• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

UN condemned Israel's incursion into Syria

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Funny, I don't remember seeing this mentioned on any mainstream media... But remember that emergency security council called up by Syria in response to the bombing? Well apparently the resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon in a 14-1 vote, the 1 being United States, of course. Even our great allies Spain and Britain condemned Israel's attacks. I guess just the whole world is out to get Israel who is righteous and just in their actions but no one wants to admit it? Hmm

But seriously, why's it so hard to find this story on places like CNN or FoxNEWS? Is it some small text in the margin of some other story with an irrelevent headline?
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I'm glad we didn't veto this resolution. Palestinian attacks on civilians should be condemned in the harshest possible terms. But we cannot continue to pretend the old resolutions currently being violated by Israel do not have meaning. The enduring state of unlawful occupation/degradation AND the persistent assaults on innocent Israelis requires a political solution and global cooperation.

But considering the weaknesses of US intelligence, I'm not sure how we can criticize Israeli strikes on known terrorist training camps. Considering we (the USA) needs far less justification to strike anyone and anywhere.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: lozina
Funny, I don't remember seeing this mentioned on any mainstream media... But remember that emergency security council called up by Syria in response to the bombing? Well apparently the resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon in a 14-1 vote, the 1 being United States, of course. Even our great allies Spain and Britain condemned Israel's attacks. I guess just the whole world is out to get Israel who is righteous and just in their actions but no one wants to admit it? Hmm

But seriously, why's it so hard to find this story on places like CNN or FoxNEWS? Is it some small text in the margin of some other story with an irrelevent headline?
actually the vote has not happened yet. Try news.google.com in the future.

linkage

All four of the council's European Union states -- France, Britain, Spain and Germany -- have signaled Syria that its draft resolution had to be more balanced to win their support.
But while Britain was insisting, along with Washington, that the resolution must condemn Saturday's deadly suicide bombing in Haifa, Israel, to win its vote, France was making no such demand, diplomats said.
Spain and Germany also were making less explicit demands than Britain in pursuit of a balanced text, they said.
Syrian U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said on Wednesday that his government, lacking the nine votes needed for council approval, was still weighing its options.
But in remarks to a closed meeting of Arab ambassadors, he said he could live with France's ideas for greater balance but not the British proposals, Arab envoys said.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
don't worry, League of Nation resolutions have no meaning anymore. basically they are saying "don't do that again, or else we will do nothing about it!!"
 

oLLie

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2001
5,203
0
0
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
Your going to beileve what Syria says?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
Your going to beileve what Syria says?
See what I mean? You illustrated my point perfectly. Why should we believe Syria? Why should we believe Israel?
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
don't worry, League of Nation resolutions have no meaning anymore. basically they are saying "don't do that again, or else we will do nothing about it!!"
The U.N. is a sad joke.

The U.S. got into such a mess because the U.N. never put teeth into the paper resolutions allowing Dictators to do whatever the Hell they want.


 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
don't worry, League of Nation resolutions have no meaning anymore. basically they are saying "don't do that again, or else we will do nothing about it!!"
Don't worry, proclamations from the PUSA have no meaning anymore. Basically he's saying "all is well, all is bad, not our fault, but if you give me more money I can make it better."

The U.N. is a sad joke.

The U.S. got into such a mess because the U.N. never put teeth into the paper resolutions allowing Dictators to do whatever the Hell they want.
The biggest joke is the Security Council. They pass
resolutions that are routinely ignored by militant states.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
<<Well apparently the resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon in a 14-1 vote, the 1 being United States, of course.>>
But we're right.

We feel that war is the answer to Iraq; the majority of the rest of the world feels differently.
But we're right.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Well apparently the resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon in a 14-1 vote, the 1 being United States, of course.>>
But we're right.

We feel that war is the answer to Iraq; the majority of the rest of the world feels differently.
But we're right.
it was not officially voted upon yet, but it's an analysis of where the cuntries stand. sorry for the misunderstanding, the article I read was misleading, however it's most likely going to turn out that way
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
Your going to beileve what Syria says?
See what I mean? You illustrated my point perfectly. Why should we believe Syria? Why should we believe Israel?
let's look at the facts here. israel knew it was going out pretty far on the limb to bomb a site in syria. after the attack, the syrian government closed off the site to any press for a day or two. the video released was an iranian video tour of the site showing weapons and facilities. both syria and the terrorist groups claimed that the site had been a camp in the 70's but was no longer in use. draw your own conclusions.
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
<<Well apparently the resolution was overwhelmingly agreed upon in a 14-1 vote, the 1 being United States, of course.>>
But we're right.

We feel that war is the answer to Iraq; the majority of the rest of the world feels differently.
But we're right.
Actually the Majority of the UN council may be OPPOSED to the current resolution. From the second linked to article again.
Syrian U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said on Wednesday that his government, lacking the nine votes needed for council approval, was still weighing its options.
Given that Syria is excluded from voting on the issue, this means that at LEAST seven of the fourteen members of the UN concil oppose the current resolution. I'm getting disgusted with people A. posting false reports and not correcting them, and B. others not bothering to read the comments carefully before bashing Israel and the US. The fact Syria has not yet been able to get a resolution passed suggests that the world may not be that upset over the actual bombing, but simply concerned about and esculating conflict in the region as most of the comments suggested. Of course we all know that a resolution has actually been passed and its just the Jewish controlled media that is refusing to talk about it.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
Israel knew precisely that it bombed nothing in particular. They have a remarkable track record. I am certain they make occasional mistakes, but they are rare. My money is on Israel.

Now why bomb an ex camp?

Because it isnt about attacking a camp, it's about sending two messages. One is to Syria reminding them that Israel is more than capable of dispatching with Damascus in a heartbeat, and the other to it's own citizens. It is similar to Iraq. Americans were feeling impotent after 9/11, and had to go beat someone up. Saddam filled that bill nicely, and now many Americans use the balm of war to comfort them.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
Your going to beileve what Syria says?
See what I mean? You illustrated my point perfectly. Why should we believe Syria? Why should we believe Israel?
Isreali doesnt support terrorism, Syria does.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: kaizersose
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: oLLie
Most people probably don't care if Israel attacks a terrorist training camp; that's why it's not mainstream. Even if it is in lovable, peaceful Syria!
Just because Israel accused the target as being a terrorist training camp does not mean it is so. It was an alleged training camp which Syria claims is a civilian site. Why do you believe one and not the other? The only "evidence" released by Israel is some vague video tape of the inside of a building showing men in uniforms (Hams dont wear uniforms) with a wide assortment of historical guns on display cases. This tape was somehow obtained through Iran BTW. Lot's of holes in this story...
Your going to beileve what Syria says?
See what I mean? You illustrated my point perfectly. Why should we believe Syria? Why should we believe Israel?
let's look at the facts here. israel knew it was going out pretty far on the limb to bomb a site in syria. after the attack, the syrian government closed off the site to any press for a day or two. the video released was an iranian video tour of the site showing weapons and facilities. both syria and the terrorist groups claimed that the site had been a camp in the 70's but was no longer in use. draw your own conclusions.
So because the site was closed off to press for a few days that means they were hiding something? Hmm, I remember the infamous Jenin raid by Israel, where Palestinians claimed there was a massacre. Israel closed off the area to the press for several days. Were they hiding something too?

Let's assume the site was a training site. How do we know it was not a training site for Syrian military? Since when do Hamas terrorists wear uniforms? The video publizied on the news did not show anything conclusive.

Besides, why would suicide bombers need to be trained in a camp such as that? They don't carry any weapons. All they have to do is walk into an area with people and flip a switch to blow up. Can you explain why they would need a "training camp" stocked with WW2 era weapons in order to perform suicide bombings?
 

Aegion

Member
Nov 13, 1999
154
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina Besides, why would suicide bombers need to be trained in a camp such as that? They don't carry any weapons. All they have to do is walk into an area with people and flip a switch to blow up. Can you explain why they would need a "training camp" stocked with WW2 era weapons in order to perform suicide bombings?
Ok, for starters I would argue that as long as its a component of the group's operations and terrorist training the attack is legitimate, it doesn't require them to hit the specific camp that the particular suicide bomber orignated from. There certainly are periodic reports of Palestinians shooting Israeli Settlers in the West Bank rather than using a suicide bomb. I haven't heard confirmation on this, but the suicide bomber in Haifa reportedly DID use some sort of gun on the security guard before entering the restaurant and setting off the bomb.
Some reports said the bomber shot and killed a security guard at the entrance before rushing into the restaurant which, if confirmed, would be a change in tactics.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/topstories_story_277100804.html

Regardless alot of terrorist training is about indoctrination while doing various militaristic activities rather than something that is likely to be specificly useful for an assigned mission.
 

kaizersose

Golden Member
May 15, 2003
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: lozina

let's look at the facts here. israel knew it was going out pretty far on the limb to bomb a site in syria. after the attack, the syrian government closed off the site to any press for a day or two. the video released was an iranian video tour of the site showing weapons and facilities. both syria and the terrorist groups claimed that the site had been a camp in the 70's but was no longer in use. draw your own conclusions.
So because the site was closed off to press for a few days that means they were hiding something? Hmm, I remember the infamous Jenin raid by Israel, where Palestinians claimed there was a massacre. Israel closed off the area to the press for several days. Were they hiding something too?

Let's assume the site was a training site. How do we know it was not a training site for Syrian military? Since when do Hamas terrorists wear uniforms? The video publizied on the news did not show anything conclusive.

Besides, why would suicide bombers need to be trained in a camp such as that? They don't carry any weapons. All they have to do is walk into an area with people and flip a switch to blow up. Can you explain why they would need a "training camp" stocked with WW2 era weapons in order to perform suicide bombings?[/quote]

israel closed off jenin because it was a war zone and was known to be full of booby trapped buildings. for anyone to enter it would present an immediate physical danger. after the bombing of the syrian terrorist camp, there was no immediate danger.

the video was made by the iranians and the uniformed figure shown was iranian. occasionally, hamas activists wear fatigues as well.

not all attacks are suicide bombings--in fact, most are not. most attacks are individual terrorists that enter an area with automatic weapons and grenades. they also engage in firefights with israeli soldiers quite often. if i were a hamas commander, i would want my people to have weapons training and i dont think there are too many gun ranges in the west bank.
 

ReiAyanami

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2002
4,466
0
0
basically israel is saying "we ain't gonna take sh1t from nobody" as the strike in syria was a direct response to the suicide bombing in the restaurant that killed 19 ppl including children. most countries would react the same way... russia for example

when a chechnyan car bomb blew up 400 ppl living in a govt apt complex, russia struck back with tanks and troops

when terrorists held hundreds hostage in that theater just a while ago russia gassed them, although it was poorly planned as over a hundred civilians died with the terrorists, but better than the terrorists blowing up ALL 500+ civilians

why should israel negotiate with terrorists? same goes for columbia/FARC, spain/basque, ireland/IRA, indonesia/al queda, u give them an inch, they blow something up (in many cases themselves).
 

ManSnake

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2000
4,749
0
0
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
basically israel is saying "we ain't gonna take sh1t from nobody" as the strike in syria was a direct response to the suicide bombing in the restaurant that killed 19 ppl including children. most countries would react the same way... russia for example

when a chechnyan car bomb blew up 400 ppl living in a govt apt complex, russia struck back with tanks and troops

when terrorists held hundreds hostage in that theater just a while ago russia gassed them, although it was poorly planned as over a hundred civilians died with the terrorists, but better than the terrorists blowing up ALL 500+ civilians

why should israel negotiate with terrorists? same goes for columbia/FARC, spain/basque, ireland/IRA, indonesia/al queda, u give them an inch, they blow something up (in many cases themselves).
Double negative! me fail english, that's unpossible!! :confused:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY