Web Hosting Forums

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

This is a discussion on More duplicitous shenanigans from the U.N. in the Hosting Talk & Chit-chat forum
The contributions from that "great" world body just keep on coming. Check out Michelle Malkin's column The Ambulances for Terrorists Scandal . Or you can ...

  1. #1
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414

    More duplicitous shenanigans from the U.N.

    The contributions from that "great" world body just keep on coming. Check out Michelle Malkin's column The Ambulances for Terrorists Scandal. Or you can skip the verbage and scan the footage (Reuters) though without some context, the video is less meaningful. Anyone think we should still consult it as the de facto legislative body to validate egalitarian and humanitarian efforts?

  2. #2
    Ron
    Guest
    I have NO idea what that video shows. It almost looks like a rescue attempt. We don't see who is being attacked. The vidoe is cut strangely, and the camera is strangely positioned. And what's with the cut to some sort of a mortar?

    Anyway, like I said, I have NO IDEA what that's all about, which is probably the same reason why nobody is airing it.

  3. #3
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    There is some strange videography at the beginning - whether it is deceitful editing or extremely raw footage with lots of blurred vision that had to be clipped - who knows for sure. And I don't know if that mortar was what was fired near the end of the video just before everyone fled, but it seems like a plausible event. What I found most interesting was the collection of militants fleeing the scene at the end and loading up inside the back of the ambulance. Certainly not a collection of innocents and I doubt that is a sanctioned procedure for humanitarian aid.

  4. #4
    Ron
    Guest
    That is true... was it a real ambulance? Looks ok to me, but then what do I know about UN Ambulances?

    Maybe they don't want to give people more ideas. Maybe ambulances ought to be required to have clear sides, or very large windows in a war zone.

  5. #5
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    It sure looked like an official U.N. ambulance to me. White with simple, black lettering and donning the baby blue U.N. banner - could be mimicked but seems unlikely. The reticence so as not to give ideas - maybe, but I kinda' doubt that too. According to the Malkin report, this abuse has been going on for years, so those that would use this tactic (PLO,Hamas,Hezbolla,etc.) are not unawares of the trick.

    In the world view, the plight of the Palestinians against the Israelis is often cleansed in favor of the Palestinians because Israel is considered the greater evil, moreso than even the U.S. Showing this video outside the U.S. is extremely unlikely in today's environment. Apparently, it's not very popular in the U.S. either. European anti-Semitism has been on the rise from what I've read (collective recollections). With the increasing Arab emigration to European states, that sentiment will probably continue.

  6. #6
    Loyal Client
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    634
    This is indeed a fairly old trick... one of many that goes against the 'rules' of western warfare. Hospitals, relief centers, and any other humanitarian establishment are all supposed to be ouside the firing lines.

    Yet people still hide behind them, partially because they know we typically won't respond (at least not heavily). And we are supposed to be the bad guys, invading marauders, pushing our 'regime' on the world.

    I recently read two articles in an ultra-liberal magazine. They were a few pages apart. The first one blasted virtually every conservative, capitalist, or even moderate viewpoint as being totalitarian. Essentially, calling everyone who doesn't agree with them Hitler.

    The second article goes on about how great it would be to unify the world under a single, cooperative government.

    Anyone else see a problem with this?

    Anyway, one of my coworkers does the same thing - calling for unified world government, and slamming Bush for what they think is exapansionism.

    I love to ask him if he wants a world government, why can't it be ours? Better yet, what kind of government would you like to see that addresses all the world's concerns equally? After all, we live and work here, and are free to do what we please (within reason), and can leave any time we wish. He never answers the questions.

  7. #7
    Ron
    Guest
    They never do.

  8. #8
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    Originally posted by lokki - quotes in bold
    Anyone else see a problem with this?
    Yep - big enough to drive an ambulance through...

    Anyway, one of my coworkers does the same thing - calling for unified world government, and slamming Bush for what they think is exapansionism.
    Damned if you do and damned if you don't, eh? These are not rational analysists you are debating. All that matters is that Bush gets extricated. Alternately, some of these people are true believers of a different world view whether it be communism, socialism, anarchism, or some other pie-in-the-sky-ism. Horrors, some might be subversives too, not that I want to introduce the broad-brush, red-scare McCarthyism tag. But they (subversives) do exist.

    I love to ask him if he wants a world government, why can't it be ours? Better yet, what kind of government would you like to see that addresses all the world's concerns equally?... He never answers the questions.
    Such a good question that it leaves them flumoxed. That's when you know they know they don't have a leg on which to stand.

    The only way that a unifying worldview might coalesce is if we are attacked, collectively, by "Martians". In that scenario we would share the common interest of self-preservation and postpone our infighting until that battle was won. I don't believe it to be in the native social structure of man to be utterly unified and non-tribal. But in my short existence, democracy sure seems to be the most fair and reasonable guiding template for society.

  9. #9
    Loyal Client
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    164
    That is what the U.N. does best, offers protection to the radicals and presents the innocent as targets. Why? Because just as a conscientious army adheres to the Geneva convention and a terrorist does not, so does a conscientious army honor the U.N. neutrality (LMFAO) but a terrorist will not.

    Here's a thought -- we liberated the Jewish people and now the Iraqi people...think we can convince them to get along?

  10. #10
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    Originally posted by Df_Gamer
    ...we liberated the Jewish people and now the Iraqi people...think we can convince them to get along?
    That's a tough one. Based on historical performance in the region, no. But maybe they both have an opportunity to share in the same democratic rights so as to not want to kill each other. Actually that is an unfair assessment. I don't really see the Israelis wanting to kill the Palestinians but I do observe the reverse. Maybe I have a bias but I'm trying to be as critical as possible.

    A shared democratic "heritage", brief and atypical as it is, might finally settle the tensions if both groups prosper and greed doesn't interfere. But, if you throw in religion, all bets are off. I don't know if religion is power or religion is religion in the popular mindset of that region.

    The U.N., if it provides any protection at all, is often farcical. I liken it (U.N.) to a $5.00 padlock and a 3-ft. fence - its deterrent effect only valid against honorable people.

  11. #11
    Loyal Client
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    164
    Originally posted by Spathiphyllum

    The U.N., if it provides any protection at all, is often farcical. I liken it (U.N.) to a $5.00 padlock and a 3-ft. fence - its deterrent effect only valid against honorable people.
    The U.N. building does provide a place for many nations to argue over issues but with current technology I think we could tear down the U.N. building, send everyone home and use video conferencing instead. Cost effective, and the U.S. wouldn't have to pay for it.

  12. #12
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    Originally posted by Df_Gamer
    The U.N. building does provide a place for many nations to argue over issues but...send everyone home and use video conferencing instead. Cost effective, and the U.S. wouldn't have to pay for it.
    While that is true, the members would not ever support such a resolution. The U.N. is a bureaucratic perk of priviledge for the majority of its members IMO. Their compensation is safe and elevated lifestyle, political and legal immunity, prestige, and high finance. Oh yeah, and the ivory tower to preach their hypocrisy and chastise their gift-horse.

    Every once in a while, something productive is squeezed from its bowels, but only after U.S. and English tonic has been ingested. I'm sure other nations provide useful and significant contributions every once in a while, but the most treasure and force-protection is heavily Americentric. Since the U.S. is but one vote of tens, if not hundreds, available, the change you propose will never happen. They've got it too good.

  13. #13
    Loyal Client
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    164
    How bout some Non-Yankees GO HOME signs and a few dead skunks in the AC system?

  14. #14
    || $name ne 'R.Stiltskin'
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    2,414
    Originally posted by Df_Gamer
    How bout some Non-Yankees GO HOME signs and a few dead skunks in the AC system?
    LOL. Hey, even better! And more economical. I'll supply the paint but someone else will have to donate the roadkill.

  15. #15
    Loyal Client
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    164
    Just watched the video and it looks more like a practice run than anything else. At the start, the vans are moving towards the camera. You can see the mortar on the right as the vans pass then the cut to the closeup of the mortar. Then you have a split second of one van parked midway down the block against the left side; militants walk to their destination; van now blocking end of street and other van facing towards center of block. A few shots are fired, all the war hardened civilians who are walking around instead of hiding (guess their psychic radars are off and they don't know trouble when they see it) now begin running; the van closest to the camera reverses out of the scene and the mortar is still there. Amateur editing, amateur approach, amateur assault, amateur retreat.

    Any thoughts?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •