US Increases It`s Slaughter In Afghanistan
- Thread starter JBeee
- Start date
Do you really believe this or are you deliberately lying?
I can point to many examples of the Israeli Defense Force snipers taking out children:
In Hebrew: "The smaller, the harder"
Sixteen-year-old Asma Mughayer (back row, left, in this family photo from the Sydney Morning Herald) and her thirteen-year-old brother, Ahmed (front row, left) were shot dead while hanging out laundry on the roof of their home in Rafah, on the morning that the IDF launched a major attack ("Operation Rainbow") on the Tel al-Sultan refugee camp where they lived, on 18 May 2004.
The IDF said of their deaths: "A preliminary investigation indicates they were killed by a bomb intended to be used against soldiers. It was set outside a building by Palestinians to hit an Israeli vehicle". But the Mughayer family said that the children had not been killed by a bomb, but shot by an Israeli sniper, operating out of a neighboring building.
An Australian journalist visited the Mughayer house, and found no signs of an explosion there, though he did find bullet holes on the roof, made by bullets which seemed to have been fired from the neighboring building. He visited the neighboring building, and found that its occupants had been held prisoner by an Israeli sniper team that had operated out of their house on the morning that Asma and Ahmed were killed, and left behind MRE wrappers and ammunition boxes (labelled in Hebrew) .
British journalists who examined the children's bodies at the morgue (AP Photo - Kevin Frayer) found no signs of injuries except for a single bullet hole through the head.
After the British and Australian journalists published their findings, the IDF announced it would hold an internal investigation into the death of the Mughayer siblings. But six months later, while world attention was distracted by a new, large-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip refugee camps, the IDF quietly dropped its investigation....
Lawrence of Cyberia: "The Smaller They Are - The Harder It Is!" [3]: It's Not Just A Slogan On A T-Shirt
I can find many examples of IDF snipers killing children:
Then there are all the chidlren the IDF has killed up close and personal...
For example:
That might be easier if you could be a bit more specific on what you didn't grasp. You tried fighting corruption and it didn't work, the reason it didn't work is you were going after the result of corruption, not the cause. If the post appears to be confusing to you maybe it isn't worth pursuing, if you want to take that as a dig go ahead. Trying to show a musician how to build a house just might not be possible, no matter how much effort is expended.
8O yourself, was your band doing those things before the European invasion, yes or no will do it. Stealing a few ponies or a few women is quite different from the problems that exist these days.
You so arrogant that when you hear and read something but it goes over your head then it has to be the fault of the other person. Did you understand that sentence?
earth_as_one: Know it for a fact, and not from reading anything. (note: keyword-Sniper) Snipers are to important and valuable to take random unnecessary pot shots.
As for lying part, that seems to come from a lot of your sources. I know you find that hard to believe.
As for lying part, that seems to come from a lot of your sources. I know you find that hard to believe.
I never claimed snipers take random pot shots. Most of those children I listed above were killed with a single shot. In some cases several children were shot at the same time, each with a single shot to the head. Does that suggest random pot shots to you?
Go follow the link I provided. That website lists all the children killed by both sides in the last decade in that conflict and the circumstances of their death. Palestinian snipers are also responsible for the deaths of a few Israeli children.
Both sides kill children.
IDF soldiers are no different than other soldiers. Under the uniform all soldiers are people. Given the right circumstances such as lack of accountability and the ability to commit crimes with impunity, some people will rape, pillage, torture and murder, while others won't... The IDF is no different.
What is important isn't whether or not soldiers commit war crimes, as that is inevitable. What's important is whether or not soldiers are held accountable for their crimes. For the most part Israelis (soldiers and civilians) can kill Palestinians with impunity...
Barak: Gaza probe shows IDF among world's most moral armies
Barak: Gaza probe shows IDF among world's most moral armies - Haaretz - Israel News
I would hope that Canadian soldiers are more moral than the IDF...
We have our own 'war-dogs' and for some reason it takes a lot more money to train them than it does any other position in military or civilian roles. In a NATO exercise Canadian values aren't part of the mix. NATO is America and her bitches.
What was to grasp? There was nothing much there that made any sense.
And of course you know this because you were there right?
Not a dig at all, I've oft comment on you and your crap being a waste of time.
This is so true, hence why I stopped trying to teach you anything quite a while ago.
Nope, but then again my band wasn't and still isn't on the radar there.
You can say that again.
Arrogant yes, unable to understand coherent sentences and paragraph structure, non.
Yes, but then again it was typed coherently, unlike the other post and several others you've spewed out recently.
"How deeply did you investigate the Federal Division of the Canadian Govt? "
That sentence confused you?
The article below must be old news to you then.
"
Monday, January 28, 2008
Canada's 'Indian Affairs' Financed War Machine to Attack Kanehsatake Mohawks
CANADA’S “INDIAN AFFAIRS” FINANCED
WAR MACHINE TO ATTACK KANEHSATAKE
MOHAWKS ON JAN. 12 2004
Mohawk Nation News
Jan. 27th 2008. Government documents received through
an “Access to Information” request prove that the attack on peaceful
Kanehsatake Mohawks by a heavily armed 67-man paramilitary
force was planned, financed and implemented by Indian Affairs,
Solicitor General’s Office and the Prime Minister’s Office of Ottawa.
The documents reveal that the initial lay out of over $900,000 was
illegally provided by Indian Affairs to Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness for this coup. [PSEPC Code 0880; Ref. Code
5000020336]. The documents show that a total of $40 million was
spent on this attack. [$20 million from Canada and $20 million from
Quebec.] Secret bi-lateral agreements between Canada and Quebec
laid out funding arrangements. Canada was to provide 52% and
Quebec 48% of the policing funds.
Indian Affairs has no authority in policing. It was strictly illegal –
a blatant violation of Canadian law and a misappropriation of
Indigenous resources and Canadian taxpayers’ dollars at a time,
when many Indigenous communities are suffering from third world
conditions, without even clean water to drink. Despite the huge
number of blanks where crucial information was “whited-out” from
the documents, it was still possible to piece together the ghoulish
story that’s going to haunt the corporate government players to
their graves.
To set it up, the culprits, Indian affairs, appointed a third party
manager, PriceWaterhouseCoopers [who were allegedly paid over
$1.5 million a year in fees over several years], to divert Kanehsatake
community funds towards this phony ‘coup d’etat’ [MCK &
Minister No. 186-2004-00069].
In a March 24, 2005 memo for the Deputy Minister of PSEPC, Chantal
“Public-Wrong” Bernier, the Assistant Deputy Minister, pointed out
that diversion of funds was “illegal” but went ahead and signed the
authority anyway, “because the Privy Council Office and Treasury
Board recognized their authority in the fall of 2003”. The first check
was recorded by PWC as having been cut in July 2003. [Denise
Charron PSEPC Aboriginal Policing Directorate].
As there was no way for Indian Affairs to fund such a “military”
attack of Indigenous people, Indian Affairs made the first payment
to get it started. They diverted money out of core funding for
Kanehsatake into cars, weaponry, bullets, hotels, meals and
everything needed for their hired “mercenaries” to play their
lethal game. Their mission was to take down the Police Commission,
the police force, the cigarette trade, take over the police station and
council house and to bring the Mohawks into submission. They
were instructed to protect James Gabriel’s four chiefs. They had a
“hit list” of Mohawks who were to be taken down “on sight”.
Whatever happened to Canada’s boasting about the “rule of law”?
Canada abrogated the “death penalty” years ago. These executions
appear to have been ordered and approved at the highest levels of
the Canadian government.
This operation was given a blank check by Indian Affairs, Public
Safety & Emergency Preparedness, Treasury Board and the Privy
Council Office under the guidance of the Prime Minister’s Office.
Kanehsatake was kept as a separate file, directly under the Prime
Ministers, first, Jean Chretien [now of Heenan Blaikie] and then
Paul Martin. "
Lets see if this is short enough so you don't miss the point. If you though the Indian wars were over, they're not, they just changed tactics.
Because I read it in a post you wrote. I like chatting with you, one read and your whole message is laid right out there. Quite unlike the more involved ones that need two or three reads because of the complexity. I not a betting man but I would say the odds would seem to be that your may read a whole post once (and some do not go that far) but if there is any confusion there is just no way in hell the problem can be at your end. lol I'll bet that has served you well so far.
No, I wasn't confused, just not into translating gibberish to find out what it is you're trying to babble.
:lol: You're about 2 years to late hunny. I posted about that when it actually happened.
:lol:
You may want to actually search through my posts and threads before you statements that I can make you look stupid on...yet again.
Wow, you can actually read? I'm surprised.
Or yours that would require me to have a dyslexic retard translate them into proper English for me.
Actually, that's pretty much fact. I'm surprised you noticed.
You bet. Seeing as I have several leaders of Native communities completely terrified of me and have threatened to sue news papers I've written for, only to run when they realised I had them dead to rights...lol.... Ya, I'ld say, it's served me well Mhz.
BTW Mhz, besides being well versed in religion, politics, the ME, the Israeli conflict, International Law, Law, life in general, I'm well above par on my Native studies.
You may want to pick a better topic to try and take me on in. Not only are you well out of you league here, you would be wise to grasp descretion being the better part of valour.
Actually, make that 3 years to late Mhz...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...wks-kanehsatake-proved-right.html#post1094901
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...wks-kanehsatake-proved-right.html#post1094901
I'm actually quite pleased to hear that. That would mean you saying you didn't understand my post is just more bull**** from you then. Not totally unexpected.
Again I'm quite glad you are above par on your Native studies, most people, Natives included don't care much at all, in that there is little that can be done, apathy more that resigned to defeat.
As for the rest anything I have read of yous is pretty much ass backwards. You have a lot to say but it is still all in serious error.
Last edited:
:lol:
Look, you went off rambling about "white eyes", the CIA, reservations. You were all over the map. There was zero consistency in your post. That's not my fault, and seeing as you seem to be the only person I say that about at any of the 5 forums I reside at, I would have to say you are the one with the problem not I.
BTW, I understand context is a real hard thing for you to grasp. But the post I was referring to, in the quote you just highlighted, wasn't the incoherent post I commented on. But hey, why change now.
So, is there anything else you would like me to school you on today?
Anything to do with Natives? There are all sorts of threads in my profile you can go and read. I'm sure somewhere in there, there is something that you think you now better then me. I mean, you must be able to school this lowly "Injun" on us "Injun's" and all...;-)
Did you notice the thread I necrobumped, just for you? http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...wks-kanehsatake-proved-right.html#post1094901
Mhz, lets take this to a more appropriate thread...
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...wks-kanehsatake-proved-right.html#post1094922
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/c...wks-kanehsatake-proved-right.html#post1094922
Admitting it is true is not the same as accepting it. lol
There was a thread a while back about the US passing an bill that basically said if it was passed you could get 2 years if you offended someone on-line. Some Canadian poster(s) thought that Canada would be 'obligated' to adopt the same bill.
In your opinion would that happen or could Canada remain 'free'. I say they would adopt it most likely the same day it passed in the US
There was a thread a while back about the US passing an bill that basically said if it was passed you could get 2 years if you offended someone on-line. Some Canadian poster(s) thought that Canada would be 'obligated' to adopt the same bill.
In your opinion would that happen or could Canada remain 'free'. I say they would adopt it most likely the same day it passed in the US
That is the same answer everybody in denial uses. lol
Try using Admiralty Law the next time you take on the Feds, common law is civil law (how people interact), when treaty are the issue you need to argue your point using laws that apply to commerce.
LOL wow, endless entertainment, lol, the below is from that thread, you know the one that had you saying sorry for dragging it up. That is why i move the quote this this thread.
Quoting CDNBear I get this stuff emailed directly to my inbox.
Keep telling yourself that Mhz, if helps to keep you from putting a fork in the proverbial light socket and all.
Um ya, I do. Hence why I posted that thread what? 3 Years ago? Please do try and keep up Mhz.
I'm on MMN's mailing list. As well as 4 other more legitimate Native journalism sources. But I just bet you think you know oh so much more about my peeps then I do. Right Mhz?
Last edited:
What I was referring to was the use of the word sniper just to make a impact upon the reader. Just because someone gets shot between the eye does not mean it was done by a sniper.
What part of your own first paragraph did you not understand. It pretty much says it all. They were warned, and if I were them I would have taken the warning seriously. The author knew in advance what they were going to write. The article "Shooting and Crying" is a perfect example. Just a story, nothing more.
I edited one of your quotes with some editorial comments, similar to what the author did.:
"I went to our soldiers and said, 'The order has changed. We go into the house, they have five minutes to escape, we check each person who goes out individually to see that he has no weapons, and then we start going into the house floor by floor to clean it out" ... This means going into the house, opening fire at everything that moves , throwing a grenade, all those things. And then there was a very annoying moment. ( at this point the story seems to have become what the author wanted it to be, a little anti war creative writing. I do not believe everything quoted to the IDF soldiers ever happened. Everything from here down is fiction) One of my soldiers came to me and asked, 'Why?' I said, 'What isn't clear? We don't want to kill innocent civilians.' He goes, 'Yeah? Anyone who's in there is a terrorist, that's a known fact.' I said, 'Do you think the people there will really run away? No one will run away.' He says, 'That's clear,' and then his buddies join in: 'We need to murder any person who's in there. Yeah, any person who's in Gaza is a terrorist,' ...
"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it"
Please let me know when you plan to do that before a sitting Judge. A web-cast would be fine. Live would be better than recorded
Your are sure that no aspect of any treaty could be affected by anything that governs these aspects of everyday life. Everybody is subject to some of the things in this partial list. This is from an American text but being based on British rules we are the very same. I couldn't even tell you what the differences are (or if there even are) between any treaties drafted by the two separate Nations. The two same words point to a relationship of sorts.
Admiralty
admiralty: an overview
Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law (both substantive and procedural) governing navigation and shipping. Topics associated with this field in legal reference works may include: shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.
The courts and Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. American admiralty law formerly applied only to American tidal waters. It now extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. In such waters admiralty jurisdiction includes maritime matters not involving interstate commerce, including recreational boating.
Admiralty law in the United States developed from the British admiralty courts present in most of the American colonies. These courts functioned separately from courts of law and equity. With the Judiciary Act, though, Congress placed admiralty under the jurisdiction of the federal district courts. Although admiralty shares much in common with the civil law, it is separate from it. Common law does not act as binding precedent on admiralty courts, but it and other law may be used when no law on point is available.
(end quote)
In a fight in the courts you want to win, decisively so there can be no appeal.
If some point that the above Law System would cover would make a Judge decide in your favor you would use it? Gets to be a bit odd when the 3 combatants in the day (2 lawyers and 1 Judge) become best of friends at days end. No doubt one lawyer might even be congratulated for stopping his client from introducing arguments that have precedents that cannot be argued against.
The argument that determines the Judges decision in favor for used portions of that same form of Law, the one that is higher than civil law. Too late as all rights to appeals are now void.
The part I quoted was less than 1 day old. Most people can remember that far back.