No, ....... they would be anti-Israeli if they have never ever condemned anybody else in the world of similar crimes.
Goldstone report on Cast Lead - Repudiated - By Goldstone - If I had of known then???
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Look at the list of members and how many resolutions were against Israel. Posting them would be fine so we can all see and then form an opinion. I am sure you would not be selective, but say we look to the last 5 years. That covers changes in the UNHRC members and what they looked at.
My opinion is correct, using a military machine against a civilian population is the act of a morally bankrupt people.
The Nazis operated within the law, their action proved they were also morally bankrupt at the time.
Seems that 'virus' just found a new host rather than the war eliminating it. Clear?
Take your pick.
Security Council Resolutions
United Nations: Human Rights
http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.3820041/
no The UN and Israel used the articles of war to determine guilt or innocence. That they refused to prosecute war crimes in the past was already established before cast lead was designed.
If they had free will to operate outside the law there would have been no need for false flag operations. Since they did resort to that that means the will of the people was manipulated to gain a desired end. Lairs are morally bankrupt, it doesn't matter what Nation they represent.
Last edited:
The wording in the original repport was worded in a way that did support crimes were being committed.
He is abiding by the view of the UN on the list of 'concerns'.
His, first impressions and a review of the findings of the investigation, if they differ that does not make the person dishonorable.
I'm not a liar, my opinions are based on information that was in the works in the 1880's. The ones lying then are still lying today and their is no Law that states the UN has the authority to give anybodies land away to a foreign population. If you want to change my mind that is where you have to start.
No one said "dishaonourable". You said "wrong". Because as you said, "he wasn't there, he didn't talk to victims and witnesses". Which of course is a lie. He was there, he did talk to witnesses and victims.
You said his report was the end all of proof of Israels wrong doing. Now you believe his investigation was flawed. But still say you weren't wrong in using a flawed report to validate your opinions.
Why should we respect your opinion, when you have no ethical standard, to speak of.
See above.
The rest of your post is a red herring.
Wrong again - The Nazi's operated under law that were found to be later illegal - So be careful about spouting that BS
Comparative to Iran executing gays - Well it is legal. Really,I expect better than that. .
I asked a simple question.
Never mind posting links for people to sort thru the myriad of information
UNHRC - last 5 years - How many resolutions were focused on Israel - How many were on Arab Countries. Or China, Or others that have been found to be by Amnesty intr. as gross violators of basic human rights.
Simple question. Right??? Why the difficulty???
Back when I covered tha aspect I was saying the decision the NU made should have been based on withess testimony from the ones that were interviewed by Mt Goldstone (or his staff). Why you would think I would promote that he was never there is person sort of escapes me. The post was the one that has the vid of the faked incubator story that helped launch UN sanctioned Gulf War I. That report should have went to the same branch that is doing the STL pre-trial investigation. Once they did their investigation they could recommend if it should be taken to the next level. Instead the UN accepted the IDF investigation and conclusion as having dealt with the matter fully. Are they complaining ther were too many forms to fill out.
I said it was a reason enough for investigations and (hopefully) charges for war crimes and crimes against humanity that were actually successfully prosecuted.
If you can't comprehend simple statements why would I want to to even agree with me about something. Let's see how they do with an old assassination in which there is no shortage of players and direct evidence abounds, right down predator-type footage from Israel. They owned and operated the tracking drone, Hezbollah donated the footage from a hacked transmission.
See below
Well there goes the early bedtime.
I bet a lot escapes you.
Your exact words...
Red herring.
No you didn't. I can get your exact words if you like.
Oh I comprehend it. I just don't understand how you can have the opinion that it was the proof you needed to vindate and validate your opinions then, and now he's a hack that wasn't even there, according to you.
Red herring.
I do not condone you ignoring your moms wishes.
[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica]1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them. Here is a primer, the rest might take some digging but the masses were duped by their own gov into believing things that had no fact, that is a fact, lol
[/FONT]http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/gunlaws.htm
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/GunControl/Articles/NaziGunLaw.htm\
Why not bring up the woman that was in the news recently, stoning because of adultery. Big uproar when the part about the charges also included her killing her husband because of that affair. Perhaps the one to do with gays had to do with rapes in prison
From the link Israel has the lead, by a long shot, if you dispute that ............
Enough that I try to keep the total down as low as I can get it. With you by my side that would mean nothing gets past if you are as good as you say you are. Everybody has there limits though. Using the Peter Principle I am just where I should be to be at the top of my game, can you say the same for yourself?
That doesn't explain why I would say he wasn't there at all, I said he wasn't there when the shrapnel was flying. Those people would have been interviewed by a UN Court. It would be pretty foolish to show up at an IDF version of court.
That is better than being snowballed from the side.
If it is that important ...........
Acid or herring, don't combine your meds.
She doesn't wish anymore, her last one was on Jan 24.11 1:24 AM
In the news when the article about the stoning would be 'set aside' for sake of the children.
Since you just tried to deflect admitting another lie of yours, that I simply presented undeniable proof of. I'd say someone is at the top of their game.
I bet you still think it's you.
No, that what you changed it to, when I presented you with the facts of the matter, the first time. Without ever acknowledging you were wrong.
I know, I keep hitting you square in the face.
It isn't really, you'll just dodge and deflect, and never acknowledge being caught in a lie. See first two replies, for proof of that.
Words I'm sure you have to live by.
She doesn't wish anymore, her last one was on Jan 24.11 1:24 AM[/QUOTE]Sorry, your caretaker then.
My bad, I should have clipped the part that began with 'perhaps'. Not that you understand what conjecture is. You use it like factual evidence all the time.
I would never think anything if it required you also believe it.
Show me where I said he wasn't there. His personal testimony would have been 3rd party, the trial, had there been one, would have had witnesses that were there.
Not a big deal when the only ammo you have is blanks.
This is where the quote should be
Statically I would bet that my graduating HS class probably had more OD's than any from that school, especially around the age of 40. What a bar though !!!
That's quite apparent.
I already did.
Which of course why you use deflection.
What quote? I already provided one quote, you just asked me to provide again. Thus proving my point.
I'm sure they did. Your posts are the obvious outcome of said brain damaging OD's.
Yes, he may have experienced all of that. Because what he did was considered a "Blood libel".
A traditional Jewish practice, when someone wrongs them.
Why is that tradition abhorrent to you, when you have supported, repeatedly, the Taliban's Muslim tradition of protecting guests?
How do you justify that?
You had to quit drinking didn't you? I don't drink much anymore (a 4pak on a hot summer day) cause the bar is almost empty, what's your excuse?
I respect Justice Goldstone. IMO, he has demonstrated the highest level integrity and honesty during his career which includes his days as a justice in South Africa dismantling Apartheid and later during the war crimes investigations in Yugoslavia. Some people here have recently become fans of Justice Goldstone, because they believe he has retracted his report and absolved Israel of all war crimes and crimes against humanity. The fact is, Goldstone has not done any of these things.
Judge Richard Goldstone admits parts of the report were flawed because of a lack of Israeli cooperation. He more or less said the same thing when he released the report.
Most of the report remains valid and much of the reaction to his oped ignores the substance of both the Goldstone Report (officially, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict)and Goldstone's reappraisal. The latter certainly raises questions about the accuracy of parts of the report.
But it does not go nearly as far as many Israeli supporters claim that Goldstone "retracted his allegations that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Operation Cast Lead." Human rights groups call that an overly generous reading of Goldstone's essay, and say that many of the report's central allegations still stand.
I suggest to many of Justice Goldstone's new found supporters that they read both his oped and his report. Hopefully they will get their own opinion based directly on Goldstone's words and not given an opinion based on what others say Goldstone said:
Oped
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
Judge Richard Goldstone admits parts of the report were flawed because of a lack of Israeli cooperation. He more or less said the same thing when he released the report.
Most of the report remains valid and much of the reaction to his oped ignores the substance of both the Goldstone Report (officially, the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict)and Goldstone's reappraisal. The latter certainly raises questions about the accuracy of parts of the report.
But it does not go nearly as far as many Israeli supporters claim that Goldstone "retracted his allegations that Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity during Operation Cast Lead." Human rights groups call that an overly generous reading of Goldstone's essay, and say that many of the report's central allegations still stand.
I suggest to many of Justice Goldstone's new found supporters that they read both his oped and his report. Hopefully they will get their own opinion based directly on Goldstone's words and not given an opinion based on what others say Goldstone said:
Oped
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...and-war-crimes/2011/04/01/AFg111JC_story.html
Report
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-48.pdf
Last edited: