"Dear Human Rights Activist, Leftist Liberal, Crying-for-the-poor-children, Israel-hating, Hamas-forgiving..."

[ScottL]

This Is What You Are Really Telling Us

by Naomi Ragen TABLET MAGAZINE

I’m not sure the people who need to hear this will ever hear it, but I want my conscience to be clear that I said it to them.

Dear Human Rights Activist, Leftist Liberal, Crying-for-the-poor-children, Israel-hating, Hamas-forgiving, marcher, celebrity, news anchor, journalist, writer, media star, politician, head of state. We have seen you marching along the streets of Europe, America, and the Middle East with your signs and kafias and Palestinian flags. We have heard you screaming to whoever will listen that Jews and Israelis are murderers, war criminals, and baby killers.

You think you are telling us who we are. But actually, you are telling us who you are.

You are telling us that you are ignorant.
That you don’t understand that Hamas is a terror organization that took over a territory that Israel removed all its settlers from a decade ago and with good will turned over to the Palestinians, and that in return the Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas, a terror organization, to rule them, and that Hamas has been logging bombs at Israeli civilians trying to kill them ever since.

You are telling us you don’t really care about Palestinians or their children.
Because by supporting Hamas, you are supporting the use of Palestinians as human shields, the use of Palestinian children to dig terror tunnels in which 160 have died, and the summary execution of Palestinians by Hamas thugs whenever they open their mouths to protest the use of their homes, school, mosques, or hospitals as weapons caches and missile launching sites.

You are telling us that you are in favor of genocide.
Anyone who does not support Israel in this just war against Hamas, who is a genocidal terrorist organization that clearly says in their charter they want to destroy all Jews, is in fact in favor of genocide. You are telling us that you not only agree with the idea, but the practice, as Hamas is now attempting (without much success, thank God) by bombing Israelis and attempting mass murders and kidnappings through countless underground tunnels created only for that purpose. You are telling us you don’t think Israelis have a right to live and defend their children by fighting back.
You are telling us you want us dead.

You are telling us that you hate Jews, not just Israelis.
Because otherwise, why would you march along, support, and agree with people who beat up Jews, shoot Jewish children, destroy synagogues, and smash Jewish businesses all over the world, just like the Nazis?
You are telling us that you are a racist and a hater.
Just one more of those evil, ignorant, bigoted, small-minded people who hate people they have never met because of their race and religion.

You are telling us you are ill-informed, uneducated and/or too stupid or too lazy to read history books.
Because by taking up the stance of the Nazis without even understanding in whose footsteps you are following, you are revealing you don’t know where those footsteps led, and the millions and millions of people like ourselves who died because of it.

But most of all, you are showing God who you are and the evil that is in your heart.
For that I pity you. Because we Jews believe that God is compassionate and forgiving. But we also believe that if people repeat the same evils as their forefathers, then God’s compassion ends for them, and the time for punishment begins.
You are not the first ignorant, bigoted, racist, hateful people to stand against the Jews. But you just might be the last. By joining your voice and your body with those who hate justice, who love violence, and who follow in the footsteps of the Jew-haters throughout history, you are singling yourself out for the punishment that befalls all such people in history sooner or later. Check your history books on that one. Every people who hated Jews eventually became extinct. The Jews survived.
Looking forward to your next march, your next petition, and your next newscast to see who you are. We already know what you are.

 

[ScottL]

Will put this here instead of starting another thread, as it's semi-related to the OP, and the idiotic accusation comes up often:

Israel Does Not Violate the Laws of War in Gaza

By Jonathan F. Keiler, AMERICAN THINKER

The other day Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, appeared on the “Huckabee Show” on FOX News to make the case that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza. Huckabee is a strong supporter of Israel, instinctively on the right side of the issue, but could do little but respond with exasperation to Roth’s technical sounding claims of Israeli law-breaking. While the pro-Huckabee studio audience didn’t buy it, Roth’s calm, prim, and professorial accusations against Israel might easily sway a neutral observer who didn’t actually know the law. His weak but carefully articulated claims help establish the pseudo-legal sounding framework which the left-wing media, most of Europe and the Obama administration use to pressure and condemn Israel. It works to encourage Hamas’ own continuing war crimes, rather than promote adherence to the law.

None of Roth’s accusations are based on a correct reading and interpretation of the laws of war, but his claims need to be debunked precisely, not just ignored or belittled because one supports Israel. Roth and his cohorts have very real influence that is based in part on an appeal to cool legal rationality. The problem is that this coolly rational legal framework, at least when it comes to Israel, is a chimera.
Roth’s brief against Israel (and by extension that of the Left in general — to include Obama) is that Israel’s actions in Gaza do not comply with the laws of war, to wit:

• Israel targets civilian structures
• Israel is strictly liable for civilian casualties
• Israel violates the general rule of proportional combat
• Israel disproportionately kills civilians
• Palestinian civilians who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way are not “human shields”
• Precision military strikes are required when engaging any target in an urban area
• Israel does not prosecute soldiers for war crimes

None of these claims are either factually true or legally legitimate, but when presented calmly and academically, without direct rebuttal, are convincing for many people, and create fodder for op-ed writers and talking heads to muddy the waters or drum up anti-Israel sentiment. What is the actual case with regard to these claims?

Israel targets civilian structures: A civilian structure loses its protected status when it is used for military purposes. A home that serves as a Hamas command post or hides a tunnel entrance is by definition not a civilian structure any longer. Israel targets such buildings, but does not target structures that are not used for military purposes. A church or a mosque that houses a sniper loses its protected status under the laws of war.

Israel is strictly liable for civilian casualties: Strict liability is a very limited legal concept that has no little or no place in the laws of war.

Overwhelmingly in criminal jurisprudence, whether civil or military, the key question is intent. However, in limited situations, strict liability applies, e.g., injuring somebody while driving drunk being an example. It is a way to apply criminal liability to reckless but perhaps otherwise innocent conduct. Within the laws of war the prohibition against “indiscriminate” actions covers this issue.

The problem for Roth is that Israel is exceedingly discriminate in its actions, while Hamas is completely indiscriminate. To get around this problem Israel’s critics simply assert that causing “excessive” civilian casualties (whatever that means) is illegal. On Huckabee, Roth proposed that killing one civilian for one terrorist might be okay, but not ten. There is no law of war rule to this effect. Suppose the one civilian is an innocent child, and the ten rabid civilian supporters of the terrorist. It is an impossible legal question to resolve and so the laws of war don’t address it. The guilt in both cases is on the terrorist for creating the danger in the first instance.

Israel violates the rule of proportional combat: This obscure law of war was almost entirely ignored by the media, political classes, and academia until the Second Lebanon War in 2006. It is a relatively useless and impractical concept of the law of war, not even mentioned in the Hague Conventions, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and is noted only in commentary to the 1977 Protocol Additional. As I pointed out several years ago in an article for the Army War College, it is “ambiguous, lacks useful precedent, and as a practical matter nearly impossible to interpret or enforce.” It appears to only apply to Israel.

Here’s what the proportionality rule actually says: attacks must be proportionate to the military objective sought. That’s it. Nobody mentioned this rule until it became a seemingly legitimate excuse to bash Israel. But it is pointless because almost all competent military organizations, including the Israel Defense Force (IDF), follow the principle automatically for their own benefit. In military doctrine it is called “economy of force.” No competent military leader wants to disproportionately apply force to an objective — it wastes time and resources. Sometimes by mistake it is done, as, say, in the bombing of Monte Casino during World War II. But even that is not a war crime, because the attack must be intentionally disproportionate, not just a mistaken application of force. Even if you can demonstrate that Israel applied disproportionate force at some point, you would also have to show that misapplication of force was deliberate. Good luck.

Israel disproportionately kills civilians: The proportionality rule has nothing to say about this. Disproportionate civilian deaths have been a fact of war since war began, largely through famine and disease, but murder and massacre too. Modern war has increased risks to civilians due to heavier firepower and increased urbanization. Civilian deaths have exceeded military deaths in many modern conflicts, including World War II, but this in itself is not a violation of the laws of war. The legal question is whether the deaths were caused intentionally or recklessly, not the proportion of civilian deaths to military losses. Thus by correct measure, the legal question in the Gaza conflict is which side has intentionally or recklessly caused the most civilian deaths. The answer to this question is Hamas 6; Israel none.

Palestinians who voluntarily put themselves in harm’s way are not human shields: Roth is technically correct on this (recently tweeting this claim.) But this is because the laws of war never anticipated the depraved conduct of the Palestinian Arabs of Gaza. Human shields as envisioned by the laws of war are civilians who are coerced by a military force to protect soldiers or a military target. German soldiers in World War I who forced Belgian civilians to march ahead of them committed a war crime. A Nazi plan to shield aerial targets with Allied POWs would have also been a violation.

There have been instances of Hamas doing these things, but also apparent instances where civilians rushed to a target to protect it from Israeli fire. In the latter instance these civilians were not technically human shields. Instead, they became legitimate military targets, and also war criminals. The laws of war require combatants to wear uniforms or identifying badges or marks. A civilian who takes a military position without properly identifying himself is both a legitimate target and a violator of the laws of war. But he is not, technically, a human shield.

Precision military strikes are required when engaging any target in an urban area: Roth claimed (without attribution or detail) that Israel attacked a hospital because Hamas place a rocket launcher 100 yards away, and that this attack was illegal because Israel had to use a “precise” munition in such an instance. Of course we don’t know what munition was used, or even if the attack actually took place, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume Israel attacked a Hamas Grad rocket launcher emplaced 100 yards from a hospital with a standard unguided 155mm artillery round. There would be absolutely nothing illegal about such an attack under the laws of war. If the round did not precisely hit the Grad launcher, or shrapnel from the explosion hit the hospital, the legal liability is on Hamas.

Precision munitions are relatively new to war, limited in military inventories and very expensive. There is no legal duty to use them exclusively in particular instances. As a practical matter though, it is indisputable that Israel disproportionately uses precision munitions, also munitions with reduced explosive force, and engages in a historically to civilians who may be in a targeted area.

Israel does not prosecute soldiers for war crimes: Israel of course does this. Even the highly biased and anti-Israel Goldstone Report from a previous Israel-Hamas fight acknowledged Israel’s well developed and sophisticated military legal system. What Roth and his like object to is that Israel does not prosecute its soldiers imaginary crimes. As demonstrated above, Roth’s brief against Israel is based on his own inchoate ideations of what comprises the laws of war, not what they actually say. If Israeli military prosecutors were to try an Israeli soldier for violating one these nonexistent or misapplied rules, he would be quickly acquitted because the Israeli military judicial system actually follows the laws of war, not the imaginings of so-called human rights activists.

 

[ScottL]

Fuck the UN

 

[Coldweather]

The UN is a bunch of crap and collectively, they hate Israel caz of UN POLITICAL dynamics!

Just the way it be! Also, Hamas is a big part of the anti democracy movement and the UN WILL NOT SUPPORT

Israel caz they represent and epitomise democracy. That be it! Rock it out!

 

[ScottL]

[h=1]Occupation of Cyprus Underscores Hypocrisy of Gaza Outrage[/h] Victor Davis Hanson | Aug 14, 2014

LIMASSOL, Cyprus -- Cyprus is a beautiful island. But it has never recovered from the Turkish invasion of 1974. Turkish troops still control nearly 40 percent of the island -- the most fertile and formerly the richest portion.


Some 200,000 Greek refugees never returned home after being expelled from their homes and farms in Northern Cyprus.


The capital of Nicosia remains divided. A 112-mile demilitarized "green line" runs right through the city across the entire island.


Thousands of settlers from Anatolia were shipped in by the Turkish government to occupy former Greek villages and to change Cypriot demography -- in the same manner the occupying Ottoman Empire once did in the 16th century. Not a single nation recognizes the legitimacy of the Turkish Cypriot state. In contrast, Greek Cyprus is a member of the European Union.


Why, then, is the world not outraged at an occupied Cyprus the way it is at, say, Israel?

Nicosia is certainly more divided than is Jerusalem. Thousands of Greek refugees lost their homes more recently, in 1974, than did the Palestinians in 1947.


Turkey has far more troops in Northern Cyprus than Israel has in the West Bank. Greek Cypriots, unlike Palestinians, vastly outnumbered their adversaries. Indeed, a minority comprising about a quarter of the island's population controls close to 40 percent of the landmass. Whereas Israel is a member of the U.N., Turkish Cyprus is an unrecognized outlaw nation.


Any Greek Cypriot attempt to reunify the island would be crushed by the formidable Turkish army, in the brutal manner of the brief war of 1974. Turkish generals would most likely not phone Greek homeowners warning them to evacuate their homes ahead of incoming Turkish artillery shells.


The island remains conquered not because the Greeks have given up, but because their resistance is futile against a NATO power of some 70 million people. Greeks know that Turkey worries little about what world thinks of its occupation.


Greeks in Cyprus and mainland Greece together number less than 13 million people. That is far less than the roughly 300 million Arabic speakers, many from homelands that export oil, who support the Palestinians.


No European journalist fears that Greek terrorists will track him down should he write something critical of the Greek Cypriot cause. Greek Cypriots would not bully a journalist in their midst for broadcasting a critical report, the way Hamas surely would to any candid reporter in Gaza.


In other words, there is not much practical advantage or interest in promoting the Greek Cypriot cause.


Unlike Israel, Turkey is in NATO -- and is currently becoming more Islamic and anti-Western under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. If it is easy for the United States to jawbone tiny Israel, it is geostrategically unwise to do so to Turkey over the island of Cyprus.

Turkey is also less emblematic of the West than is Israel. In the racist habit of assuming low expectations for non-Westerners, European elites do not hold Turkey to the same standards that they do Israel.


We see such hypocrisy when the West stays silent while Muslims butcher each other by the thousands in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya and Syria.

Only when a Westernized country like Israel inflicts far less injury to Muslims does the West become irate. The same paradox seems to hold true for victims. Apparently, Western Christian Greeks are not the romantic victims that Palestinian Muslims are.


In the 40 years since they lost their land, Greek Cypriots have turned the once impoverished south into a far more prosperous land than the once-affluent but now stagnant Turkish-occupied north -- unlike the Palestinians, who have not used their know-how to turn Gaza or Ramallah into a city like Limassol.


Resurgent anti-Semitism both in the Middle East and in Europe translates into inordinate criticism of Israel. Few connect Turkey's occupation of Cyprus with some larger racist commentary about the supposed brutal past of the Turks.


The next time anti-Israeli demonstrators shout about divided cities, refugees, walls, settlers and occupied land, let us understand that those are not necessarily the issues in the Middle East. If they were, the Cyprus tragedy would also be center-stage. Likewise, crowds would be damning China for occupying Tibet, or still sympathizing with millions of Germans who fled a now-nonexistent Prussia, or deploring religious castes in India, or harboring anger over the tough Russian responses to Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine, or deploring beheadings in northern Iraq.


Instead, accept that the Middle East is not just about a dispute over land. Israel is inordinately damned for what it supposedly does because its friends are few, its population is tiny, and its adversaries beyond Gaza numerous, dangerous and often powerful.
And, of course, because it is Jewish.

 

[rolltide]

yep, better create another thread

as long as you dominate the conversation you a) can never be wrong, b) never have to look at an opposing viewpoint

classic scott l and anyone else that is so unsure or uncomfortable with their position that they need to yell the same thing over and over to make it true. just like 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming

i'll say it again...you are to the middle east what akphi is to every topic...pathetically, embarrassingly predictable

 

[ScottL]

yep, better create another thread

as long as you dominate the conversation you a) can never be wrong, b) never have to look at an opposing viewpoint

classic scott l and anyone else that is so unsure or uncomfortable with their position that they need to yell the same thing over and over to make it true. just like 97% of climate scientists believe in global warming

i'll say it again...you are to the middle east what akphi is to every topic...pathetically, embarrassingly predictable

This is an older thread SCUMBOY. I start very few threads in here. I know you can't touch the content of any of the pieces above, being the POS that you are. No need to Troll instead.

 

[rolltide]

well you'll see from the threads I create and contribute I can discuss energy, terrorism, climate change, economics, history, etc

you're a one-trick pony and not even convincing with that single trick, just ugly and confrontational

we get it...kill all the Muslims to protect the USA and Israel. very unique! comforting there's people like you roaming the earth spewing their senseless warmongering opinions

 

[ScottL]

well you'll see from the threads I create and contribute I can discuss energy, terrorism, climate change, economics, history, etc

you're a one-trick pony and not even convincing with that single trick, just ugly and confrontational

we get it...kill all the Muslims to protect the USA and Israel. very unique! comforting there's people like you roaming the earth spewing their senseless warmongering opinions

Somebody give this asshole a cookie, please. Look at how well-versed he is on a wide range of topics.

And please, somebody scroll the last 5 pages of threads started here and it will 'prove' all I do is start threads about Israel. And the economy. And taxes. And fracking. And obesity. And social issues. And even one about immigration in Houstron. And ISIS (before anyone ever heard of them).

And wiping out the Muslims. Yep, it's obvious to Rolltide, and only Rolltide that I'm really big on that.

Facts are facts. There are some great pieces on this page. And Rolltide can't get near 'em. So instead he hurls garbage.

 

[russ1945]

The first sentence of the article sums it all up (including this part of the forum):


'I’m not sure the people who need to hear this will ever hear it, but I want my conscience to be clear that I said it to them.'


We are all preaching to the choir. Nothing we say can change someone's opinion who is politically committed to the other side. What degrades this forum is guys like Datard who cannot finish a sentence without a derogatory remark (Alinsky all the way) and that does not work either. It may provoke someone to give it back to him but in the end accomplishes nothing except a very brief sense of satisfaction that you did not absorb the abusive attacks and gave as you received. It does not accomplish a thing. That is what separates the Tards from the others, it is not just their political points of view it is their intolerance for negative feedback and their base personal attacks. Everyone on here will never agree on everything all the time, look at DC. They have grid lock but they can pass laws. All we can do is voice our opinions. In the end I wish that was all we did. I think everyone is sick and tired of the personal attacks except those who are true trolls and we all know who they are. As long as the forum tolerates them so do we. Allowing trolls is one thing, encouraging them is another.

This is not directed at RT or Scott, just thought this was a good place to insert a non political opinion that could possibly improve this part of the forum and hope that despite that first sentence someone may actually hear it. BOL

 

[superbeets]

The UN is corrupt

Every decent human security council resolution is vetoed by Russia and China.


What did the UN do in Rwanda

 

[superbeets]

UN admits Rwanda genocide failure

The UN could have done more to help Rwanda


The United Nations Security Council has explicitly accepted responsibility for failing to prevent the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 people were killed.In the first formal response to a report critical of the UN's role, council members acknowledged its main finding that their governments lacked the political will to stop the massacres.


Most of the 2,500 UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time were withdrawn after the deaths of 10 Belgian soldiers.
At a council debate, the Canadian Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, said none present could look back without remorse and sadness at the failure to help the people of Rwanda in their time of need.
"The unchecked brutality of the genocidaires made a mockery, once again, of the pledge 'never again,'" he said, referring to the promise made after the Holocaust.


The council stopped short an all-out apology similar to the one delivered by Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt one week ago in Kigali.
Instead, the 15 council members focused on the lessons to be learned from their failure to act, particularly in Africa where wars continue to rage.
US Ambassador Richard Holbrooke said: "The prevention of another round of genocidal violence in central Africa is one of the core elements of US policy in the Great Lakes, and is one of the United Nations' greatest challenges."

"In the days ahead, how we act to help bring peace to Congo will be the best evidence that we've learned the lessons of our past failures," he said.
Rwanda's UN Ambassador, Joseph Mutaboba, welcomed the report and its recommendations but said the council could do more. "It's never to late to make things right," he said.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who was head of UN peacekeeping operations in 1994, commissioned the report and was out for criticism for not passing on warnings about the impending genocide.
Mr Annan said he fully accepted the report's conclusions.

 

[superbeets]

[h=1]U.N. Details Its Failure to Stop '95 Bosnia Massacre[/h]
Secretary General Kofi Annan laid out in a somber, self-critical report today the tragic story of how the United Nations allowed the Bosnian Muslim ''safe area'' of Srebrenica to be overrun in July 1995 by Bosnian Serbs, who then systematically killed thousands of the town's men and boys.
The fall of Srebrenica became a damaging symbol of the United Nations' failure at peacekeeping in a new era of civil wars, and it demonstrated the inadequacy of a system that allowed political considerations to color military decisions when troops were under the command of the United Nations.
''The tragedy of Srebrenica will haunt our history forever,'' the report concludes.
The fall of Srebrenica and other towns that the Security Council had identified as safe areas, but then refused to authorize enough troops to defend, led four months later to the American-sponsored Dayton peace agreement and the introduction of a NATO-led international military force in Bosnia.

​

While blame is widely distributed in the report, the self-examination of the United Nations' own record in Srebrenica breaks new ground by effectively condemning the organization's tendency to try to remain neutral in a civil conflict.
This conclusion comes two months after Mr. Annan, taking a more aggressive stance on crimes against civilians, startled the opening session of this year's General Assembly by saying that national borders would no longer protect leaders who abuse people under their control.
With Mr. Annan's declaration and today's report, the United Nations is saying that the time has come to take sides.
''Through error, misjudgment and the inability to recognize the scope of evil confronting us we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder,'' a senior United Nations official said today, introducing the report. ''These failings were in part rooted in a philosophy of neutrality and nonviolence wholly unsuited to the conflict in Bosnia.''
''In particular,'' this official said, ''the report makes clear the inadequacy of the entire approach of the United Nations to the Serb campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass murder, culminating at Srebrenica.''
Mr. Annan was then in charge of United Nations' peacekeeping activities; Boutros Boutros-Ghali was the Secretary General.
The report, based on about 100 interviews with a range of international figures involved in Bosnia, singles out the Bosnian Serb political and military leaders, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, as the ''architects and implementers of the attempted genocide in Bosnia'' and criticizes those who negotiated with them rather than using military force in the war's early stages. It demands that they be brought to trial.
''The cardinal lesson of Srebrenica,'' the report says, ''is that a deliberate and systematic attempt to terrorize, expel or murder an entire people must be met decisively with all necessary means.''
The report on Srebrenica was released on the same day that the three members of Bosnia's collective presidency, speaking to the Security Council on the fourth anniversary of the Dayton agreement, pledged to create the first integral national institutions for Bosnia. The country is now divided into an ethnic Serbian republic and a federation of Bosnian Muslim and Croat areas.
A multiethnic border patrol will be established to help curb cross-border terrorism, smuggling and corruption. A secretariat will be created for the joint presidency, which has had no shared staff, and a common passport for all Bosnians will be introduced. The three presidents have also agreed to form a peacekeeping unit of their own to contribute to the United Nations mission.
American diplomats said that while these may seem like small steps, it took Richard C. Holbrooke, the author of the Dayton accord and now chief United States representative at the United Nations, six hours on Sunday to extract an agreement.
Officials say that the willingness of the three presidents -- Alija Izetbegovic, a Muslim; Ante Jelavic, a Croat, and Zivko Radisic, a Serb -- to act jointly in issuing what they call their Declaration of New York reflects some important changes in the political atmosphere of the Balkans. The Bosnians now see their neighbors moving toward integration in Europe and possible membership in the European Union -- a hope that a fragmented, frequently dysfunctional Bosnian state cannot entertain.
Moreover, American officials said, the crumbling economy and unstable political situation in Serbia, the major republic remaining in Yugoslavia, mean that Serbia is no longer a beacon to the Bosnian Serb republic, which is now economically stronger in some ways than the Serbian motherland. The officials said that in recent months, some Bosnians, apparently feeling more secure, have begun returning to rural areas from which they were displaced as ethnic minorities during the four-year war.
''With this important act,'' Mr. Holbrooke said today, ''the presidents have taken a major step toward consolidating the progress of the past few years -- and in doing so, have helped Bosnia take another step toward fulfilling the vision of Dayton: a unified, single democratic country.''
Bosnian Muslims now control the Srebrenica city council, though not without considerable fears for their own safety, officials say. Elected in 1997 but unable to venture back to the town for more than a year, they were among the survivors of the massacres in July 1995.
Srebrenica was then under the guardianship of 110 Dutch peacekeepers, who were no match for the Serbs who suddenly surrounded and attacked the town. The United Nations report says that the Dutch commander had asked for NATO air support on several occasions but was turned down until, finally, he was provided with two air patrols that dropped two bombs and left. The Dutch government, however, feared that its troops might be taken hostage and, at least on one occasion, strongly opposed air strikes.
The report says that the Dutch could have been more forthright in reporting immediately after the incident what evidence they had that a massacre was taking place. The study also faulted French and British commanders leading United Nations troops for their reluctance to call on NATO.
But at the heart of the problem of protecting the safe areas -- Srebrenica, Zepa, Goradze, Bihac, Tuzla and Sarajevo -- was the refusal of Security Council members, including the United States, to authorize enough troops to do the job. Mr. Boutros-Ghali wanted 34,000; the Security Council authorized only 7,400. Later, American politicians blamed the Secretary General for the capture of most of these enclaves.
''When the international community makes a solemn promise to safeguard and protect innocent civilians from massacre,'' the report says, ''then it must be willing to back its promise with the necessary means.''

 

[superbeets]

Free palestine

from hamas

 

[superbeets]

The only solution.

Is


Demilitarisation of Gaza.

 

[superbeets]

Open land and sea borders will allow Hamas to bring in much larger rockets than can be smuggled in. It will allow very sophisticated military equipment to come in, including mobile anti- aircraft defence such as

Buk-M1-2 air defence system ​

 

[superbeets]

Hamas don't give a shit about Palestinian citizens. They want open borders not to benefit civilians but to bring in military equipment and Jihadists fighters from all over the world.

Hamas has one aim and that is the annihilation of Israel is has no other desire.


Only clowns fail to understand this.

 

[GasMan]

well you'll see from the threads I create and contribute I can discuss energy, terrorism, climate change, economics, history, etc

you're a one-trick pony and not even convincing with that single trick, just ugly and confrontational

we get it...kill all the Muslims to protect the USA and Israel. very unique! comforting there's people like you roaming the earth spewing their senseless warmongering opinions

Sounds reasonable