Who is the real villian? Iran, for depriving their nation of Back to the Future Part II. I wonder how they explained the jump from 1 to 3?
Again I ask, what the **** has any of this got to do with the threat each nation's nuclear program poses? Is it impossible to keep a thread on topic. But I will say this. Dev your attempts to justify the actions of the Israeli forces on the flotilla raid and sympayhise with them is beyond reprehensible. You said you were a British soldier, were you serving in the bogside in Jan 1972 perchance as your attempts at justification are on a level with trying to justify the actions of the British that day.
Have you read either of the 2 UN reports on the Flotilla Raid? A simple Yes or no will suffice Jacky.
Yes I havent I'm waiting for the films UN report I AND II. Hope they don't get banned here in Ireland though or I'll have to charge myself a fee
No time, my career has me reading enough journal articles to make your eyes bleed so I prefer to read what largely independant papers have to say about it. These are the people who will cut through the crap and give a better assessment than any of us possibly could. Their assessments are not too flattering for the Israeli side.
You really crack me up! In your first sentence you attack the guy for going off topic. And then, in the second paragraph, go on to do exactly the same thing yourself. Wasn't it you that was issuing allegations of double standards, all over the place. As the song says "before you accuse me, take a look at yourself"
heres a good one http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/22/gaza-flotilla-un-condemns-israeli-brutality?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487 A UN-appointed panel said today that Israeli forces violated international law, "including international humanitarian and human rights law", during and after their lethal attack on a flotilla of ships attempting to break the blockade of Gaza in May. The UN Human Rights Council's fact-finding mission judged Israel's naval blockade of the Palestinian territory to be "unlawful" because there was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza at the time. The panel's report, published today, described Israel's military response to the flotilla as "disproportionate" and said it "betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality". Eight Turkish activists and one Turkish-American were killed in the raid, which prompted international criticism of both the attack and Israel's policy of blockading the Gaza Strip. Israel has since eased its embargo, although still refuses to allow full imports and exports and the free movement of people. Israel says the soldiers acted in self-defence. But the mission criticised the Israeli government for failing to co-operate with its inquiry. "Regrettably to date, no information has been given to the mission by or on behalf of the government of Israel," it said. The panel was led by Karl Hudson-Phillips, a retired judge of the international criminal court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago. The report said: "The conduct of the Israeli military and other personnel towards the flotilla passengers was not only disproportionate to the occasion but demonstrated levels of totally unnecessary and incredible violence. It betrayed an unacceptable level of brutality. Such conduct cannot be justified or condoned on security or any other grounds. It constituted grave violations of human rights law and international humanitarian law." The panel concluded that there was "clear evidence" of wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment and wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health – all crimes under the Geneva Convention. The panel expressed the hope that there would be "swift action" by the Israeli government to help victims achieve effective remedies. "The mission sincerely hopes that no impediment will be put in the way of those who suffered loss as a result of the unlawful actions of the Israeli military to be compensated adequately and promptly," it said. It described the blockade of Gaza as "totally intolerable and unacceptable in the 21st century". The Israeli government has fiercely resisted demands for an independent international inquiry into the flotilla attacks, establishing three internal investigations to avert pressure from the UN, Europe and Turkey.
So you are basing YOUR opinions on the information fed to you by other parties and criticising me for siding with the Israelis when all I am doing is giving you "quotes" from the reports by the UN? It's pointless debating this issue with you if you have a standpoint which is based on insufficient information. Next thing you'll be giving me a book review after you have read the preface. The reports certainly did criticise the IDF but they also criticised the Flotilla organisers and were extremely suspicious of their true motives, as am I.
And by the by Jacky, that was the FIRST report, that has been superced by the FULL report which was released in June 2011.
Is this the same U.N. that you were telling us is a puppet of the United States - or a different one?
So what suddenly they completely contradict the first report? Why would they suddenly do that? HINT - its called political pressure. The first report was too uncomfortable for the US and Israel to stomach hence Israels complete lack of cooperativeness and the US support of Israels refusal to accept it and support of them carrying out their own report. Dont just read things for what they are, put them in the political context of the time also
One has hundreds of nuke's the other not even a single one, one has been occupying land for over 60 years, that should help the cock...sucker that made this article, and to the other ***got...s
you choose to believe what you like the initial response was to jacky who wrote That is you making assumptions. The report has come in for widespead condemnation from the international community that usually dances to Israels tune. When that happens you know it must be bad To which I agreed by writing the exact words in a report by the UN investigation said unnecessary and credible violence, that warranted persecution [sic] for war crimes’. the 'unbiased' BBC ignored this UN report, none of its news channels bulletins included it. The focus being the BBC as they were the topic of discussion now for the first bit the report actually says 'incredible' not 'credible' as i have highlighted previously the latter part 'that warranted persecution (sic) for war crimes' is in the report without using those exact words in that order. Hence the (sic) by the author Now you can be as pedantic as you like with the actual choice of words, however the notion is there that the report clearly says that (in my words or (sic)) that it contravened the geneva convention and hence is war crime (sic). Again i have highlighted this for you earlier and 30 countries agreed with this out of 47, 15 abstaining. guess which 2 didnt? even the 2011 report, again as highlighted, although toning down its language said the force was innappropriate, the warnings not sufficient (sic)
If I was a Jew in Israel id be ****ting it if any of my neighbours had nuclear weapons....because they would use them If Israel has them then its a deterrent If it doesn't then acting suspiciously about it acts as a deterrent If no wmd are found in Israel then all neighbouring Arab states would attack....again
