The Middle East part 2

[Bernadotte 0]

What AP has done here, ignorantly or deliberately, is to lump all these minor activities together into a single operations...

Exactly.  Thank you, ShinRaden.  And out in front of all these media merged operations they throw the deaths of 2 Israeli kids as if that was the initial primary reason for the retaliation, when in fact the terrorism/retaliation cycle has been spinning like a revolving door for ages.

Avon, unless you wish to argue that a mortar can travel the length of Gaza please spare us the spam.  The same goes for spamming us with a timeline that doesn't even include the rocket attack that killed the 2 kids.  You are understandably very territorial about this whole topic but if the media choose to cover an Israeli operation in Northern Gaza without detailing every militant activity happening elsewhere then please take it up with them, not me.

Enough justification before the children were killed to go in, no?

Who's questioning the justification?  Please pull your head out of your ass long enough to notice that this is about media distortion of the chain of events.  Not justification.

*Exits the thread*

Good riddance!  

[theavonlady 2]

What AP has done here, ignorantly or deliberately, is to lump all these minor activities together into a single operations...

Exactly.  Thank you, ShinRaden.  And out in front of all these media merged operations they throw the deaths of 2 Israeli kids as if that was the initial primary reason for the retaliation, when in fact the terrorism/retaliation cycle has been spinning like a revolving door for ages.

What's spinning here is the same old "cycle of violence" nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]Avon, unless you wish to argue that a mortar can travel the length of Gaza please spare us the spam.

Blah blah!

Quote[/b] ]The same goes for spamming us with a timeline that doesn't even include the rocket attack that killed the 2 kids.

Blah blah!

In the article Gaza Cut into Sections, you would have found the link to another article, Five Victims of Holiday Terror Buried. I had assumed you could have figured that out by yourself.

Quote[/b] ]You are understandably very territorial about this whole topic

It is you that hogs most of the ME thread.

Quote[/b] ]but if the media choose to cover an Israeli operation in Northern Gaza without detailing every militant activity happening elsewhere then please take it up with them, not me.

Why don't you be the one to send a letter to the editor and complain? It's you who's been decieved - not I.

Good night, all.

[Bernadotte 0]

What's spinning here is the same old "cycle of violence" nonsense.

Yeah sure and the Earth is flat isn't it.  

In the article Gaza Cut into Sections, you would have found the link to another article, Five Victims of Holiday Terror Buried.

This is obviously one of those unique AvonLady timelines that lets you bury the main event of 29 Sept in a 1 Oct article.  Well done!!

Quote[/b] ]You are understandably very territorial about this whole topic

It is you that hogs most of the ME thread.

LOL  How territorial of you.

When was the last time you initiated a discussion in any of the 400+ pages of ME topic?  (Hint: never)

When was the last time you posted a response in these threads that wasn't filled with racist, rightwing paranoia?  (Hint: never)

Sadly, you don't seem to understand how important your nation's problem is to the rest of the world.  And your frontline perspectives could be of great value in this discussion if you could only manage to post them without trying to make all us outsiders feel like shit for caring.

Quote[/b] ]but if the media choose to cover an Israeli operation in Northern Gaza without detailing every militant activity happening elsewhere then please take it up with them, not me.

Why don't you be the one to send a letter to the editor and complain? It's you who's been decieved - not I.

Your the one who complained about the S. Gaza mortar attack victim being left out - not I.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who's questioning the justification?  Please pull your head out of your ass long enough to notice that this is about media distortion of the chain of events.  Not justification.

Who cares if it a raid happened before the children death? WoW, who cares it small thing was changed from "before" to "after". The rocket thing was not "new" but it has happen before. The "raid" before the children death was to try to destory those types of rockets that killed them but they "failed". It really turned in to a major operation after the children were killed (more resources were used). The before and after bullshit does not really change a thing. So, what is your true motivation? Pals. are not getting a fair shake in what caused this current op.????

[Bernadotte 0]

Who cares if it a raid happened before the children death?

A lot of people.

Quote[/b] ]So, what is your true motivation?

LOL  As if I would waste my time trying to discuss any of this with you.

Just go away.  Thanks.  Bye.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]A lot of people.

Explain, please....since I'm slow....

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Explain, please....since I'm slow....

The UN for example, of course without the USA

Slow ? Yes, obviously.

[theavonlady 2]

The UN for example

Yep.

Quote[/b] ]The wisdom of nations

Oct. 9, 2004 18:17

By ANNE BAYEFSKY

This year's General Assembly has got off to a roaring start with the usual priorities. In mid-September, the well-funded UN apparatus dedicated to the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict swung into full gear. The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held its annual Conference of Civil Society in Support of Palestinian People.

It was opened on September 13 by Kieran Prendergast, under-secretary-general for political affairs, who represented Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The proceedings are webcast, archived, and distributed as UN documents,courtesy of the UN regular budget – 22% of which comes from US taxpayers.

This year the proceedings included a media workshop, which was concerned with the "US media...commitment to such sterile paradigms as 'Israel's self-defense'" – their quotations, not mine.

Another workshop, concerning the International Court of Justice decision on Israel's security fence, studied "the South Africa experience" and itemized the activities of the "general public information phase" to include "promot[ing] a sporting, cultural, and economic boycott."

Then there was the Interreligious Mobilization Workshop that shared the good news that "one church is preparing an educational video... to challenge Christian Zionism in moderate Christian communities."

And don't forget the International Protection Workshop which, instead of mentioning 15-year-old suicide bombers, called for a "boycott of Israeli goods" under a section titled "Pressure on Israel."

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL'S turn arrived the following week. Kofi Annan opened the General Assembly on September 21 by naming only one country on earth as guilty of violating international law through the "excessive use of force."

You guessed it – Israel. A previous version of the speech, which was distributed to journalists, condemned "Israeli operations presented as 'self-defense'" – Annan's quotations, not mine.

In a well-known UN tactic, the secretary-general didn't actually use the word "Sudan," referring instead to the ethereal "Darfur region" – about which he would now "investigate reports of human rights violations...and determine whether acts of genocide have been committed."

In fact, nowhere in Annan's speech could he muster the word "democracy," a concern one might have considered central to our time.

The secretary-general, however, is not alone. September 30 was the last day of two weeks of speeches from prime ministers and foreign ministers clarifying expectations for the session to come. Here's a sampling:

Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs Farouk Al-Shara: "Syria condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations... Arab... and... Islamic... conventions... distinguish between terrorism and the legitimate right of people lingering under foreign occupation to resist occupation..."

Lebanon's Deputy Prime Minister Issam Fares: "There are Syrian forces in Lebanon. These forces are on our territory upon the request of the Lebanese government..."

Foreign Minister of Iran Kamal Kharrazi: "[P]revent[ing] the proliferation of nuclear weapons...must be done...in a comprehensive and non-discriminatory manner.... We insist on our right to technology for peaceful purposes... Israel.. [is] the single greatest threat to regional and global peace and security."

Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi (chairman of the 100+ Members of the Non-Aligned Movement): "[C]hange must be effected without sacrificing certain immutable principles such as...non-interference in the domestic affairs of states..."

Foreign Minister of France, Michel Barnier: "...the UN remains the one irreplaceable, legitimate framework for harnessing... mobilization and translating it into collective action... The organization... has a natural vocation to be at the center of counterterrorism measures...The UN, through its legitimacy and ever-increasing effectiveness, must be the instrument of the universal conscience of which it remains the crucible."

But not to worry. On September 18 the International Atomic Energy Agency passed a resolution that "calls again on Iran, as a.... confidence-building measure, voluntarily to reconsider its decision to start construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water... [and] decides that at its November [25] session it will decide whether or not further steps are appropriate..."

So what's another two months here or there while the leading exporter of terrorism is by some estimates less than 12 months away from self-sufficiency in the production of nuclear weapons?

In the first presidential debate on September 29, Senator John Kerry declared the UN a centerpiece of his would-be American foreign policy. According to Kerry, "You don't help yourself with other nations...when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations."

Any use by a president of the option of a "preemptive strike" must be done "in a way...that passes the global test where... you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

While Rome burns.

The writer is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.

Quote[/b] ]The frequent abstainers club

Oct. 12, 2004 6:39

By EVELYN GORDON

Imagine a time when the Arab states no longer have an automatic Security Council majority

The UN's relentless anti-Israel bias, so aptly described by Anne Bayefsky in these pages last Friday, sometimes appears as inevitable as death and taxes.

Yet a survey of the Security Council's voting record over the last 15 years reveals that there has in fact been a slight, but potentially significant, improvement. And that improvement is largely thanks to a new policy adopted by US President George Bush.

For years the US has vetoed resolutions it deemed too biased against Israel. But during the late 1980s and 1990s Washington was unable to sway any other council member to its side: With monotonous regularity such resolutions failed by a vote of 14-1.

Over the last four years, however, there has been a shift. While no country has yet joined the US in voting "no," there have consistently been two to four abstentions - usually from Europe, occasionally from Africa as well.

Since Security Council resolutions need nine votes to pass, this means that the council has been inching toward a situation in which anti-Israel resolutions could be defeated even without an American veto.

Bush achieved this shift by setting a clear, consistent standard for what constitutes bias: Condemnations of Israel are biased unless the resolution also condemns anti-Israel terror.

And, more importantly, vague condemnations of "all violence against civilians" do not qualify. The resolution must explicitly condemn Palestinian perpetrators such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

That is such a simple and reasonable demand that some countries have found it impossible to ignore. Yet the Palestinians, and hence the Arab countries that sponsor Security Council resolutions on their behalf, have never once been willing to agree.

The result is that a handful of nations that once voted consistently against Israel - England, Germany, Norway, Romania, Bulgaria and Cameroon - turned into frequent abstainers.

John Danforth, Washington's current ambassador to the UN, provided an eloquent example of how the new system works during last week's debate on the latest anti-Israel resolution, which would have condemned Israel's current military operation in Gaza and demanded that it cease immediately.

Danforth did not say that the US was unwilling in principle to condemn the operation, which began after Hamas killed two Israeli children in Sderot with a Kassam rocket launched from Gaza on September 29. That would have been unacceptable to every other Security Council member, and therefore counterproductive. Instead he explained in detail why the resolution was unbalanced as it stood and what would have to be added to make it acceptable to the US.

The resolution, he said in addresses to the council on Monday and Tuesday, "tends to put the blame on Israel and absolves terrorists in the Middle East - people who shoot rockets into civilian areas, people who are responsible for killing children, Hamas. Nothing was said in this resolution about that problem."

Specifically, he said, "it does not mention even one of the 450 Kassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years It does not mention the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies.

"It does not mention the undisputed fact that Kassam rockets have no military purpose - that they are crude, imprecise devices of terror designed to kill civilians. It does not mention that Hamas took 'credit' for killing these Israeli children and maiming many other Israeli civilians

"It does not mention that the terrorists hide among Palestinian civilians, provoking their deaths, and then use those deaths as fodder for their hatred, lawlessness, and efforts to derail the peace process.

"It does not mention the complete failure of the Palestinian Authority to meet its commitments to establish security among its people.

"It does not mention any of these facts, nor does it acknowledge the legitimate need for Israel to defend itself."

BLUNTLY ACCUSING the council of acting "as the adversary of the Israelis and cheerleader to the Palestinians," he charged that the resolution "would be a very terrible statement for the Security Council to make" because it effectively acquiesced in terror against Israelis by failing to condemn it.

"Silence indicates consent," he said. "The silence here today is deafening."

In essence, all Danforth asked was that the resolution not implicitly condone terrorism by failing even to mention the specific terrorist act that sparked the Gaza operation. That is a demand that would be difficult for any civilized nation to reject - and Britain, Germany and Romania, acknowledging its justice, therefore decided to abstain.

There are, as Saul Singer noted in these pages on Friday, other steps the US could and should be taking in an effort to reshape the UN's attitude toward terror - and not only with regard to terror against Israel.

Indeed, one need only look at the list of countries that had no qualms about voting "yes" on last week's resolution to realize just how much remains to be done. They included two key European nations, France and Spain; two countries, Russia and the Philippines, that have themselves suffered devastating terror attacks, and could therefore be expected to understand how much is at stake; and two Latin American countries, Brazil and Chile, that, as democracies, could also have been expected to uphold basic standards of decency.

Nevertheless, Bush has made an important start with his new policy on anti-Israel resolutions. And for that, he deserves full credit.

The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.

Quote[/b] ]Slow ? Yes, obviously.

I predict that the next few years will show who's really slow here - and it isn't BillyBob.

Have a nice day!

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Nevertheless, Bush has made an important start with his new policy on anti-Israel resolutions. And for that, he deserves full credit.

I can see why you support Bush, but come on, Kerry would not change that policy anyway. Wasn't such voting policy only adopted after 9/11? Before that Bush couldn't care less about the Mid-East issues. No matter who the president would have been then he would have gotten tough on mid-east terrorism too and thus adopt such voting policy.

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]Nevertheless, Bush has made an important start with his new policy on anti-Israel resolutions. And for that, he deserves full credit.

I can see why you support Bush

Actually, you can't - not from the above article, at least.

To me, all the issues count: US economy, US security and foreign policy, the environment, etc. Yes, Bush is more to my liking vis-a-vis Israel but in that respect, I don't see major differences.

I support Bush only because I believe he's the better candidate and, no, that is not a compliment - at least not with the candidates available this election round.

Quote[/b] ]but come on, Kerry would not change that policy anyway.

Global Testing, 1, 2, 3...................

[Balschoiw 0]

Hey Avon !

Don´t know what makes you feel good about the single sided veto - protection you have been granted by the US.

Looks like you´re pretty alone with your attitude of "We kill for the right thing"

Interestingly enough Sharon even faces opposition from his own own army.

Want to comment that aswell ?

Are they "unisraelian" and supporting terrorists, right ?

Sharon rejects army advice to halt offensive

Quote[/b] ]JERUSALEM, Oct 11: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has snubbed the advice of his army chiefs and ordered the continuation of a massive military offensive in the northern Gaza Strip, according to senior officials.

They said some high-ranking army officers had told Mr Sharon that Operation Days of Penitence, which has claimed the lives of 110 Palestinians since it was launched on Sept 28, had now met its main objective and managed to halt rocket attacks on southern Israel, according to public radio and the Haaretz newspaper.

But Mr Sharon, keen to deliver a decisive blow to Gaza-based militant factions before next year's planned pullout from the territory, told top brass that they must push on with the operation.

Two children were killed in the southern Israeli town of Sderot late last month by a Qassam rocket, named after the armed wing of the radical Hamas movement. Much of the operation has been centred on the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the territory.

But Haaretz cited senior officers as saying troops were being exposed to an unnecessarily high risk by remaining in the densely populated camp and that rocket launchers had also been moved from Jabalya.

VOTE ON PULLOUT: The Israeli prime minister moved on Monday to accelerate his plan to pull out of the Gaza Strip by announcing that a parliamentary vote on the controversial project would take place in two weeks.

"I am going to submit my plan for debate and a vote in the Knesset in two weeks only, on Oct 25," Mr Sharon told MPs on the opening day of the winter session of parliament.

The announcement means MPs will give their verdict on his so-called disengagement plan just a day after a cabinet vote. Sharon had previously indicated he would put the issue to a vote in the 120-seat parliament on Nov 3.

The move represents a significant gamble by Sharon who lacks a majority in parliament after traditional allies quit or were sacked from the coalition in June. Mr Sharon's plan, which has been enthusiastically endorsed by Washington, will see Israel pull all its troops and the 8,000 Jewish settlers living in Gaza out of he territory next year. It also envisages a strengthening of control over larger West Bank settlements. -AFP

Quote[/b] ]I predict that the next few years will show who's really slow here - and it isn't BillyBob.

Yeah sure. The only thing you will see is a worldwide opposition to the acts of Israel and the US and the cut of the single state veto system at the UN. Good morning.

The veto is a good thing, but if it gets abused in that amount, it´s time to get it out of business.

Edit:

Quote[/b] ]Actually, you can't - not from the above article, at least.

Let´s better say commentaries, shall we ?

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]To me, all the issues count: US economy, US security and foreign policy, the environment, etc. Yes, Bush is more to my liking vis-a-vis Israel but in that respect, I don't see major differences.

Economy and environment do play a part, honestly? Well that does belongs to the other thread entirely....

Quote[/b] ]Global Testing, 1, 2, 3...................

So you must see a major difference between candidates in US-Israeli policies, after all? Based on what?

I'm sure you can see that Bush's current Israel-PA policy is based solely on terror scare he got after 9/11. Before that he couldn't care less about Israel and PA issues, unlike the previous previous president which really put in the effort and will.

[Balschoiw 0]

And only for the record Avon. This is the other side of the story:

Israel's Gaza offensive shows no sign of let-up after two deadly weeks

Quote[/b] ]GAZA CITY, (AFP) - Israel's massive military operation into the northern Gaza Strip (news - web sites) shows no sign of a let-up after two deadly weeks that have seen 111 Palestinians killed, mainly children, and Qassam rockets still being fired into Israeli territory.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) has defied the advice of senior military commanders to withdraw from Gaza, Israeli media has reported.

Senior officers were reported to have told Sharon that Operation Days of Penitence, launched 14 days ago in a bid to halt rocket attacks on southern Israel, had now met its main objective.

But Sharon, keen to deliver a decisive blow to Gaza-based militant factions before next year's planned pullout, told top brass that they must push on with the operation.

Much of the operation has been centered on the Jabaliya refugee camp in the north of the territory. But Haaretz cited senior officers as saying troops were being exposed to an unnecessarily high risk by remaining in the densely populated camp and that rocket launchers had also been moved from Jabaliya.

A total of 111 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Days of Penitence, which is the army's deadliest offensive in the territory, began on September 28.

Jabaliya, home to 103,646 refugees, is a squalid network of narrow streets where most people are more concerned about the lack of electricity, running water and food than Qassam rockets.

"It's terrible," said Mohammed. "You go to the hospital and see horrible injuries and children killed by indiscriminate firing directed by Israeli drones. Some people in Jabaliya don't even have water or milk to feed babies."

The United Nations (news - web sites) Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), which is responsible for the camp, has only been able to deliver three convoys of humanitarian aid, with a fourth due on Tuesday.

Those convoys will feed around 9,000 people.

"The situation around the camp is extremely bad," said Lionel Brisson, director of UNRWA operations in Gaza. "We're doing less than expected because we cannot bring in supplies."

Brisson questioned the Israeli tactic of collective punishment.

"The regime of closures is one of strangulation," he said. "Israelis are invoking security reasons but it is affecting the whole population, and making people more desperate ... I'm not convinced it'll work.

"There is a general fatigue in the (Gaza) population. They want peace, to live in peace.

"The economic situation in Gaza is very negative. Some 70 percent of the population are living below the poverty line ... and unemployment stands at 44 percent," Brisson said, adding that 120 houses a month are being demolished by Israeli forces.

Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom indicated Monday that the operation in Jabaliya would soon be over although Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was more circumspect.

"We are in the last stages of the operation in Jabaliya after the army registered a clear success and hit the terrorist infrastructure," Shalom told reporters.

"There is no doubt that we are entering the final stages of the operation."

Mofaz said that "the operation is proceeding as planned and in the next few days we will review the situation and discuss its continuation."

So killing a majority of children is the right way to do it. Great.

And about your billybob support. Well people in denial of reality sometimes have to learn it the hard way. I bet he will have extremely much fun when he´s going to Iraq wich I seriously do doubt. He´s not even a verbal hero, just a teen with no real arguments and a chewing gum opinion. Proposing something and actually doing it are two pairs of shoes and I can´t see billybob grabbing a gun and going to free Iraq. Certainly not.

[theavonlady 2]

So killing a majority of children is the right way to do it. Great.

Quote[/b] ]Flirting with death.

Monday, October 11, 2004

Israeli anti-terror efforts are regularly criticized in the world media for causing Palestinian civilian casualites. The IDF makes extraordinary efforts at lessening such casualties (including endangering Israeli soldiers' lives on a regular basis), but the criticism remains. Part of the problem is the fact that armed Palestinians oftentimes take cover among children and civilians (click on picture), placing them in harm's way in the most irresponsible manner imaginable.

Here's some insight to the problem from the perspective of the kids: Peter Hermann of the Baltimore Sun reports on Palestinian kids "flirting with death" by cozying up to the armed men in the heat of battle. He quotes Mahmoud Youssef Abu Saleh, a 12 year-old-boy living in the Jabaliya refugee camp:

<ul>Mahmoud says the attraction of the fighters is often too much to ignore. "Sometimes we go to help," he says. "Sometimes we go to throw stones. But we are afraid. Sometimes children go because they want to be martyred." Those who participate, he says, "become big men" in the camp.

This article blames the problem on a breakdown of traditional authority -- Palestinian fathers who would prevent their children from running to battle sites are no longer taken seriously by their children, who see their protective fathers as weak.

So what about the armed Hamasniks themselves refusing to allow children in their midst during gunfights? Why doesn't Peter Herman talk with them, demanding an explanation for this extreme form of negligence?

Greg Myre of the New York Times also filed an article on this topic, which stresses Palestinian 'defiance' and willingness to die as a 'martyr.'

But go ahead and keep promoting the world presses whitewashed version of events.

Get into the Pal kid's heads and watch some TV.

[Acecombat 0]

Avons right its a major conspiracy by the world press against Israel , oh god help

[theavonlady 2]

Avons right its a major conspiracy by the world press against Israel , oh god help    

Hmmmmm.......

I bring pics, Pal TV videos, background material.

You bring snide remarks about paranoid conspiracies. Not surprising for a Saudi like you, I suppose.

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]"Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the kingdom," the Saudi Press Agency quoted Crown Prince Abdullah as telling a gathering of princes in Jiddah.

Talk about living in denial.

Quote[/b] ]Palestinian fathers who would prevent their children from running to battle sites are no longer taken seriously by their children

That pretty much applies to 90% of world's teens...fighting is being done on their doorsteps, of course they get involved. You can't blame always the daddies when it comes to teenagers and kids.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I bring pics, Pal TV videos, background material.

So ?

As a matter of fact at least 111 palestians got killed within 2 weeks. They got killed within refugee camps. The majority of the ones who got killed were children.

Even the israelian army suggested to end the operations.

It had no effect on missile attacks. It killed a lot of innocent refugees.

That´s what the news say, and I don´t care about your whitewashing of reality with some sided media stories, that aren´t even the news but commentaries.

You maybe will find out oneday that there is a difference between reporting what happens and taking a position on the issue.

Let´s keep it with facts, numbers, victims, their average age, their choice of weapons, their motivation and the result the israelian actions will have. Do you seriously think that killing children will stop terror ? In my oppinion it will only fuel the fire. But how can I dare to state something like that ? Common sense ? Or just a 0.2 seconds lasting thinking process ?

[theavonlady 2]

LOL! Good luck with reality, Bals.

You would make a great UNSG. Go for it!

[Acecombat 0]

Avons right its a major conspiracy by the world press against Israel , oh god help    

Hmmmmm.......

I bring pics, Pal TV videos, background material.

You bring snide remarks about paranoid conspiracies. Not surprising for a Saudi like you, I suppose.

LOL

Meet the Crazies ... we should have a TV series on that name here in the ME i think , after all it takes 2 to party

Keep up avon you always make me laugh with those witty paranoic no nothing about the other but make remarks with conviction on others personality.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]LOL! Good luck with reality, Bals.

You would make a great UNSG. Go for it!

I have no problems with reality Avon. Argue me on facts but leave out your tupperware gossip.

So pls tell me wich of the above summarize from the news is wrong, or not reality. To make it easy here they are point by point:

1. As a matter of fact at least 111 palestians got killed within 2 weeks.

2. They got killed within refugee camps.

3. The majority of the ones who got killed were children.

4. Even the israelian army suggested to end the operations.

5. It had no effect on missile attacks.

6. It killed a lot of innocent refugees.

Okay I´m happily awaiting your answer, Mrs Reality.

A big LOL and another one about your funny attempts. LOL

Quote[/b] ]You would make a great UNSG. Go for it!

I don´t think so. I prefer actively fighting for those who are in danger of getting killed or taking out those who are responsible for actions indicrimating people who cannot defend themselves. I prefer to do it the hard way, not the lawyer way. Bureaucracy has never been one of my likes, same with politics. It´s just too fishy for me, so if you allow I will keep doing what I am doing right now.

But beeing compared to Kofi Annan isn´t the badest thing at all. Although I really don´t fit into that scheme...

[Blake 0]

On some lighter note...

Everyone who thinks he's well educated about Mid-East conflict should absolutety see the 1999 documentary 'Israel and the Arabs: The 50 years war', running altogether whopping 5 hours.

Probably best diplomacy/conflict/war documentary I've ever seen. Meticulously detailed, expertly narrated with contemporary footage and big shots of the period such as  King Hussein,Shamir,Arafat,Baker,Bush Sr,McNamara,Sharon,Perez,Rabin,Schultz,Kissinger,Soviet diplomats, Egyptian Chief-of-Staff,Syrian generals, Israeli pilots etc.telling first-hand what they did during storms of ca.1948-1998 period.

I obtained it 'from the net' since it's probably not on DVD anywhere, sadly...but couldn't really recommend anything more than this for 'in-depth' knowledge about the history of this conflict.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]And about your billybob support. Well people in denial of reality sometimes have to learn it the hard way. I bet he will have extremely much fun when he´s going to Iraq wich I seriously do doubt. He´s not even a verbal hero, just a teen with no real arguments and a chewing gum opinion. Proposing something and actually doing it are two pairs of shoes and I can´t see billybob grabbing a gun and going to free Iraq. Certainly not.

WoW! Chewing gum opinion? When did I say that I was going to Iraq? The US military will be hardly in Iraq (that what Kerry and Bush says) by the time I graduate from Maryland.....

Quote[/b] ]

4. Even the israelian army suggested to end the operations.

5. It had no effect on missile attacks.

Not because of the death toll but because the Israeli army said objective complete....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....2062953

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Not because of the death toll but because the Israeli army said objective complete....

Did I say different ?

Quote[/b] ]When did I say that I was going to Iraq?

Multiple times.

Quote[/b] ]The US military will be hardly in Iraq (that what Kerry and Bush says) by the time I graduate from Maryland.....

Disagreed, as the USA plan to have a permanent status there.

Oh, and I´m sure there will be some other hotspot by the time that you can avoid billybob.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Disagreed, as the USA plan to have a permanent status there.

I thought Kerry said no....

Quote[/b] ]

Multiple times.

That dealt with a draft and people trying to bait me... By the time I enlist and finish training, I hope they do need me in Iraq but (to make people happy) if they do, I'm willing to go....

Quote[/b] ]Did I say different ?

Quote[/b] ]

5. It had no effect on missile attacks.