U.N. report says Jenin not a massacre

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Murphyrulez
And Nemesis, it's just funny that Czar will come in after we have proven that the Palestinians were lying about the massacre, and just blow that part of the report off and once again engage in Israel bashing.... Must be nice to pick and choose what you want to hear.

Indeed. Czar quoted two things from the report: The part that flamed the palestinians (militants hiding among civilians etc.) and the part that flamed IDF (use of heavy weapons etc.). Yet you only noticed the part from his quotes that flamed Israel. Hmmmmm....

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: dribgnikcom

Wait! I thought UN was biased against Israel and that it's full of anti-semites and nazis

Actually the UN General Secretary for the UN back in the seventies was Kurt Valdeheim, a NAZI who served in the SS.

And that has what exactly to do with present-day UN? Did you know that many former nazis served in CIA? Not to mention large part of the German scientists who built the US space-program? How could the UN be anti-semitic, if their report on this issue supported Israel against palestinians?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Murphyrulez
And Nemesis, it's just funny that Czar will come in after we have proven that the Palestinians were lying about the massacre, and just blow that part of the report off and once again engage in Israel bashing.... Must be nice to pick and choose what you want to hear.

Indeed. Czar quoted two things from the report: The part that flamed the palestinians (militants hiding among civilians etc.) and the part that flamed IDF (use of heavy weapons etc.). Yet you only noticed the part from his quotes that flamed Israel. Hmmmmm....

Are you Czar's mother, boyfriend or lawyer?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Murphyrulez
And Nemesis, it's just funny that Czar will come in after we have proven that the Palestinians were lying about the massacre, and just blow that part of the report off and once again engage in Israel bashing.... Must be nice to pick and choose what you want to hear.

Indeed. Czar quoted two things from the report: The part that flamed the palestinians (militants hiding among civilians etc.) and the part that flamed IDF (use of heavy weapons etc.). Yet you only noticed the part from his quotes that flamed Israel. Hmmmmm....

Are you Czar's mother, boyfriend or lawyer?

Cute. You have no real arguments, so you must resort to argument-tactics commonly used by 10-year olds? Very intelligent of you.

 

[Mill]

This report changes nothing. Israel doesn't target innocent civilians and the Palestinians do. Yes, Israel has killed innocents by mistake but they have never targeted innocents. All Palestinians do is target innocents. Was this report even needed?

America is Pro-Israel
Europe is Pro-Palestine

That is why this debate is carried on this message board thread after thread. Nobody here is unbiased.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is why this debate is carried on this message board thread after thread. Nobody here is unbiased.
__________________________________-

Doubtlessly true, but as a non participant who has put in some small effort to understand the nature of conditioning and how it applies to the formation of belief and has done some small amount of de-conditioning training, especially laughing my ass off at myself, I think it's possible to have the intention to be objective and do reasonably well at it. Since I believe that the divine right of Israel as set forth in the Bible is hog wash, I can bring to the argument one less presupposition than some, just as an example of the types of colouration one finds that are unhelpful. About anybody can do is to try to have some modicum of information from both sides pro and negative and view it as dispassionately as one can. If you come to the table with passions inflamed from one point of view or another, you can form a part of the information pool, but your particular slant is probably less objective than average. The reason people use mediation is because third party non involved but sympathetic observers bring important tools to the table. One of them is improved objectivity.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That is why this debate is carried on this message board thread after thread. Nobody here is unbiased.
__________________________________-

Doubtlessly true, but as a non participant who has put in some small effort to understand the nature of conditioning and how it applies to the formation of belief and has done some small amount of de-conditioning training, especially laughing my ass off at myself, I think it's possible to have the intention to be objective and do reasonably well at it. Since I believe that the divine right of Israel as set forth in the Bible is hog wash, I can bring to the argument one less presupposition than some, just as an example of the types of colouration one finds that are unhelpful. About anybody can do is to try to have some modicum of information from both sides pro and negative and view it as dispassionately as one can. If you come to the table with passions inflamed from one point of view or another, you can form a part of the information pool, but your particular slant is probably less objective than average. The reason people use mediation is because third party non involved but sympathetic observers bring important tools to the table. One of them is improved objectivity.

Very true. Since impartiality is rare in this world regarding this situation, all that one can hope for is a balance achieved by strong disagreement. While the idea does have its holes, the sheer weight behind both the Palestinian and Israeli sides will hopefully prevent a complete escalation. The UN is certainly not neutral enough, nor the U.S. to mediate. I can thing of no country that doesn't have a economic, cultural or social link to either side. Thus, any peace will take both sides giving up something they do not wish to. Israel and Palestine have both been unwilling to concede any point so far. The only thing that can have a true effect on both sides is more death. Hopefully some type of peace or concessions can be achieved before more death has to occur. Considering past history this may be the furthest thing from reality.

 

[dribgnikcom]

And that has what exactly to do with present-day UN? Did you know that many former nazis served in CIA? Not to mention large part of the German scientists who built the US space-program? How could the UN be anti-semitic, if their report on this issue supported Israel against palestinians?

Ridiculous. You know quite well what's wrong with having a NAZI serve as the general seceratry in the UN.

Un is supposed to be a PEACEKEEPING force, not a haven for Nazis. What's even more hypocritical of the UN is having Syria -- a terrorist nation as secretary of security or something like that.