UN Officials DEBUNK Israeli Lies - No Weapons Found In UN Facilities

[Segami]

" CENSORED BY BBC CNN AND FOX "

[IronGate]

1. At this point in time,

I don't believe a fucking word the "UN" has to say, it's very obvious that they're anti Israel.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

2. You should probably tune in to Sean Hannity then.

He's spouting the talking points people like you want to hear right now. I'll stick with the non corporate media.

[Fred Sanders]

4. I think he may be him.....displays all the symptoms.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. I've noticed that too.

It takes a lot of brass to say "I don't want to pollute my own mindset and ruin the narrative I've created in my head with facts from people who are actually there watching whats happening".

Funny when it comes to Israel the "Israel at any cost" "liberals" turn into the most hawkish of right-wing Faux News pundits, they're indistinguishable.

Supporting center-left politicians at home when it impacts them and supporting right wing politicians in Israel when they're killing Palestinians..... Doesn't add up.

[Fred Sanders]

7. I noticed that too...some liberals are in lockstep with Fox News...enough said.

But his guy is not a liberal, he is the opposite.

[HooptieWagon]

9. And those handful of pro-Likud...

...supporters on DU spew the same extreme RW talking points, not to mention screech "anti-semetism" as a defense to any critism of Israeli govt policy. They try to blend in, but they've outed themselves.

[LittleBlue]

67. We've gotten a flood of low post count types

and those who have recently joined making trollish statements on this subject.

This guy's join date is April 5, 2014. I don't think he'll be here very long.

[IronGate]

70. Wow, just because I joined on 4/5/2014, I'm a troll?

What makes you think I won't be here for a long time? Because I don't walk in lockstep with the rest of you?
BTW, you can talk directly to me.

[IronGate]

72. Weren't you a low post count type at one time also?

[DocwillCuNow]

77. Post count is highly overrated. Now when it comes to being on ignore you have truly

accomplished something.

[IronGate]

78. Uh oh, look out,

you might be accused of being a troll because of your low post count.

[DocwillCuNow]

80. Yes I know, I'm shaking in my keyboard right now. I have no opinion on what is going on in the ME

other than the fact that it is wrong on all levels.

[IronGate]

81. I can agree with you that it's wrong on all levels.

[DocwillCuNow]

82. We should stone them all and by that I mean let them light up the peace pipe. n/t

[IronGate]

83. Hell, I'll supply the peace pipe if you supply the contents.

[DocwillCuNow]

84. You DEA or CIA? on edit to say I'M KIDDING of course. n/t

[LittleBlue]

86. See, here we go

Your first effort didn't draw me into a fight, so rather than edit you made a second post.

Don't make it so obvious.

[calilama]

46. Nor does claiming to be a progressive

and openly supporting a group committed to killing every Jew who posts here....CNN reported 65 missiles being fired into Israel during Netanyahu's speech..they lying as well?.....Hamas has more support on this board than it has in the Arab world...go figure

[IronGate]

13. If that's what helps you sleep at night, then you have my permission to believe that.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

32. I cannot begin to express the depth of my gratitude

Due to your giving us permission to use our brains and process facts, even discomforting ones. You would not believe what sleepless nights were like before we received your blessing and your permission.

Finally, at long last, we have your permission to believe "that." Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[IronGate]

34. You're more than welcome.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

35. The iron gate to your head

Seems to be a tad rusted.

[IronGate]

36. Insults.

The last gasp of a failed debate.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

37. No, insults would be wasted. This was an observation grounded

In fact.

I save my insults for someone with the capacity to understand them. Sadly, you do not qualify.

[IronGate]

52. Grounded in facts?

Methinks not.

[intaglio]

74. Unlike you who cannot even find simple facts to support your arguments

Someone who dodges then repeats and, somehow lacks any cognitive capacity beyond one line posts and copied propaganda. Are you sure you are in the correct forum? Wouldn't reddit suit your (for want of a better word) style?

[IronGate]

76. Oh I've provided simple facts when needed to support my view.

Reddit? What's that? Some sort of another insult?

[intaglio]

85. My, you do seem to be easily offended

especially over the wrong things. I think your "style" (that's an insult) may be even better suited to Twitter because you certainly seem to be a twit (so's this).

In the petulant little tirade (this is an insult even though it is factual) you launched here the only fact you supplied was that Hamas launched missiles all else was just assertion; which you followed by refusing to respond when provided with answers to those assertions.

But, hey, it's your life and feel free to go through it as a close minded, ignoramus (insults) who can only regurgitate spoon-fed deceits.

[hr]
To a jury, if you want to hide this, fine, but this person really needs telling these things.

[IronGate]

10. No thanks, I can't even stomach the sight of him

but just because many of us share the same opinion of the " UN", that doesn't make us comparable to Sean Hannity.

[Dragonfli]

5. That is a very strong charge. /nt

[Scootaloo]

8. Says the guy who loudly proclaims that whatever Israel does, he "supports it to the hilt"?

I don't think your perspective is worthy of consideration when it comes to judging what is "anti-Israel" and what is not. because obviously anything other than full "to the hilt" unconditional support like your own will be perceived as "anti-Israel."

[Spazito]

11. At this point, I don't believe a fucking word spoken by any Israeli representative...

their obscene propaganda has become blatant and is as believable as anything said by Hamas.

[magical thyme]

14. not unlike the time that UN inspector claimed there weren't any WMDs in Iraq

and then hid his face in shame after W unearthed all those WM...oh, wait a minute.

I don't believe a word Netanyahu or any other Israel government official says. Other than this one. This one, I believe means what eactly she says:



On Monday Shaked quoted this on her Facebook page: "Behind every terrorist stand dozens of men and women, without whom he could not engage in terrorism. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there."

"They have to die and their houses should be demolished so that they cannot bear any more terrorists," said Shaked. Standing behind the operations on Gaza, "they are all our enemies and their blood should be on our hands. This also applies to the mothers of the dead terrorists," Shaked added.

Read more: http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/07/14/mothers-of-all-palestinians-should-also-be-killed-says-israeli-politician

[calilama]

50. What a shock..there are assholes in Israel

There are the same assholes over here...the Hamas Charter says the same thing this dipshit says....they are as wrong so stop defending their hate as well

[magical thyme]

53. where did I defend their hate?

Although I will say that I don't think it is surprising that somebody fights back when somebody steals their home and throws their families into an open air prison.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Perhaps it is simply that the UN believes in a Rule of Law, i.e.,

the Geneva Conventions (http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/) that should apply equally to all.

Perhaps your interpretation of the Conventions is similar to that of RW Christians when they selectively interpret the Bible to justify whatever they want to do. If so, you may want to think again.

[IronGate]

23. So the 'UN" was lying the first 3 times they said they found rockets in their schools?

[BlueMTexpat]

25. If official UN spokespersons did say that, then

you have just made my case - expecting BOTH sides to adhere to the law.

[IronGate]

26. It was an official "UN" official that did say that.

so, you do have a point. which I can agree with.

[BlueMTexpat]

31. Please provide a url to support

your statement.

If the url comes from Faux or CNN or another third party and not from an official UN spokesperson, I would be quite skeptical.

But I have firsthand knowledge of UN practices and know that the UN literally bends over backwards to be scrupulously fair to all parties.

Unless you also have firsthand experience of working within the UN, then you should not be so quick to dismiss or smear.

[IronGate]

33. Here.

http://www.worldtribune.com/2014/07/23/un-acknowledges-facilities-gaza-used-store-hamas-rockets/

[Segami]

38. World Tribune.com content partners.....

The Internet community is a cooperative arena. Going it alone is not an option. The following World Tribune.com content partners have both contributed articles and columns and have helped alert the worldwide web to its exclusive reports:

DrudgeReport.com

Breitbart.com

NewsMax.com

WorldNetDaily.com

Middle East Newsline

GertzFile.com

The Washington Times

Hoover Institution

Geostrategy-Direct.com

Hudson Institute

East-Asia-Intel.com

Int. Strat. Studies Assoc.



http://www.worldtribune.com/about/

[IronGate]

41. I should have known that y'all would not believe it.

Is the Guardian acceptable

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/unrwa-investigating-20-rockets-empty-gaza-school-palestinian

[The Magistrate]

39. Try This One, Sir

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

[IronGate]

43. Thank you kindly.

Although I'm sure this link will be discounted also.

[BlueMTexpat]

45. Biased a bit are you?

LOL

[IronGate]

48. So were those other links correct?

And I've never made it a secret of my unabashed support for Israel.

[BlueMTexpat]

56. You are willfully missing my points.

a) Go to the source.

b) The UN bends over backward to be fair to all parties.

c) Whichever party you support, you should not smear without deserving cause any agency that works very hard to provide services to human beings in a war zone, especially where the odds are disproportionately stacked in favor of one party and especially if that party is the one you support.

d) Palestinians are human beings, every bit as deserving as Israelis.

[BlueMTexpat]

44. Thanks, Magistrate.

I missed that one - should have checked more thoroughly.

But you have done the right thing in going straight to the source, which continues to bolster my fairness argument.

[The Magistrate]

59. Certainly One Should Be Fair, Ma'am

And try and apply a single standard, whichever side one supports.

I do not comment on the video ( I am on an old machine which does not handle them well ), but I would venture that what storage has occurred is not U.N.W.R.R.A. policy, but rather abuse of it, by militant opportunists or local employees.

It is also a separate question from whether firing positions are taken up near protected facilities or locations, and if so, what should be done about it.

[BlueMTexpat]

61. True. Btw, the school mentioned in the statement

was also vacant. Even so, it is indeed a violation to store weapons in such facilities. If anything, it provides fodder for warmongers who wish to use such as a justification for firing on such facilities, even though firing on such facilities is a war crime whether weapons are stored there or not.

Fairness, yes, in calling it a violation. Equivalency, no, when one overwhelmingly well-armed side uses such to justify deliberately firing on such locations with full knowledge that civilians are likely to be there, especially when civilians literally have nowhere else to go.

Always nice to "see" you, Magistrate.

[The Magistrate]

66. On One Point, Ma'am, I Think You Are In Error

It is not certainly a crime to fire on a school in which weapons are stored. If it were, this would simply be issuing an invitation to the ruthless to convert schools, etc., into strong-points and depots, from which they could carry on unmolested, with the bonus of calling their foes criminals to boot if they were engaged.

A force confronted with a violation of this sort is required to take reasonable precautions against harm to non-combatants, and must gain a direct military benefit by its action sufficient to outweigh the risk of harm to non-combatants, and the people who established positions for fighting or storage of munitions such that attacks on them must endanger non-combatants bear equal criminal liability for harm to non-combatants.

Personally, in this round of attacks, I do not think the Israelis are meeting the 'direct military benefit' standard, in a great many of their strikes. I also think Hamas has in many instances deliberately placed non-combatants at hazard, and accordingly bears criminal responsibility for a good many of the deaths and injuries.

An even-handed tribunal would put a great many people from both sides in cells.

[BlueMTexpat]

88. There are quite a few international legal scholars who take issue

with just that point.

In its Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the ICJ stated that the principle of distinction, which requires belligerent States to distinguish between civilian and combatants, is one of the “cardinal principles” of international humanitarian law and one of the “intransgressible principles of international customary law”.

The principle of distinction is codified in Articles 48, 51(2) and 52(2) of the Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which no reservations have been made. According to Additional Protocol I, “attacks” refer to “acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence” (Article 49). Under both customary international law and treaty law, the prohibition on directing attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects is absolute. There is no discretion available to invoke military necessity as a justification.

Contrary to Israel’s claims, mistakes resulting in civilian casualties cannot be justified: in case of doubt as to the nature of the target, the law clearly establishes that an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes (such as schools, houses, places of worship and medical facilities), are presumed as not being used for military purposes. During these past weeks, UN officials and representatives have repeatedly called on Israel to strictly abide by the principle of precaution in carrying out attacks in the Gaza Strip, where risks are greatly aggravated by the very high population density, and maximum restraint must be exercised to avoid civilian casualties. HRW has noted that these rules exist to minimize mistakes “when such mistakes are repeated, it raises the concern of whether the rules are being disregarded.”

http://richardfalk.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/joint-declaration-by-international-law-experts-on-israels-gaza-offensive/

It is a bit strong to state that I am "in error" when I am in comparatively good company.

And while, yes, there are likely a great many people on both sides who are at fault here, there is also a huge difference between the actions of a comparatively small group of radical zealots, however reprehensible, and a State, with its full might, power and authority, in addition to its literally overwhelming financial and military superiority, that has been treating a dispossessed and disenfranchised population concentrated in a tiny geographical area like ghetto inhabitants for years.

If you really cannot see that, you truly disappoint me, Sir. I am heartily sorry for that.

[The Magistrate]

91. I Consider Them In Error As Well, Ma'am

And would note holes in the bolded portions through which one could drive a semi-trailer, let alone a battle tank.

It is quite true, for instance, that a facility such as a school is to be presumed not employed for military purposes, but it is quite possible for a government to be in possession of intelligence which convinces it that the facility is being used for such purposes, and this renders it a military target. Nor does the law require perfection; it is not true that an error is equivalent to malice aforethought, and I do not care who attempts to maintain that it is. It is possible for a mistake to be so egregious as to constitute negligence in a criminal degree, but that is a different thing, and to make such a judgement requires far more knowledge of the circumstances around and decisions behind the action than is available to anyone at present.

I do not consider the power of the sides equivalent, though I do not see much difference in terms of moral worth between Hamas and Likud. I am of the view, as I said, that the Israeli armed forces are in many of their actions failing to meet the standards of law as I understand them, just as I recognize the strategy of Hamas action is precisely to provoke such behavior in their opponents, and their guiding tactic to see to it non-combatants among their people are placed at risk of harm.

[BlueMTexpat]

96. I have long admired your pithy statements,

Magistrate, and will likely continue to do so for the most part. But there are indeed some principles that are considered absolute in international law and practice, whether you or I believe them to be so or not.

Do you also consider the ICRC to be in error? The ICRC is, among other things, internationally recognized as the "keeper" of International Humanitarian Law (IHL - aka the "Laws of War&quot and takes that position very seriously. It must also remain neutral in a conflict situation in order to be able to provide services during that conflict.

From the ICRC website giving a brief overview of international law on the conduct of hostilities:

...

The general principles are enshrined in the Hague Convention of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols of 1977. But there are a series of other treaties covering specific issues, particularly in the field of weapons. In 2005 the ICRC published a major study on the extensive body of customary international humanitarian law, which is binding on all States.

The central principle of distinction runs through all the law relating to the conduct of hostilities. Indiscriminate military action is prohibited. All sides in a conflict must distinguish between legitimate military targets on the one hand and civilians and civilian objects on the other.

Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. All sides must take measures to separate as far as possible military targets from population centres. While it is accepted that civilian casualties may be sustained in situations where military targets are attacked, both sides are required to take whatever measures possible to minimize injury and death among civilians, and damage to civilian objects. If an attack is expected to cause "collateral civilian damages" that are excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, it must be cancelled or suspended.

More at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/conduct-hostilities/overview-conduct-of-hostilities.htm

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/index.jsp

The ICRC also maintains a database on Customary International Humanitarian Law, i.e., "rules that come from 'a general practice accepted as law' and that exist independent of treaty law."

Customary IHL continues to be relevant in today’s armed conflicts for two main reasons. The first is that, while some States have not ratified important treaty law, they remain nonetheless bound by rules of customary law. The second reason is the relative weakness of treaty law governing non-international armed conflicts – those that involve armed groups and usually take place within the boundaries of one country.

More at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law/overview-customary-law.htm

The Customary IHL index can be found at http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/customary-law/index.jsp for anyone wishing to know more about the matter.

We are not talking domestic practice, i.e., negligence to a criminal degree as such would be considered in a US court. We are talking about international law and practice, where I seem to be decidedly in the mainstream.

I am taking up much too much space on this board and will not post in re this OP any further.

[The Magistrate]

97. Their Reading Does Not Differ From Mine, Ma'am

Where matters become debatable is in whether something is or is not a legitimate military target, and whether the direct military benefit of attacking it is greater than the anticipated harm to non-combatants. To make a judgement on these things, regarding whether a particular action is lawful or not, a good deal more must be known about any specific action than is available to onlookers at present. I strongly doubt that a real case can be made that Israeli actions constitute indiscriminate attacks against civilians or civilian objects.

I agree that it is likely that in many instances the Israeli armed forces are not meeting their burden under the 'direct military advantage' standard. Just as it is likely that Hamas is operating in a manner that places non-combatants at serious risk. I would point out to you from your own citation:

"All sides must take measures to separate as far as possible military targets from population centres. While it is accepted that civilian casualties may be sustained in situations where military targets are attacked, both sides are required to take whatever measures possible to minimize injury and death among civilians, and damage to civilian objects."

[BlueMTexpat]

42. Thank you for humoring me and

retrieving that url.

But I am having difficulty in finding any official statement from UNRWA dated 22 July as per the article, at least on the official UNRWA site: http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/official-statements

Always go directly to the source for "official" statements. I also note that there was no link to the so-called UNRWA source in the article, as is usual for providing clear attribution.

[IronGate]

47. So, do you believe it now?

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

[potone]

57. The difference is that the school found with weapons was vacant.

The UN spokesman was careful to state that no school that was sheltering refugees or under UN control had weapons. The distinction is important.

[IronGate]

60. What fucking difference does that make?

The terror org Hamas was and is using UN schools to hide their rockets in violation of the law.
The lengths some will go to to excuse the terror org Hamas is astounding.
And after those rockets were found, the UN gave them back to the terror org Hamas.

[potone]

62. I don't see that in the link.

The text says that they withdrew their personnel and "informed the relevant parties." It also strongly condemns the use of such buildings to store weapons. I am not "excusing the terror org Hamas", just trying to point out that the UNRW is doing its best in a very difficult situation, and the IDF is certainly not helping by striking buildings that are housing--and that they have been told are housing-- civilian refugees.

[IronGate]

63. Ther "revelent parties", as in the terror org Hamas. nt.

And you're right, you're not excusing the terror org Hamas and I apologize for that comment.

[The Magistrate]

68. Which They Ought Not To Have Done, Sir

Though I wonder whether there was some degree of duress involved, either immediate, on the spot, or understood as potential difficulty in future. I doubt it would have been safe to refuse a request to return them from a local Hamas leader, and doubt the UN body has facilities or expertise to safely store or detonate the things. Sometimes it really is a bit much to expect people will do the right thing, in the circumstances actually confronting them.

[lumpy]

69. Isn't it a violation to bomb a desigated facility known to shelter war refugees ?

[BlueMTexpat]

58. Check Reply #44 if

you still need an answer to this.

[Cicada]

64. Rockets were found in facilities ABANDONNED by UN

The spokesman said no weapons were found in facilities used as shelters or under UN control. UN did find rockets in facilities they were no longer using and turned them over. The argument that ISRAEL must kill children because they are in facilities with rockets is a vile propaganda lie.

[IronGate]

65. If they were abondoned by the UN,

then why did the UN raise such a stink about those rockets being stored there?

[Cicada]

79. maybe because Israel might then want to blow up active UN sites

[MFM008]

87. they have

already

[The Magistrate]

71. That Is Going A Little Too Far, Sir

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

"Today, in the course of the regular inspection of its premises, UNRWA discovered rockets hidden in a vacant school in the Gaza Strip. As soon as the rockets were discovered, UNRWA staff were withdrawn from the premises, and so we are unable to confirm the precise number of rockets. The school is situated between two other UNRWA schools that currently each accommodate 1,500 internally displaced persons."

Abandoned premises are not regularly inspected. The location described suggests proximity to facilities in active use, and so making use of them as shields, placing them in danger of harm.

[Igel]

75. Vacant =/= abandoned.

My school is currently vacant.

Not just because it's Sunday, mind you. It's completely closed 3 days a week.

It's sort of open a few hours a day, 4 days a week, and the only people there are a few maintenance workers and administrators. 15 people for a building that handles 4000 students. It's pretty much vacant when it's "open," and that's perhaps 20 hours week.

It's summer. And it's used neither for summer school nor for "enrichment activities" like camp. That's more of an elementary school camp. (But, like many UNRWA schools, it's not a stand-alone campus. Cross the road and you're at an elementary school. Jump the fence behind our track and you're in the adjacent middle school's baseball diamond. I walk to pick up my kid at his elementary school; administrators and staff often park at the middle school because we have a parking crunch at the high school.)

When you start arguing for or against facts to sustain a moral principle, you stop arguing about facts and start arguing primarily moral principle. A fact is then "good" or "bad", not "true and relevant" or "false and irrelevant", and we immediate confuse the two and reverse the order of precedence: good facts are true and relevant, bad facts are false and irrelevant. The two kinds of argument are not compatible in any reasoned debate. First you have to settle on the facts, devoid of moralistic judgments, with "true/false" and "relevant/irrelevant" being decided impartially, disinterestedly. Then you have to apply the facts to sort out the morality, which is seldom as black and white as we humans desperately need it to be. The worst semantic crime of 20th-century English was when we started to use "understand" to denote emotion and "feel" to denote thinking.

[onenote]

90. Funny how the OP doesn't make that point

Much more dramatic without that detail, don't you think?

[peoli]

22. just like when they claimed that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

but we had to kill 1 million humans to find out that they were right the wholw time. Do you think it is wise to question peacekeepers and trust warmongers? Do you not know the difference?

[840high]

27. I don't believe UN any more

than I believe Hamas.

[cpwm17]

30. That's some serious conspiracy mongering you've got there.

[Carolina]

95. Geez, IronGate

You're so "Israel First, Israel Right, Anything Israel" that you should move there. I sure they'd be happy to bulldoze some Palestinian homes to make room for you

[Fred Sanders]

3. The UN is the most trustworthy source, on the ground for years, they will surely be either

viciously attacked or ignored in the media...and here...it is how propaganda is destroyed, by the rivers of truth, diluting the cesspool of lies.

Notice any dissent from the propaganda lie that Israel never lies is called a liar? Everyone, no
exceptions.....it is a sickness, evil begets evil.

[malaise]

12. Another lie will be debunked shortly

Watch and see - there is no missing soldier.

All lies - all a narrative defending one side.

[Fred Sanders]

15. Talk of the missing soldier has been dropped from the propaganda wire like a hot potato.

[malaise]

16. Just like the Hamas kidnapped and killed those three

young Israeli men - the lie that was used for this genocide and destruction of people's homes, mosques, hospitals, schools and shelters - and they want me to support that madness.

No way - war crimes are being committed here.

[Fred Sanders]

17. Malaise, you speak the truth and your mind...thank you.

[Liberal_Dog]

19. I Don't Believe The "Kidnapped" Soldier Story Either

I am glad that I am not the only one.

[Warpy]

40. No, if one disappeared, he likely went AWOL

because he couldn't stomach flattening everything in the area.

[malaise]

93. See we were correct n/t

[Segami]

20. +1

tick-tock-tick-tock.....

[malaise]

94. We knew

They can't fool all the people

[pa28]

18. So the Israelis are targeting schools and shelters.

That's ethnic cleansing and UN intervention would be on the table if this was anyplace else.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Let's see...Should we trust the UN or Netanyahu????

The people attempting to shelter the victims? Or, those killing the people?

[calimary]

29. Wouldn't be the first time UN inspectors were ignored.

Just ask Hans Blix and friends.

[IronGate]

49. Gee, I don't know? Should we?

http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/press-releases/unrwa-condemns-placement-rockets-second-time-one-its-schools

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. You seemed to have trusted them then.

Why not now?

[IronGate]

54. You seem to be drawing false conclusions.

I wasn't even on DU then, so how do you know what I believed back then?
Are you denying that the "UN" is speaking from both sides of it's mouth?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. No, I'm saying I trust them a helluva lot more than a mass murderer.

[Fred Sanders]

73. The UN has killed no one.....small point......

[WillyT]

28. K & R !!!

[Aerows]

89. I'm totally confused at this point

"We found rockets" "Didn't find rockets"

???

[DisgustedTX]

92. Anti-Semites! HOLOCAUST!

How DARE the UN challenge Israel!