Different Rules For Different People
28
July
1. you ARE allowed to attack vehicles carrying the ‘Red Cross’, as long as you hit them on the bullseye
2. shelling peacekeepers is deemed to be acceptable practice, as long as you express remorse and disbelief afterwards
While I’m at it, it seems American representatives in the UN Security Council were displeased with the wording of a statement condemning the Israeli bombing of a UN post. I guess that’s fair - when a friend does your dirty work for you, it’s pretty rude to chastise them for the occasional mistake. Never let it be said the Americans don’t look after their friends.
1. Jimmy James | July 31st, 2006 at 09:42
Lucky they didn’t have a UN symbol in place of the Red Cross, or things wouldn’t have turned out so well.
2. Oz | July 31st, 2006 at 21:53
What on earth do you mean? One guy was being transported with minor injuries and ended up losing both his legs courtesy of an Israeli rocket…
But at least the Israelis shelled all those orphans. Imagine growing up with no parents… and those kids would’ve grown up to be terrorists anyway.
3. Jimmy James | July 31st, 2006 at 22:28
As America speeds to the rescue and rushes a peace plan through the UN, the Israeli’s sit there and say “Hezbollah made us do it”.
4. Oz | August 1st, 2006 at 21:50
What peace plan?!? Have you been reading different newspapers to the ones I have? Israel will stop when it feels it has sufficiently decimated Hezbollah and the US will do nothing to stop it. Why? Because Israel’s actions are currently serving US goals.
Yes, the death of civillians is regretable. Yes, the death of UN observers was inconvenient. The fact remains that Bush’s number one agenda is the fight against (islamofacist) terrorism, a category that Hezbollah does fall under (in western eyes).
It would be more helpful if Syria could be brought to the table - they would have a far greater effect than any UN resolution could ever hope to have.