Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'International News' started by Matt in the Hat, Jul 21, 2006.
Irani = Iranian
Here is the update on the crisis, very interesting and it looks like Hezbollah is on the way to a big lost: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1153291981244&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
You don't read very well do you.
a) I asked you to prove the # of terrorist v civilian deaths and said that it would be impossible to know at this point
b) I did not dispute that the IDF may have fired on an ambulance. I said that it was to early to say, but that often this amulances are used by terrorists.
I have stated it already. I can't spell it out for you any more clearly. You apply a different standard to Israel/Jews than you do everyone else.
You gave up apparently. It is not only me that feels Amnesty is not credible.
Criticism and response
Criticism of Amnesty International may be classified into two major categories, accusations of selection bias and ideological bias. In addition, many governments, including those of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,  China,  the Taliban , Vietnam,  Russia  and the United States of America,  have attacked Amnesty International for alleged bias, one-sided reporting, or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments -- and of other governments critical of Amnesty International -- have been the subject of well-documented human rights concerns which have appeared in various reports produced by Amnesty, and have not escaped the negative publicity that often accompanies such accusations.
Alleged Selection Bias
Some contend that there are a disproportionate number of AI reports on relatively more democratic and open countries. This is the major source of the charge of "selection bias", with critics pointing to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.
Supporters claim that AI's intention is not to produce a range of reports which statistically represents the world's human rights abuses. Instead, its aim is (a) to document what it can, in order to (b) produce pressure for improvement. These two factors skew the number of reports towards more open and democratic countries, because information is more easily obtainable, these countries have usually made strong claims and commitments to uphold human rights, and because their governments are more susceptible to public pressure. AI also focuses more heavily on states than other groups. This is due in part to the responsibility states have to the citizens they claim to represent.
A tendency to over-report allegations of human rights abuse in nations that are comparatively lesser violators of human rights has been called "Moynihan's Law," after the late U.S. Senator and former Ambassador to the United Nations Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who is said to have stated that at the United Nations, the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is inversely proportional to their actual violation of human rights.
So who is denying that Iranians are not involved directly with this conflict, please read the following: http://www.nysun.com/article/36557
Another very interesting topic about what would happen if Israel would cease to exist: http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/pri...untimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn23.html
This is what the world needs to realize and stop with all the PC abd stop blaming Israel for all the ME problems.
More from that article by Suntimes:
what's even more interesting:
Source I think you are lying, again.
You still haven't provide support for you silly war crime accusation.
Just PM any Iranian on this forum and ask them , it’s a term we Iranians use to describe another Iranian , Irani= Iranian ask IM or any Iranian like on this forum .
I want to see a legit definition that that is what that term means. Just cause you say it or anyone else says it doesn't make it so.
Proof (LOL) it.
Hezbollah negotiator rejects peace proposal
Why this is a war and why the whole question on why Israel is bombing civilians will be answered here: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG25Ak01.html
and most importanlty here is the answer:
Why is this so difficult to comprehend - is this too extreme?
There isn’t a legit definition for it on a English dictionary because we Persians use it , but some how you seem to know the word , it might because your so fascinated by Iranians then you even know Farsi words . So like I said ask other Iranians on this forum what it means , this is you trying to deny the truth because you know you made a mistake but you don’t want to admit it , so now your just pulling shitt out your ass to save your face. If other Iranians complain to the moderators about your comments then it will only mean what you really means on your comment and you know what it is , so don’t deny it now its too late.
I don't know any farsi. I don't believe you I think you are making this up to somehow validate your fantasy.
Why don’t we let other Iranian members on this site to decide if your comments were a threat , OK ??
Could the pro-israeli members plz stand up and tell me were there any missiles fired from beirut and how many?
Why don't you point out all those Military targets being hit in Hafia?
Hezbollah cared about the the Lebanese people why would they reject this proposal?
Go back and read ALL the articles which I posted with quotes - it answers all your questions about bombing civilian areas. OK?
Yes let them chant Death to America while they are at it. Oh the horrible Great Satan is talking bad about iran again.
So now every Iranian chants death to America? And you say your not racist?
Post #602 is a very good point but I can tell. Israel don't like to get down and boogey with guns. They are still young at this and I must say. Mistakes have been made however that is a decent fit to a larger problem. There is a reason why. Israel doesn't want to confront the attackers by foot. I just cannot figure it out:
1. If Israel pushes forward, then other rockets are in background to hit'um. I don't buy that. It can be tru but point of military is to protect country. Those rockets are dropping and I guess. Israel is satisfied with damage.
2. I cannot believe no snipers have come into play. this could seriously damage both sides.
3. They haven't shown Syria much besides damage toward borders (sea and air). I wonder if that could escalate.
Still if it holds true, the only thing Israel has to worry about is its destruction of a nation. That is what UN deligates are for.
Closed per quota