party involved in an armed conflict. Israel explains that the territories occupied by Israel subsequent to the 1967 conflict had not previously fallen under Jordanian sovereignty. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, when two conditions are fulfilled, namely that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized), and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties, then the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties. The object of the second paragraph of Article 2, which refers to “occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party”, is not to restrict the scope of application of the Convention, as defined by the first paragraph, by excluding therefrom territories not falling under the sovereignty of one of the contracting parties, but simply to making it clear that, even if occupation effected during the conflict met no armed resistance, the Convention is still applicable. This interpretation reflects the intention of the drafters of the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect civilians who find themselves, in whatever way, in the hands of the occupying Power, regardless of the status of the occupied territories, and is confirmed by the onvention’s travaux préparatoires. The States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, at their Conference on 15 July 1999, approved that interpretation, which has also been adopted by the ICRC, the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Court finally makes mention of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Israel dated 30 May 2004, to a similar effect. and finally, in regards to East Jerusalem: Page 10: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1677.pdf The Court concludes that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law.

ICJ - Page 140: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf Reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention' as well as Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, more... Reculling relevant United Nations resolutions affirming that actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to change the status and demographic composition of Occupied East Jerusalem have no legal validity and are nuIl and void, They specifically mention that East Jerusalem is Occupied Palestinian Territory.

You are trying very hard American Woman.

The fact remains that the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel is not internationally reocognized. The International Court of Justice has ruled that the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are all Occupied Palestinian Territory. It's a simple fact that cannot be disputed. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&PHPSESSID=60e2f3e3d732bbe27c8f55888a311c8f&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4

Wrong. Just like Nazism and Apartheid discriminated against certain groups, Zionism also discriminates against certain groups.

Forging passports and killing civilians in Gaza are both criminal acts and have been concluded to be criminal acts. Why does your moral compass excuse both? I have never once defended Hamas' actions. There is no reason for me to bring them mostly because there is no debate whether or not suicide attacks or rocket attacks are illegal and criminal.

I am against anything that is illegal. This includes, of course, Hamas' suicide and rocket attacks. Israel has a right to defend itself just like the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. This of course, if it's done within the context of the law.

From the Palestinians. Duh?