Will USA attack Israel next?

[Spiffor]

Sabra and Chatila camps, southern Lebanon, early 80's IIRC. This was a massacre perpetrated by enraged Lebanese christian militias, with the Israeli army accepting it. AFAIK, no Israeli troops have been directly involved in the massacre, but Sharon has been tried for its cooperation in the affair (and whitewashed by the Israeli military "justice").
Yes, Israel has much blood on its hands. But it doesn't perpetrate a genocide. It is also one of the least terrible countries in the area, which is not much.

[Ambro2000]

thank you spiffor for the info! You saved me a lot of time!

Israel is a Democracy and I believe that a democracy have great responsibility regarding human rights and so on..... Israel is rather far from living up to those standards.

Being basicly the only democracy in the middle east Israel has a great responsability...

[VetLegion]

AFAIK, no Israeli troops have been directly involved in the massacre, but Sharon has been tried for its cooperation in the affair (and whitewashed by the Israeli military "justice")

As far as I know they found him guilty of command responsability.

There are quite a few people in Hague serving long time for that.

Sharon is still the PM, right?

Might makes right

[Edan]

As far as I know they found him guilty of command responsability.

IIRC, they found him indirectly responsible - ie, he could have tried to prevent it from occuring. Also, after Time accused Sharon of OKing the massacres with the Phalangists, Sharon sued them for libel in an American court and won.

Interesting to note that at the time, the biggest outrage of the incident was in Israel. The arab world was pretty silent about the incident at the time. Also interesting to note that no one ever seems to put any of the blame on the Phalangist themselves, and that no one seemed as outraged at all the other massacres by the Phalangists against the Palestinians and vice versa.

[VetLegion]

I'll remind you of what command responsability is. You don't have to plan or order a crime, but your failure to prevent it if you were in position to prevent it (ie command position), your failure to stop it or your failure to properly punish the perpetrators afterwards all get you a guilty sentence.

You don't even have to have known about it but if you are in position where you should have known you are guilty.

One case I know, a guy in Hague is serving 45 years for something like what Sharon did. I do admit I don't know much about Sharon case though, only what I read on Apolyton and few other sites.

[Agathon]

Whatever the merits of the original claim - it resonates powerfully with the world's Arabs. I'd suggest that the US takes that into account if they want to avoid more 911s.

[Ted Striker]

No blood for coffee, chocolate, fruit, meat, nitrates, or oil!!!

[Frogman]

As I recall, Bush didn't use Saddam's breach of UN resolutions as the reason for attacking. While I disagree with Bush's decision, its based on his belief that Iraq is a threat and he doesn't want to risk a situation worse than 9-11.

Israel of course is no threat to the US. Even dictators like Castro are left alone if they aren't a threat. I think we'd be much more likely to attack the biggest threat to world peace, France.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Frogman
I think we'd be much more likely to attack the biggest threat to world peace, France.

Using irony three times in the same sentence is really impressive

[Jon Miller]

Re: Will USA attack Israel next?

Originally posted by Ambro2000
I mean........

*Israel have broken many more UN-resulutions than Iraq have.
*israel have many more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.
*Sharon is like Saddam accused of genocide.
*They have oppressed and persecuted the palistinian people for decades.

From my point of view it seems quite logical, doesn’t it?.

DAMN! I forgot….Israel have no oil…………………

Over and out
/
Your beloved
Ambro2000

DROP BUSH! NOT BOMBS!

wasn't Bush dropped enough?

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Frogman
As I recall, Bush didn't use Saddam's breach of UN resolutions as the reason for attacking. While I disagree with Bush's decision, its based on his belief that Iraq is a threat and he doesn't want to risk a situation worse than 9-11.

Not so. The GWB admin kept on accusing the Iraqis of violating UNSC resolution 1441. That's why the weapons inspectors and the Atomic Energy Committee were involved. That's why there's such a contest of power through the UNSC. Ultimately, the US failed in the attempt to cover its own naked aggression towards Iraq with a veneer of legal blessing by the UNSC.

The "threat to the US" bit is something Bush was also selling in the package, though nobody has a clear mind would buy it.

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
What a moron.

Now where is that pot and kettle?

[BlackStone]

Ambro2000

You are quite right about Israel but it is pointless trying to explain it to the US posters. For them Israel can do no wrong and they are quite happy to pour billions of dollars into supporting the worlds new apartheid regime.

It does not matter to them that everyone else in the world holds a contrary view, their minds are made up. Israel knows this and that’s why they increase their demands year on year, and good luck to them I say it not everyday you find someone who is rich and gullible.

[Az]

Should you be humiliating women and killing homosexuals now, Blackstone?

[BlackStone]

Originally posted by Azazel
Should you be humiliating women and killing homosexuals now, Blackstone?

Trying to claw your way up to the moral high ground again with your cheap racial slurs eh?mad:

Tell me Azazel who was the Palestinian family who used to live in your home before they were "relocated"?: