War against Iraq is based on lies, lies and more lies

Steissd, if u dont shoot them you dont have to treat them. It safes u a lot of work.

BTW, UN officials did not actually visit Jenin, the report is no substitute for a thorough and impartial investigation.

And I am not the only one. The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, also has accused the Israeli army of committing war crimes during its incursions into the West Bank towns of Jenin and Nablus. Amnesty says Isreal army killed civilians, tortured prisoners, destroyed houses and prevented the arrival of humanitarian aid in the Palestinian towns. They also believe that over 50 Palestinians were killed in the fighting in Jenin and at least 80 got killed in Nablus, many of them civilians.

Just like me, Amnesty strongly condemns suicide bombings and wants Palestinian armed groups to end attacks on civilians.

the report noted that much of the fighting took place in heavily populated civilian areas partly because the Palestinians put their fighters in those areas in breach of international law, the diplomats said.

=> Where do u want them to fight their occupiers?

They all are packed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. the camps today are highly congested and overcrowded. U want them to fight in the open so the Helicopter missiles can take them out before then can fight?

It's as if no one remembers anything Bush said during his campaign for President.

Certainly, if no one can remember what the hell he said, no one can hold him accountable.

Time for a little refresher: On the Oct. 31st preceding the 2000 election, George W. Bush said, "You can't say one thing and do another."

Seems that George W., unlike the first George president, a certain Mr. Washington, can tell a lie. Repeatedly. With great variation. With immense feeling. Those voters happy to think of Bush in the terms Karl Rove has created and cast their votes for him ought to think again. Molly Ivins, who followed his time in Texas with more care and attention than the casual voter, said, "watch what he does, not what he says," and was right. Here are a few of the whoppers in the context of the past two years:

All who heard the line about being a "humble nation," and treating our world neighbors with "humility": when push came to shove in the latest Bush obsession with war, the wheedling, bullying, threats and bribes came to the fore. When the rest of the world, through the auspices of the UN said, "nope, no good," the administration intimated that we, the US of A, will gladly go it alone. Screw the rest of the world. So much for humility. The truth is this is the most arrogant bunch to occupy the White House since Nixon.

When the economy was healthy, Bush said we needed a tax cut for the rich to keep it healthy. When the economy soured under his watch, he said we needed a tax cut for the wealthy to pull it out of the doldrums. When that didn't work, he said we needed another tax cut for the wealthy for long-term growth. But those blue-collar Southerners who voted for him still think he's talking about them....

"Free trade" was a mantra for Bush, until his constituency (multi-national corporations) complained about Canadian lumber and foreign steel, and then suddenly tariffs applied. Everyone hoped that the president meant "fair trade" and not "free trade." Nope.

In February 2002, Bush smiled on minor tax credits for hybrid-electric vehicles. During the campaign, he derided Gore for suggesting support for such vehicles, often with a smirk and derisive laughter. Later, when big tax credits for gas-hogging SUVs were suggested by Bush, no one remembered February, 2002.

During the campaign, Bush dissed "nation-building." When it was apparent that the U.S. was determined to rearrange rocks in Afghanistan and destroy what little existing infrastructure they had, nation-building was on the lips of every one of his staff. By 2003, money for that had disappeared from the Bush budget. A few sheepish Republicans corrected Mr. Bush's staff error, but only to the tune of $300 million for each of the following two years, about a fifth of what is actually required to make a difference each year.

Kyoto Protocol? During the campaign, carbon dioxide controls were okay; today, that's a figment of the imagination of even the lapdog media. Not only did Bush back out of the Kyoto accord, the "Clear Skies Initiative" lately promoted is a retread of Texas policy for voluntary compliance created by industry hacks appointed by Bush and which has consequently awarded Texas the sobriquet of having the worst air and water quality, combined, in the entire nation.

All in all, Bush represented himself to the voters by his own words as a moderate politician, sensible and pragmatic. By his public utterances during his campaign, contrasted with his policy decisions in office, he's turned out to be wholly the opposite of what he described himself to be.

That means, quite simply, that George W. Bush is an outright liar, misrepresenting himself, the people he intended for appointment to public office, and the direction in which he intended to take the country, which is ultimately ours, not his.

We were so much better off when the lying was only about consensual sex between adults...

I know what is the position of the Amnesty International. Simply the linkage exists of the Palestinian terror and operations of military. During the first intifada, when the militants limited themselves to throwing rocks, and majority of terror attacks were performed with knives or axes, IDF used in most cases non-lethal weapons to treat the disturbances in the territories. If the Palestinians agree to lower profile of their struggle, reciprocal steps of Israel will follow. If they put end to violence from their side, the situation may return to status that existed in 1996-99, and negotiations leading to foundation of the independent Palestinian state will be continued. But there is some difference between behavir of Israelis and the European Jews in the period of Holocaust: Israelis will not leave their murderers unpunished. It will be good for Palestinians to realize this as soon as possible. Then it will be possible to talk peace to them, and to make the necessry concessions (by the way, my position on settlements coincides with this of President Bush: they must be frozen on the first stage, and part of them is to be dismantled in course of the permanent agreement; the ones not being dismantled should be swapped for the parts of sovereign Israel that host Arab population).

PDiddie! Very concise. And you didn't even touch on his being the "Education President".

You linked the Un report to a "Fox-news" site, which doesn't work.

The correct link should be:
UN Jenin Report

And this report gives, indeed, a different view than you quoted! For instance:

Thanks for information, Mr. Hinteler. I have repaired the link (there was an excessive dot in the URL, erroneously picked in process of copying), and now it works. However, the almost complete text is available in the quote that I posted here.

Wolf


Not only don't you know the precise numbers you don't know what you are talking about.

frolic
Everybody knows that the stories released calling the action in Jenin a massacre were a typical Arab and their supporters in the EU big lie {must be mimicking Hitler}. There was no massacre. As far as civilians being hurt that is inevitable since the murdering Palestinians chose to use human shields. If they want to see an end of the killing all the Palestinians have to do is to stop the terrorist attacks and suicide bombings. Remember the Israeli's retaliate for attacks directed at civilians while the Palestinians target them. How do you feel about attacks by Palestinian suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians? Rhetorical question I know the answer. Your anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiments come accross loud and clear.

Almost complete isn't complete. :wink:

Referring to the original seems better, I think, than using a biased second hand source.

Sometimes the adulation and blind justification by others for this man Bush, make me think twice about my almost tangible distaste for him. But even trying to apply the most objectivity my itty bitty self can muster, this guy still comes out as an insensitive man, a liar, and someone who is not very smart. What the hell were people thinking about to put this man in such an influential position as president of the most powerful nation on earth?

The original contains basically the same information, but report of Fox seems just more readable. There are too many details in the original report that distract attention from the essence of conclusions.

people like simple answers to difficult questions.

The anti-Israeli feelings started dominating in Europe due to blunders of the Israeli Foreign Office in tenure of Simon Peres: they deliberately did not launch the counter-propaganda campaign. Mr. Peres erroneously considered Arafat being a suitable partner for negotiations, and did not want to compromise him. Israelis even censored on our national television the video record of lynch of two non-combattant reservists that erroneously entered Ramallah on their way to the outfit and were literally torn to pieces by the crowd of lynchers. The video record was made by the Italian journalists, and they latter had to leave the territories, since Palestinians threatened their lives for having disclosed an undesirable truth that might have impaired the propagandist effort of PA in Europe.
While Palestinian and other Arab emissaries frequented in Europe doing their best to gain the support of the public opinion in favor of their case and spreading for this purpose enormous lies, Israeli PR campaign was limited to voluntary effort of Mr. Netaniahu (that did not have any official position in the national unity government of Sharon-Peres-Ben-Eliezer), but the latter worked mainly with the American audience. This resulted in distortion of the real situation in opinion of the European public.

This is what i wrote in a previous posting:


The Israeli govt wants us to belief they all are terorists. But if u call them terrorist you also can call the IDF a terrorist organisation. They kill at will and execute suspects without any trial and without any 100% proof.

What is a massacre to you? over 50 people killed in Jenin and at least 80 killed in Nablus in a few days time. Isn't that a massacre? Since the second intifada almost 2000 palestinians got killed. Do you really think those were all terrorists?

I have very strong anti-Israeli govt and anti-American govt sentiments, yes. So? Is it forbidden to have an opinion of your own?

I can't agree with that assessment. anti-Semitic and the related Anti- Israeli feeling in Europe is the result of 1000 years plus of Anti-Semitism practiced by the Europeans. It wasn't too long ago that Europeans [even before Hitler] were killing Jews for sport. In fact in the very land of your birth.

Tell me, how can someone that support the Palestinian cry for freedom be anti-semitic? The Palestinians are Semits too!!! I have no problem at all with the jews here in Antwerp(one of the largest Jewish communities in Europe)

PDiddle - thanks for the history reminder. If nothing else, this sorry state of affairs will lead people to distrust everything that any elected official, anywhere in the world, says. We all will have to be our own individual patriots.

It is not forbidden, of course. There were some politicians in the past that had strong anti-American, anti-Russian, anti-British and anti-Semitic (there was no state of Israel by that time) feelings. Neither did they limit their anti-French feelings to verbal invectives and renaming of food stuff. Some of them had a very bad end of their life in 1946 (according to the verdict of Nuremberg Trial).
50 people were killed in Nablus in process of intensive battle in the urban area, and Palestinians are responsible for deploying their militants in the midst of civilian population. 50 killed in two weeks of battle is not too much. There were days in 1942 in the Eastern front that number of casualties from each of the involved sides exceeded 50 thousand (per day, I remind). It depends on intensity of battle. If Israelis were not concerned of civilians, or if there were no civilians in Nablus, then they could end the battle in 10-15 minutes, just by carpet bombing the area, using metal slurry bombs (resembling MOAB or BLU-82, only much smaller) and napalm: all the militants would be killed instantly. But the concern of possible civilian casualties made our government to launch a ground operation instead of this. It decreased number of Palestinian civilian casualties on expense of lives of the IDF soldiers that were killed and injured in course of the ground force operation.

au1929, if i bounce your explanation of the so called anti-semitic feelings in europe to the US

=> The US is anti-indians(native americans) because they killed them for sport.

There was a certain period in the North American history when the Indians were treated in undue way, some of them being unjustly killed. More, there was a period when large number of the Black citizens were formally enslaved. But all these are bygones, just as inquisition bonfires, extinction camps and gas chambers in Europe.
Anti-Semitic and anti-American feelings of sufficient numbers of Europeans refer to current time.