Politics and Religion

That would be beyond absurd- but I see no evidence that she actually said that
marikod 1 Reviews 901 reads
posted

As best as I can tell, she criticized the United States for helping fund the Iron Dome system in a press briefing. She apparently told the reporters that “no such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling.”  But I can find no statement from her that Israel’s failure to share the Iron Dome does or could constitute “a war crime.” She would have to be a idiot to make a comment like that -and she is not.

         Just a bad lead by the Breibart reporter to create a headline that has been picked up by the internet media which always says “as reported by Breibert.” And indeed, the entire article is grossly slanted to make it appear that Ms. Pillay is only accusing Israel of possible war crimes. But Huffpo reports she accused both sides:

The U.N.'s top human rights official is accusing Israel and Hamas militants of committing war crimes in the latest Gaza war.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says that by placing and firing rockets within heavily populated areas both sides are committing "a violation of international humanitarian law, therefore a war crime."

      The Breibert article even assets that the “UNHRC has never formally mentioned Hamas by name, let alone condemned it. “  

     This would seem an outrageous omission if true but give that the article is about her press briefing and she expressly stated that Hamas was committing war crimes, I can’t say have much confidence in this either

I simply do not know what to say, even *I* am surprised at this level of blatant one-sided arrogance and empowerment of Arab terrorism by the United Nations

They'd tell the allies if they are going to bomb German and Japanese cities they must allow the Axis to hit some US cities to make it even. If the brave, valiant Hamassholes would come out and fight like men instead of hiding with kids and under women's skirts there would not be civilians dying. By the way the  iron dome is the technology proposed by Reagan that was mocked as "star wars"

GaGambler731 reads

I caught about 15 minutes of his show on the radio yesterday, and I think I like the term too.

For the record, I don't believe that Israel is 100% right and the A'rabs are 100% wrong, but this one is almost laughable if the subject matter wasn't so serious.

Regardless of HOW we got to where we are today, the truth of the matter is, if the bulk of the Muslim world were to simply disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a single tear. Ok, fuck it, if the ENTIRE Muslim world were to disappear, I'd most likely go out an celebrate. It most likely is going to come down to a matter of "us or them" eventually, I just hope it's us.

As best as I can tell, she criticized the United States for helping fund the Iron Dome system in a press briefing. She apparently told the reporters that “no such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling.”  But I can find no statement from her that Israel’s failure to share the Iron Dome does or could constitute “a war crime.” She would have to be a idiot to make a comment like that -and she is not.

         Just a bad lead by the Breibart reporter to create a headline that has been picked up by the internet media which always says “as reported by Breibert.” And indeed, the entire article is grossly slanted to make it appear that Ms. Pillay is only accusing Israel of possible war crimes. But Huffpo reports she accused both sides:

The U.N.'s top human rights official is accusing Israel and Hamas militants of committing war crimes in the latest Gaza war.
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay says that by placing and firing rockets within heavily populated areas both sides are committing "a violation of international humanitarian law, therefore a war crime."

      The Breibert article even assets that the “UNHRC has never formally mentioned Hamas by name, let alone condemned it. “  

     This would seem an outrageous omission if true but give that the article is about her press briefing and she expressly stated that Hamas was committing war crimes, I can’t say have much confidence in this either

JackDunphy659 reads

Since the Gazans don't have one, why isn't she asking other U.N. nations to put up or shut up to build one for them?  

Wouldn't that be the counter argument to the Iron Dome rather than take a cheap shot at the U.S. for protecting Israeli citizens against the murderous acts of terrorists??????

Your analysis of overreach and distortion by Breitbart is correct but you also distorted what Ms. Pillay said about Hamas. At least according the link Breitbart provided. Maybe you read something else.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.608237

While she specifically described Israeli actions as war crimes, she referred to the Hamas actions as having "violated international humanitarian law". Semantics? I don't know. You tell me.  

I do know that the vast majority of her comments (or at least those quoted) were critical of Israel and the U.S. with her only criticism of Hamas being the one I quoted above. She did criticize the U.S. for not providing Hamas the Iron Dome.

BTW, do you have any historical knowledge of people like Ms. Pillay speaking out during the 1940s? Yes, I know the U.N didn't exist then.

Mari, sometimes it's OK to pick a a side. Maybe it's time for Israel to actually "go all in".

I quoted from Huffpo directly. I said Huffpo reported that she said:  

both sides are committing "a violation of international humanitarian law, therefore a war crime."

 
The quotation marks are from Huffpo. Your link does not contain this quote.

 
          Conversely, when Breibart reported that she said that failure to share the Iron Dome was a war crime, Breibart did not use quotation marks – the first clue that this allegation was made up.

        I don’t follow your point at all. If Huffpo quoted her correctly, she accused both sides of committing war crimes and she said that EXPRESSLY – no need to wonder if she equated “a  violation of international humanitarian law “ with a “war crime.

I missed your link and you missed mine. They both were attempting to show Ms. Pillay's words but were not the same either. Your's used quotation marks more but it was also quite shallow.

What my question boils down to is this, are "violation(s) of international humanitarian law" indeed war crimes? HuffPo's quote says she thinks yes. Harretz was less explicit. I asked your opinion on as much.

Either way it is clear that Ms.Pillay has picked sides even though she makes an obligatory attempt at impartially.

My last point is clear. I don't understand how you can try to maintain what you apparently believe is the appearance of impartiality. I don't think it's an oversimplification to say it's easy to pick a side here.

-- Modified on 8/2/2014 8:58:21 PM

You cannot equate the evil, murderous thugs of Hamas with the people of Gaza. You cannot say that, because of the criminal actions of maybe 300 to 400 Hamas thugs, Israel is justified in destroying Gaza to deal with the rockets and the tunnels. So I disagree with you profoundly – it is not easy to pick a side.

 
          If Hamas captured a plane load of Americans and used them as human shields in Gaza, do you really believe that Israel would continue its “precision airstrikes” anywhere near the Americans?  Do you think the United States would tolerate such military action even if necessary to get rid of the rockers and tunnels?

         If your answer to these questions is “no,” then how do you justify the same conduct when the human shields are the people of Gaza? So it is a very complex problem.

     And I am not neutral - what Israel is doing  in terms of the remedy it has chosen is wrong. I look at the degree of risk posed by the rockets and tunnels and say this risk is insufficient to justify destroying Gaza and its people.  Better to assassinate every member of Hamas instead.

            As to the whether a violation of international humanitarian law is also a war crime,  I don’t know enough about either war crimes or international humanitarian law to have an opinion. My guess is that the former is a much broader category than war crimes and that a state can violate international humanitarian law w/o necessarily commiting a war crime but I really don’t know

The people of Gaza elected Hamas.

The people of Germany elected Hitler. They paid a steep price for doing so.

The “risk” posed by Hitler is the greatest the world has ever seen. And it was not merely a risk – he actively invaded most of Europe and Russia and engaged in genocide.

       Even worse, this is the reasoning OBL gave for 9/11 – he claimed that the actions of the United States justified the killing of its civilians. At least President Bush could claim he perceived a true risk to the US- he believed and you could argue believed reasonably though erroneously  that Saddam had WMD.

 
Your weakest argument EVER

Hamas has invaded Israel, not nearly to the scale of Hitler but an invasion and declaration of war nonetheless. And the response of the invaded now has not been any where near as forceful as the invaded then. Invasions of Israel don't matter but those of Europe do?
 
You actually think Israel is purposefully trying to target innocent people? The blood of most of the dead Palestinians is on the hands of Hamas and their sympathizers.

You can never start too early learning vital life skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH3a87_29Lo

Israel’s antagonist stand would not be there without US Tax Payers backing Israel and there would have been peace. Talk about one sided but, it is not the UN, it is the US

IsorokuYamamoto641 reads

Can always count on fungi to be the asswipe of the day.  

Posted By: anonymousfun
Israel’s antagonist stand would not be there without US Tax Payers backing Israel and there would have been peace. Talk about one sided but, it is not the UN, it is the US.  
   
 

...could there ever be peace under those circumstances?

How would you like to walk around every day with a fatwa on your dumb ass calling for your death?

-- Modified on 8/1/2014 2:28:42 PM

Will be right but no so much wit method . Load cargo air wit 1000 Ebola infested west Africa corpses un body bomb both Israeli and Pal. drop one on goat herder  gambler in the same

-- Modified on 8/2/2014 3:29:01 AM

...is that the USA isn't giving backpack nukes to both sides. If Shithead Team A kills off Shithead Team B and vice versea, then I wouldn't have to hear about shitheads on my TV. What was hilarious was when they tried to call a truce for 72 hours, and it only lasted 2. Great, now I get to see more dead shitheads on my TV.  

Perhaps some people take offense that I call these shitheads shitheads. Well, I give you exhibit A:  

https://archive.today/RPf3M

When an Israeli Jew talks about when genocide is permissible, then I think we can officially say that the Jews have milked their holocaust sympathy for all it's worth. That would be like black people saying that slavery is cool, so long as it's not us.  

All this is enough to make Willy get down on his knees and pray.  

"Oh Heavily Cloud Spook,  
I know we don't talk much, because I'm not a fan of talking to imaginary friends. But just in case you do exist, despite the total lack of evidence that you do, I have just one request. Can you send down a plague upon these miserable and worthless shitheads in Israel and Gaza? I don't mean a plague that will make innocent people sick and die, I just mean a disease that only kills off shitheads in the Middle East. Maybe a disease that makes them choke on their own diarrhea. I sure once you've killed off all these shitheads wearing stupid hats, the world will immediately become a better place. What do ya say?
Amen."

...you make Xiaominglover1 seem like a Zionist by comparison.

After all that bullshit over the years about anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism being two distinct issues, finally you're being honest about where you REALLY stand. You're no different than the German Nazi's and the Ku Klux Klan. You espouse mass murder and pray for genocide, like the barbarians who use children as shields and then feed on their remains.
 
Once upon a time, I used to hunt animals like you.

Posted By: willywonka4u
...is that the USA isn't giving backpack nukes to both sides. If Shithead Team A kills off Shithead Team B and vice versea, then I wouldn't have to hear about shitheads on my TV. What was hilarious was when they tried to call a truce for 72 hours, and it only lasted 2. Great, now I get to see more dead shitheads on my TV.  
   
 Perhaps some people take offense that I call these shitheads shitheads. Well, I give you exhibit A:  
   
 https://archive.today/RPf3M  
   
 When an Israeli Jew talks about when genocide is permissible, then I think we can officially say that the Jews have milked their holocaust sympathy for all it's worth. That would be like black people saying that slavery is cool, so long as it's not us.  
   
 All this is enough to make Willy get down on his knees and pray.  
   
 "Oh Heavily Cloud Spook,  
 I know we don't talk much, because I'm not a fan of talking to imaginary friends. But just in case you do exist, despite the total lack of evidence that you do, I have just one request. Can you send down a plague upon these miserable and worthless shitheads in Israel and Gaza? I don't mean a plague that will make innocent people sick and die, I just mean a disease that only kills off shitheads in the Middle East. Maybe a disease that makes them choke on their own diarrhea. I sure once you've killed off all these shitheads wearing stupid hats, the world will immediately become a better place. What do ya say?  
 Amen."

Here is where I stand: whatever it takes to remove those shitheads from my TV, and prevents Muslims from killing 3000 Americans in a revenge terrorist attack for the support we give Israel.  

Perhaps both sides can sit down and work something out........I'm just funnin' ya. We both know they won't. So really, I'm just being a realist when it comes to achieving peace in the Middle East. I have a fool-proof solution that will do it. Kill all the shitheads.  

This isn't hard to figure out. Why isn't the Middle East in peace right now? Because of a bunch of violent crazy religious shitheads are killing each other. Therefore, if we kill off all the crazy religious shitheads, there will be peace in the Middle East. Ta-da! My logic is flawless.  

A Nazi, Doc? Really? Maybe you missed this in my previous post. Jews have milked the Holocaust cow until she's bone dry. When Jews start talking about when genocide is acceptable, then you get no more milk. Germans don't commit acts of genocide anymore. Israeli Jews do.  

It doesn't matter if I pray for genocide. I could also pray that a million dollars will pop into existence in my back yard. It wouldn't change a damn thing. Do you know why? Because at the end of the day, you're just muttering incoherent bullshit to yourself. You know, like crazy people do at the park when they run out of medication.

GaGambler904 reads

Xiao and the rest of the "Jew bashers" only want the jews exterminated. Willy isn't picking "sides" in this multi millennia conflict, he wants both sides to quit fucking up this part of the world and making the entire planet a more dangerous place to live over something as ridiculous as which version of the same fairy tale (a fairy tale, that you now reject I might add) is the "truth"

Doesn't that seem like a ridiculous reason for human life to end on this planet, and as technology improves and weapons become more and more lethal, the odds of these whackos ending all of our lives becomes more and more real. What is really wrong with wishing them ALL dead before they kill the rest of us?

Posted By: willywonka4u
... That would be like black people saying that slavery is cool, so long as it's not us.  ."
Well there was enough blacks that own slaves in the usa that proved that point.

I think when creating a state/nation people, in modern times, tend to think that it is some type of peaceful process in said establishment of a state or nation. Usually when a group creates a state/nation there is someone already on the land that need to moved out one way or the other. With you having both sides claiming to be saints, then you are just going to have a situation that is never going to be resolved.

To me it is just a waste of time hoping for peace in the whole Gaza/ Israel/West Bank situation, as they are going to be fighting until either they kill each off or someone steps in to kill off both parties. My question is what is the USA getting out of all of the time and money that is being spent on both sides that could be better spent here in the USA.

I feel sorry for those that just want peace, but life is not fair and they are stuck in situation where their dreams of peace are more than likely never going to come true.

When, Jews are killing more Arabs daily?  

More like Jewish terrorism

Firing thousands of rockets into populated areas, destroying property and potentially killing people is NOT terrorism?

When it is done by Israel, is it not terrorism?  

Israel escalated this war and thus far has killed 1,600 people. Only reason, they can with US support.  

As I said, the day US backs off from supporting Israel is the day peace will come to the Middle East. Neither is going to happen in the foreseeable future.

After all, the british stole the land Israel occupies from the Arabs in 1948. Why didn’t they steal is from Eastern and Western Europe that is where holocaust and persecution of Jews happened in the modern era. Should have craved out from Germany, why didn’t they

But to be congenial. Hamas has declared war on Israel. That has been true for a long time and has not changed. Israel has for great periods of time shown much restraint in defending itself and has not declared war on the Palestinians. At this moment they are being more vigorous than normal but are still holding back.

No doubt, the British drew borders throughout the Middle East after WWI that seem very arbitrary, not just  after WWII for Israel. But why only go back to 1948 to determine proper boards? The Ottoman Empire did quite a number through violence that disrupted previous boarders. Jews did not originate in Germany. Are you aware the Ottoman Empire and Arabs had been a long standing ally of Germany? How long does a border need to exist before it's considered sacrosanct?

Now please answer my question.

-- Modified on 8/2/2014 9:21:29 PM

Register Now!