Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joea
You guys (besides Scandium) know damn well what I mean. How often have we heard people insist on telling war protesters "but you must support the troops" so I say to the UN haters here "SUPPORT THE TROOPS".
|
Hmm, well since you're not talking about Scandium you must mean Subman and myself being as how we're the only two who've taken the time to reply to this thread. Well you may not believe it but I do support the troops Joe. If it were up to me not one US (or Canadian or British) soldier would ever be forced to don a blue helmet ever again.
But seeing as how you seem to be looking for a fight, answer me this. Scenes like the picture below have existed long before this latest ME conflagration. Why did your government allow it to continue? Why did your government allow/force it's soldiers into this situation? It looks to me like the UN and Hezbollah share a bunker. Is this a wrong assumption? Then why do their flags fly side by side?
All i know is what i read and hear on the news:
Quote:
Canadian killed from UN force complained his position shielding Hizbullah
Dr. Aaron Lerner Date: 26 July 2006
"...the tragic loss of a soldier yesterday who I happen to know and I think probably is from my Regiment. We've received e-mails from him a few days ago and he described the fact that he was taking within - in one case - three meters of his position "for tactical necessity - not being targeted". Now that's veiled speech in the military and what he was telling us was Hizbullah fighters were all over his position and the IDF were targeting them and that's a favorite trick by people who don't have representation in the UN. They use the UN as shields knowing that they can't be punished for it."
Retired Canadian Major General Lewis MacKenzie interviewed on CBC Toronto
radio 26 July 2006
For recording see this REALAUDIO file:
http://cbc.ca/metromorning/media/20060726LMCJUL26.ram
|
Is MacKenzie a liar? |
Strawman. I'll repeat what I said in the other thread, and preface it by saying that I have no reason to call the General's honesty or integrity into question BUT:
1. As a retired General he had no involvement in the U.N. mission there and was about as close to the action there as I am.
2. That what he asserts is only his interpretation of this cryptic, ambiguous text message.
3. That the text message is "a few days old" and neither he, nor we, know what variables changed in the interim even if we accept his interpretation of the text message.
Therefore even taking what he says at face value, in no way does it exonerate the IDF or serve as an idictment of the U.N. (which, recall, was personally assured by the Israeli PM that UN sites would not be attacked).