caesar Posted October 8, 2004 Report Share Posted October 8, 2004 The issue raised in this thread is why so many people are obsessed with Israel when it is far, far from being the worst human rights violator and when they, at least, as compared to others, have some excuse. They do not have any excuse anymore so than the Palestinians do. Why do we continue to bring it up regarding Israel's humanitarian violations; Because the USA keeps protecting them, militarily supporting them, financially supporting them. By condoning their actions we keep the abuses going and the middle east in turmoil. Neither side has the right to target innocent citizens but we are seen protecting Israel despite the wrongs they are committing. Until we tell it like it is and recognize that Israel is being aggressive and unfairly subsidized and protected by the USA; peace will not have a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 For Argus' benefit, here's more on the Iman al-Hams "sob story". Hundreds of Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli troops during the Palestinian uprising or intifada. It is unusual for the army to launch an investigation into the circumstances of such incidents. But the death of Iman al-Hams is different because soldiers have complained publicly about the behaviour of their commander - who has not been named. Without revealing their identities, soldiers from the Givati brigade platoon told Israeli television how Iman al-Hams had been shot on 5 October in the Tel Sultan neighbourhood of Rafah. "We saw her from a distance of 70 metres. She was fired at ... from the outpost. She fled and was wounded," a soldier said. While Iman was lying, wounded or dead, about 70m from the Israeli guard post, the platoon commander approached her and fired two bullets from close range at her head, the soldiers said. He then went back a second time, put his weapon on the automatic setting and - ignoring their objections on the walkie-talkie - emptied his entire magazine into her body. "We couldn't believe what he had done. Our hearts ached for her. Just a 13-year-old girl," one soldier said. Commander suspended Hundreds of Palestinian children and teens have been killed by army fire in the past four years. The army rarely investigates the deaths. You have posted no lengthy, sobby stories of the two Israeli children whose murders sparked this retaliation. The Left never seems to care when Jewish kids or women die. I wonder why that is. Israel launched its biggest offensive into Gaza on Sept. 30 following the launch of rockets by Hamas militants. At least 92 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 For Argus' benefit, here's more on the Iman al-Hams "sob story". Yes, so? This guy will wind up in jail. How about the Palestinian heros who organize suicide bombings which deliberately target and kill dozens of young Israeli kids? When will we see one of them charged by the Palestinian Authority? When will we see anger and disgust directed at them from the Palestinian people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 You're missing the point, which is this is an all-too common occurance. In this case, there was enough outrage by the ndividuals subordinates to warrant an investigation (though whethe rit will lead to anything substansial remains to be seen). Most of the time, however, the perpatrators of such acts walk free. How about the Palestinian heros who organize suicide bombings which deliberately target and kill dozens of young Israeli kids? When will we see one of them charged by the Palestinian Authority? How do you charge a suicide bomber? When will we see anger and disgust directed at them from the Palestinian people? As long as suicide bombings are considered a weapon (as one Palestinian put it "our tanks and F-16s") in an assymetrical war, where Palestinian civilian casualties outstrip those of Israel by a 3 to 1 margin, you won't find much sympathy for your viewpoint among Palestinians. They're too busy burying their own dead. Now, I understand the rationale behind suicide bombing as a tactic, but I'd rather the Palestinians confined their hostilities towards military targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Looks like relations between the US and Canada are about to get a little more strained because of apparent US protectionism. Over hogs of all things. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...964/?hub=Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Sorry, but this time the Americans could be right. If as the article says; Canada is selling these hogs at a loss. Not quite the same situation as with beef and softwood lumber where the Americans don't have a leg to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 They could be right, but as you point out wth beef, lumber and I might add wheat, their track record hasn't been sparkilng. Which reminds me, the US is going to appeal the softwood ruling by an international panel. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...097706163746_77 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 Yeah, I knew about the extra ordinary appeal; what a bunch of sore losers. They should bargain and deal in good faith. No wonder we don't trust them in trade relations. They pulled a stunt with BC hothouse tomatoes too but gave up quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted October 16, 2004 Report Share Posted October 16, 2004 It's the same thing every few years. I don't know what they think has changed. They don't want to give up the ghost that's for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HybridConservative Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 [1] the ultra-left Pierre Elliot Trudeau LOL!!!!!!!!! [2] Trudeau openly admired Fidel Castro LOLOL!!!!!!!!!! [5] on September 11, 2001, Mr. Chretien failed to offer a genuine, heartfelt word of solace to the American people LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! [6] Paul Martin, another America hater *falls down, rolls on the floor* OH MAKE IT STOP HAHAHAAHAH!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Machine Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 Paul martin likes the US alot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HybridConservative Posted November 12, 2004 Report Share Posted November 12, 2004 *is still laughing*.....oh those Americans *slaps her thigh and keeps laughing* er... right...calm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 *is still laughing*.....oh those Americans *slaps her thigh and keeps laughing* er... right...calm. Why waste our time and yours saying nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newfie Canadian Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Well the President is going to Ottawa at the end of the month. His first state visit since he took office in 2000. I suspect there will be a lot of pictures and nice words but very little substance, as usual. I wonder where PM PM will send Carolyn Parrish for those 2 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 17, 2004 Report Share Posted November 17, 2004 Should we perhaps take the opportunity to arrest him and indict him for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Should we perhaps take the opportunity to arrest him and indict him for war crimes and crimes against humanity? If there were grounds for war crimes, do you not think that certain United Nation member states would look at that? If what Bush did was illegal, why is it that the members of the security counsel that we're opposed to the invasion, not table a resoultion against the United States? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 No member state will do so. Belgium actually did start the process of indictment but were bullied by the US into dropping the idea. The war crimes iis already a matter of record and needs only the motions of a trial for democracy's sake. The breaches of the Geneva Convention are a war crime as is legislated by the UN Charter. Guantamo is breach of the Convention - that is not arguable now. Gomez is complicit in this as the author of the "rationale" that Bush used unsuccessfully. Unprovoked agression by one state against another is also a war crime as Americans fought so strongly to prove at the Nuremberg trials. Guilt is not an issue. Bringing the perpetrators to trial is the only problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 No member state will do so. Belgium actually did start the process of indictment but were bullied by the US into dropping the idea.The war crimes iis already a matter of record and needs only the motions of a trial for democracy's sake. The breaches of the Geneva Convention are a war crime as is legislated by the UN Charter. Guantamo is breach of the Convention - that is not arguable now. Gomez is complicit in this as the author of the "rationale" that Bush used unsuccessfully. Unprovoked agression by one state against another is also a war crime as Americans fought so strongly to prove at the Nuremberg trials. Guilt is not an issue. Bringing the perpetrators to trial is the only problem. Why didn't you just cut and past the Red Star editorial? Should Canada indict Bush? But in all seriousness though, why hasn't any country/body followed through with this, if they feel this is such a pressing mater? Are they all hot air? Or does this come full circle with my post of a couple of days ago in the free trade thread........Might makes right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 But in all seriousness though, why hasn't any country/body followed through with this, if they feel this is such a pressing mater? Are they all hot air? Because the UN gave the USA exemption from taking responsibility for any war crimes. Under pressure, to be sure but I do think the UN really blew it on this decision. The cannot be tried at the International Criminal Court either as they refused to join. The USA will not have this exemption from prosecution for war crimes whenever their year is up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Because the UN gave the USA exemption from taking responsibility for any war crimes. Under pressure, to be sure but I do think the UN really blew it on this decision. And why was that exemption put into place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eureka Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 You may have noticed that I was suggesting this long before Walkom wrote about it - on other threads. I also emailed the Star some time ago about this. I wonder where Walkom got the inspiration for his column. He writes it better than I could though I think I could outdo him on the polemics. The US got its exemption because George Bush threw a tantrum and the other powers needed the US to retain a little stability at the time. That exemption does not prevent any state from indicting Bush and Co. and trying them if they can catch them. Remember Kissinger and Pinochet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted November 18, 2004 Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 And why was that exemption put into place? That is right Eureka; Bush more of a less threatened to scuttle the UN without this extra ordinary protection; rendering it pretty useless without the main player onboard. However, backbones have been straightened and the USA will no longer have this unfair exclusion for taking responsibility for its actions. Now that the USA is up to its ears in trouble in Iraq and wants other countries to come to its rescur; tey are not being quite so arrogant and have agreed to accept any blame proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted November 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2004 Who's going to charge Bush? Who has the moxy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.