In the US, Gaza is a different war
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="-gtspectre-"][QUOTE="ffaf666"]this is just stupid saying hamas is using civlians as shields, israel has many drones and wheres the footage. Stesilaus
There you go:
Human Shields - Hamas in action
Hamas human shields
Hamas using children as human shield
That makes Hamas no worse than Winston Churchill, who strongly advocated the use of civilian shipping to convey munitions from the US to Britain during WWI.
Yes, that statement is both sincere and accurate!
Research the truth about the sinking of the Lusitania and the use of US citizens as human shields by the despicable coward, Winston Churchill.
That's not really the same thing. He proposed using civilian shipping because he knew german u-boats wouldnt sink them. Hamas uses civilians so that they will be killed and the world will disapprove of Israel's actions.
Most people here are arguing over something completely different than what the OP meant.
The whole point of the article is that the media tries to pass the view that the israelis get hurt as much as the palestinians, and they'll latch on to every straw to pass that view. Why spend ten pages on schools that got hit by a rocket without spending a page or two about the palestinian casualties by clusterbombs? Why say that the total deathtoll is around 400 because of this war when you can also say that 4 israelis died, and 400 palestinians? The media is supposed to tell people OBJECTIVELY what's happening around the world. Yet the media nowadays is trying to tell people what they want to hear about the rest of the world.
As for my judgement about this war: everybody is on the wrong side.
[QUOTE="DigitalExile"]Way too long to read. I clicked the link and saw dead babies. Dead babies isn't a biased image? Why don't they show pictures of Hamas soldiers firing rockets from schools, and homes, making kids, and those same babies, targets in the first place?Vanadium2k8That's what the article is about, the untold Palestinian side of the story. 'Untold'? I think you and others like you have done a pretty good job of telling your side of the story for a long time now. :P
Im curious to see how the investigation of allegations of war crimes will go. I think it will either be a mock investigation where nothing will happen, or in the rare and I do mean RARE case that the UN actually finds its integrity and starts holding ALL nations to the same standards, the US will just veto any resolution or anything that could possibly go against Israel. If some African leader invaded another nation the way that Bush did, how much do you want to bet they would be at the Hague right now?II_Seraphim_IIYeah, like the UN has done so much to challenge Robert Mugabe.
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Im curious to see how the investigation of allegations of war crimes will go. I think it will either be a mock investigation where nothing will happen, or in the rare and I do mean RARE case that the UN actually finds its integrity and starts holding ALL nations to the same standards, the US will just veto any resolution or anything that could possibly go against Israel. If some African leader invaded another nation the way that Bush did, how much do you want to bet they would be at the Hague right now?MetalGear_NintyYeah, like the UN has done so much to challenge Robert Mugabe.
Well, technically thats a SADC and AU (African Union) issues. Its a political crisis, that is being handled by the region as it should. What happens in ZImbabwe only affect Zimbabwe, the middle east on the other hand is an international crisis. I think what the UN should do rather than getting involved in conflicts that dont affect the international community, is give its support to the governing bodies in place to handle such situations. Rather than let outside nations such as the US and Uk interfere in African politics (seeing as how that never ends well) they should put their full support on the regional comitee that is in place to deal with these issues. The reality of the matter is that Tsvangirai is just as bad as Mugabe. Both of them are more concerned with their own political ambitions than the wellfare f the people. The only difference between the 2 is that Tsvangirai is willing to do as the west pleases.
One thing I have learned is that the West cares more about its interests rather than those of the people of the respective nations. In all honesty, England interfering in Zimbabwean politics doesnt exactly give out the right signal. And the fact that Tsvangirai political funds are from foreign nations (an illegal act I might add) just adds to the notion that Western Nations are willing to pervert the legal structures of nations for their own self interests. The best course for the west would have been to let SADC and the AU handle the situation. I have been following the situation closely for a paper im writing and I have found that both sides, Mugabe and Tsvangirai have been putting their own self interests at the expense of the people. The west doesnt back the best leader for African nations, it backs the most submissive leader. Anyways, they seem to have come upon an agreement at the latest meeting to form the governement. I think the process begins feb5.
P.S. About Mugabe, as much as I dislike him, he hasnt done anything that is under the Hague worthy. There havent been mass genocides or such and you cant blame a cholera epidemic on a person. Also you are cherry picking. Didnt the Hague send an arrest warrant for the Sudanese president? Where is Bush's? Or Olmert's? Which western leader has ever stood before the hague?
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Im curious to see how the investigation of allegations of war crimes will go. I think it will either be a mock investigation where nothing will happen, or in the rare and I do mean RARE case that the UN actually finds its integrity and starts holding ALL nations to the same standards, the US will just veto any resolution or anything that could possibly go against Israel. If some African leader invaded another nation the way that Bush did, how much do you want to bet they would be at the Hague right now?II_Seraphim_IIYeah, like the UN has done so much to challenge Robert Mugabe. Well, technically thats a SADC and AU (African Union) issues. Its a political crisis, that is being handled by the region as it should. What happens in ZImbabwe only affect Zimbabwe, the middle east on the other hand is an international crisis. I think what the UN should do rather than getting involved in conflicts that dont affect the international community, is give its support to the governing bodies in place to handle such situations. Rather than let outside nations such as the US and Uk interfere in African politics (seeing as how that never ends well) they should put their full support on the regional comitee that is in place to deal with these issues. The reality of the matter is that Tsvangirai is just as bad as Mugabe. Both of them are more concerned with their own political ambitions than the wellfare f the people. The only difference between the 2 is that Tsvangirai is willing to do as the west pleases. One thing I have learned is that the West cares more about its interests rather than those of the people of the respective nations. In all honesty, England interfering in Zimbabwean politics doesnt exactly give out the right signal. And the fact that Tsvangirai political funds are from foreign nations (an illegal act I might add) just adds to the notion that Western Nations are willing to pervert the legal structures of nations for their own self interests. The best course for the west would have been to let SADC and the AU handle the situation. I have been following the situation closely for a paper im writing and I have found that both sides, Mugabe and Tsvangirai have been putting their own self interests at the expense of the people. The west doesnt back the best leader for African nations, it backs the most submissive leader. Anyways, they seem to have come upon an agreement at the latest meeting to form the governement. I think the process begins feb5 Well technically Gaza isn't a nation -- so it isn't an international crisis at all. I don't think you can blame the UK and USA for getting involved and trying to prevent more people from dying at the hands of the twisted despot that is Mugabe. And as far as I can tell Tsvangarai hasn't indirectly killed masses of his own people, so I don't see how he is as bad as Mugabe.
Winning the crusades has never been so fun.Looniethe muslims started that war
And as far as I can tell Tsvangarai hasn't indirectly killed masses of his own people, so I don't see how he is as bad as Mugabe.
The situation within the middle east directly effects the situation of the entire world. It is the center of Arab, and United States interests. It is one of the main causes of anger towards western nations, one of the main reason for the increase in terrorism. Isreal's existence affects the neighboring arab nations and the wars that have broken out in the area with arab nations make it an international incident.As for the situation in Zimbabwe, you should read up on it a bit more. Both sides are equally as guilty. Tsvangirai wants absolute power, that is why he has been holding out for so long. Sure in the US and the UK you hear about Mugabe being unreasonable and so on and so forth, but the SADC, including Tabo Mbeki have made it clear that Tsvangirai is very indicisive. Everytime they came to a conclusion that was agreed upon by SADC, he would agree, and then go back on his words a few days later, as if someone was telling him to not go ahead with the process. From the information I have been able to gather, the logical assumption is that he was hoping for the country to get so bad that the people would openly revolt against Mugabe thus allowing him to come in as President. Think about it from the West's perspective, whom I might add are funding his entire political career, what do they gain if Mugabe is still in power? If Mugabe is still president and Tsvangirai is the PM as was suggested and agreed upon by SADC, which I might add is the governing body for regional issues which the world must respect, they cannot go forth with whatever agenda they want without having difficulties. And yes they do have an Agenda, because why else would they illegally fund the politcal campaign of a candidate in a country other than their own?
Tsvangirai must be president in order to make the the money worthwhile. His nation is in tatters yet he travels around the world on private jets barely setting foot in his own nation to talk to his own supporters. This is akin to CEOs getting bonuses while the economy suffers. Tsvangirai is the new manchurian candidate for the west, and the only way he can serve his purpose is if he is president. I believe the only reason he decided to join this time is because his term as chair person of the MDC ends mid feb and thus he would lose everthing, and because SADC was starting to inforce their rulings. Remember he had recently denied being in agreement even though all the SADC nations clearly stated that all parties agreed to the proposition? To think that Tsvangirai is the savior and Mugabe is the devil is a very ignorant position. Both sides are equally as flawed and responsible for the situation at hand, and in this case, the West is looking out for its own interests.
Palestinians didn't win themselves any points with Americans when they danced around after 9/11.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment