Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Maniac on July 26, 2006, 01:10:12 AM
-
/golfclap
An combined airstrike and artiliry strike hits the center of an UN base in south lebanon. Killing 4 UN observers.
Really, its time to put the ****ing safety back on to the weapons.
-
wait a sec...
BEIRUT: An Israeli air strike killed four United Nations military observers at their base in southern Lebanon on Tuesday, the United Nations said.
...
"There were 14 other incidents of firing close to this position in the afternoon from the Israeli side and the firing continued during the rescue operation," he said.
...
An Israeli tank shell hit a UNIFIL position in southern Lebanon on Monday, wounding four Ghanaian soldiers. Shrapnel from tank shells fired from the Israeli side seriously wounded an Indian soldier last week and Hizbollah fire wounded an Italian observer on the border on Sunday.
...
UNIFIL was created in 1978 after Israel's first major invasion of southern Lebanon and has been there ever since. The United Nations has called for a bigger, better armed, more robust international force in the area.
So lemme get this straight? The UN has people posted all over a hot border and they wonder why they get nailed? Secondly, if UNIFIL has been since 1978 WTF have they been doing, watching the fireworks shows Hezbollah puts on for them?
-
4 UN guys playing Spades in a Tower with a War going around them waiting for Kofi Annan to pull his oil rich thumb outta his arse and make a dicision?
The UN no longer has any balls... if you believe so you are living a dream.
If anything Kofi Annan and his Family should be up on charges.... He is the Most LIEING stunninghunk in the World and has brought the UN to it's lowest form.
Get the UN out of NY and send them to Belguim, Sweden or Finland... just get them Leeches out of the USA.
Screw Kofi Annan...who is he anyways? A liar..nothing less.
Where are the decent Islamic/Muslim followers? Where are "Their Clerics" at this time to stop all this madness? Jihad?
You want Jihad? you got it. Until one Cleric comes out stating that this Radical Islamic stuff is wrong.. then send them all to Hell.
Rock on Israel... You are not alone!
This World just pisses me off!
Mac
Are you Blind?
-
He is the Most LIEING stunninghunk in the World and has brought the UN to it's lowest form.
Wheres the WMD? Libanon i guess?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
wait a sec...
So lemme get this straight? The UN has people posted all over a hot border and they wonder why they get nailed? Secondly, if UNIFIL has been since 1978 WTF have they been doing, watching the fireworks shows Hezbollah puts on for them?
What they been doing? observers are there to observ i think. That makes sense.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Wheres the WMD? Libanon i guess?
Your Spin isn't gonna work... change bait.
Mac
-
My spin? look at your own post for christ sake. This post was about the killing of 4 UN observers, and you go on and rant about Annan and throwing the UN out of the US, and Jihad etc?
Get an grip.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Thats an personal attack right there.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Really, its time to put the ****ing safety back on to the weapons.
It's not complicated.
Just tell 'em to stop this ****.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Nash Thanks Bro... you see where this ended right?
Mac
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
I dont get it? what are you good at?
-
Stop this ****.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
Whoa! now your going around in circles!
-
Just stop this ****.
-
Maniac you are the best I know.
Mac
-
Thank you, it really means alot coming from you.
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
smackmaw you need to lay off the drugs ;)
-
Kewl experiment.
Turns out....
"Stop this ****" doesn't exactly work when dealing with two people on a BBS, let alone act as some kind of foreign policy coming from the President of the United States when dealing with a waring middle east.
"Stop this ****" is now formally withdrawn, and under review by some of the best speech writers in the whole entire District of Columbia.
Said one insider "Stop this ****" just didn't have the legs we thought it would. This is going to take some more thought."
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
:lol Can't believe this...
-
ROFLMAO Mac, even I got the Mr Black reference at the 1st post.
Train your AH-O'Club-Trivia skillz, pls.
WTG Maniac :aok
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by deSelys
ROFLMAO Mac, even I got the Mr Black reference at the 1st post.
Train your AH-O'Club-Trivia skillz, pls.
WTG Maniac :aok
TY Voss...The 1st post was Maniac's...
But hey.... "Monkey Love"
Mac
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
IN
-
2- Threads should remain on topic, do not "hijack" topics.
-
16- All posts, in public forums, should be made in the English language.
-
IN
Skuzz I didn't mean to cause trobs...
Mac
-
He was joking Mac :D
Maniac is from sweden i think..
regards
Nilsen
2. CIA F16 squadron Ft. Knox, Alaska
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
He was joking Mac :D
Maniac is from sweden i think..
regards
Nilsen
2. CIA F16 squadron Ft. Knox, Alaska
I thought so Lil Buddy!!!!
:D
Mac
-
Its ok Mac... we're you friends.... put down the axe....
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PF/PF_816746_999~The-Shining-Jack-Nicholson-Posters.jpg)
-
Wheres the WMD?
Well every country, including the UN, and every politician in the US that weighed in on the subject(repubs and dems) said there were WMD's... we could ask them all.
-
Originally posted by PonyDriver
Well every country, including the UN, and every politician in the US that weighed in on the subject(repubs and dems) said there were WMD's... we could ask them all.
You could ask the weapon inspectors what they tought, the ppl that actually were in Iraq. Google Hans Blix.
-
What does that have to do with the world leaders, including the UN, saying there were WMD's? Were they all lying?
-
Originally posted by PonyDriver
What does that have to do with the world leaders, including the UN, saying there were WMD's? Were they all lying?
UK aint the same as the UN. If my memory is correct, the UN very much listened to Blix and his team.
-
The UN sanctioned Iraq re:WMD's.
I'm happy for you in that you recognize that UK does not equal UN.
-
seems almost like the UN wanted to get hit
why else would they leave their ppl in harms way?
-
Originally posted by PonyDriver
The UN sanctioned Iraq re:WMD's.
I'm happy for you in that you recognize that UK does not equal UN.
Flawed logic. Sanctions came because they wouldnt let weapons inspectors into the country. Not the same as Iraq had WMD.
-
Perhaps you should do some homework, you seem unprepared.
In addition to what I already said, a Un sanction deplores Iraq for USING WMD's.
They also sanctioned Iraq for attempting to acquire materails for a nuclear weapons program.
I'll come back when you are better informed.
-
Do that, it was nice having you here.
-
Originally posted by Maniac
Yes i was an Sniper in Nam.
Stop the spinning mate.
You're worried about locking threads and you insult any Vet that was In Country with this crap?!!
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You're worried about locking threads and you insult any Vet that was In Country with this crap?!!
You didnt get his joke either i guess
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
You didnt get his joke either i guess
Jokes only go so far when you get caught in a lie and name "Mr Black" as a spotter when backpedaling. More tact could have been used.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Jokes only go so far when you get caught in a lie and name "Mr Black" as a spotter when backpedaling. More tact could have been used.
Well im not sure who started the spinning in this one, but I find it rather harmless. More tact could have been used I guess if you take it far enough, but that applies to 90% of what is said in the oclub.
Would you have asked for tact if the jokke was on the UN, EU or the french? ;)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Well im not sure who started the spinning in this one, but I find it rather harmless. More tact could have been used I guess if you take it far enough, but that applies to 90% of what is said in the oclub.
Would you have asked for tact if the jokke was on the UN, EU or the french? ;)
I think it is wrong to "play yourself off as a Vet" regardless of the Country. It's the way I was raised (Father - US Army 60-63; Grandpa - USMC 43-46).
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I think it is wrong to "play yourself off as a Vet" regardless of the Country. It's the way I was raised (Father - US Army 60-63; Grandpa - USMC 43-46).
If he was trying to fool anyone and get cred for something he didnt do then yes.. i agree 100%
Thing is that he made obvious enough that anyone should have called it.
regards
Nilsen
2. SEAL platoon, US Coastguard. (currently on loan to the Swiss navy)
-
I think someone's misplaced their sense of humour.
-
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
What this thread really need is a couple of UN observers to observe the peace. If things get hot, Coffee-a-nun can issue a statement condamning the verbal violence.
That should do it.
Ofcourse there's always the risk for the observes be insulted by collateral verbal abuse
-
bozon... I know it's asking a lot but can you have one of your airstrikes go off a little and hit the UN building in NYC?
I would sure appreciate it... thanks in advance.
lazs
-
karaya,
the "Sniper in nam" was an obvious reference to mrblack right from the start.
Seems Mac is following your guidelines that if you don't agree with the posted material: put your hands over ears and start singing out loud... we've been over this already, haven't we? ;)
-
Collateral? Wonder what part of 'stop shelling we're UN observers' the IDF didn't understand?
-
I knew it! lazs supports terrorism
hypocrite ;)
-
Now wouldn't it make a great news story if the U.N. observers were found to be helping/supplying hezbollah...
-
can anyone answer why the UN still has its ppl in the middle of the fire fight?
they didn't do any good before this latest round of bs started, what on earth do they think they can do now?
-
Originally posted by soda72
Now wouldn't it make a great news story if the U.N. observers were found to be helping/supplying hezbollah...
Only if said perpetrators were white Norweigens that converted to Muslim religion....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
can anyone answer why the UN still has its ppl in the middle of the fire fight?
they didn't do any good before this latest round of bs started, what on earth do they think they can do now?
The UN is playing ref, someone "has to be the loser, and get the blame", right?
-
UN peacekeepers in south Lebanon contacted Israeli troops 10 times before an Israeli bomb killed four of them, an initial UN report says.
The post was hit by a precision-guided missile after six hours of shelling, diplomats familiar with the probe say.
Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5217176.stm)
Well it's either deliberate or wantonly negligent - take your pick.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Israel troops 'ignored' UN plea (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5217176.stm)
Well it's either deliberate or wantonly negligent - take your pick.
Yes, I'm sure that this is the first case negligence (Friendly fire) we're ever seen in war. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by soda72
Now wouldn't it make a great news story if the U.N. observers were found to be helping/supplying hezbollah...
Yeah.. maybe Tom Clancy could write the script and they could make a movie too!
Fiction never goes out of style :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes, I'm sure that this is the first case negligence (Friendly fire) we're ever seen in war. :rolleyes:
Does that somehow lessen the impact? Besides, not all friendly fires are the same. At some point it sounds like this one crossed over from accident, to negligence or incompetance. And perhaps even it was deliberate. Sliding scale of culpability.
I would like this incident to be investigated by a neutral third party.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes, I'm sure that this is the first case negligence (Friendly fire) we're ever seen in war. :rolleyes:
Did you read the article? The UN post in question was shelled repeatedly over a number of hours during which the UN staff contacted the IDF 10 times to identify themselves as neutrals before the fatal round was fired. Maybe you could give some other examples of blue on blue incidents where a static target has identified itself on so many occasions before being finished off?
-
doubt it was deliberate. maybe they shouldn't be in the middle of a war zone observing. Doesn't take a rocket scientists to figure that might be kinda risky. UN should just get worthless self out of there. They do zero good. Bad thing is some of my hard earned $$ go to fund that worthless organization.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Did you read the article? The UN post in question was shelled repeatedly over a number of hours during which the UN staff contacted the IDF 10 times to identify themselves as neutrals before the fatal round was fired. Maybe you could give some other examples of blue on blue incidents where a static target has identified itself on so many occasions before being finished off?
The UN was finished off in 1947. It's still twitching though.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
seems almost like the UN wanted to get hit
why else would they leave their ppl in harms way?
The "UN" didn't leave them there. The Security Council did.
-
Masherbrum grunted to himself
Something inane and irrelevant
0/10 for the hijack attempt. Find your joke detector yet?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
The "UN" didn't leave them there. The Security Council did.
thanks for the correction ..
so why did the SC leave them there?
I hope they are removing the other blue hats in the area so it can't happen again..if it does, I'll blame the SC not Israel
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Did you read the article? The UN post in question was shelled repeatedly over a number of hours during which the UN staff contacted the IDF 10 times to identify themselves as neutrals before the fatal round was fired. Maybe you could give some other examples of blue on blue incidents where a static target has identified itself on so many occasions before being finished off?
Perhaps their location was not understood. Too many variables in war to actually state they were deliberately targeted unless of course you're in the habit of practicing anti-semitism.
-
the one UN tower I saw on the tele looked like it was about 100 yards from a hezaboob lookout tower ... again why keep ppl in harms way? someone should tell them there is a war going on
-
Originally posted by Stagan
Israel has been shelling and firing UN positions for years; there's nothing new in this situation. Ask any Blue Baret.
Staga the Banned is back...:O
-
Originally posted by Eagler
thanks for the correction ..
so why did the SC leave them there?
I hope they are removing the other blue hats in the area so it can't happen again..if it does, I'll blame the SC not Israel
I'm not sure why they decided to leave them, but it isn't unusual at least with military personel. The same thing happened in Rwanda. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that they left them there to observed and report any war crimes commited by either party.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Perhaps their location was not understood. Too many variables in war to actually state they were deliberately targeted unless of course you're in the habit of practicing anti-semitism.
I realise your congnitive dissonance affects your reading skills. Try it again..
Originally posted by Momus--
Well it's either deliberate or wantonly negligent
Lets try that question that again.
Originally posted by Momus--
Maybe you could give some other examples of blue on blue incidents where a static target has identified itself on so many occasions before being finished off?
Maybe instead of immediately resorting to ad hominem (anti-semitism, how imaginative of you), you'd like to answer that question?
-
Now if we can just get 'em to aim a little further west, like the UN building in NY. ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I would like this incident to be investigated by a neutral third party.
Find one.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Did you read the article? The UN post in question was shelled repeatedly over a number of hours during which the UN staff contacted the IDF 10 times to identify themselves as neutrals before the fatal round was fired. Maybe you could give some other examples of blue on blue incidents where a static target has identified itself on so many occasions before being finished off?
I didn't read the article, I'll leave that to you.
One question. If you get shelled, and you call up and identify yourself, but get shelled again, do you sit there and call again, or do you get off your bellybutton and get out of the way? How many times do you have to get shelled before you decide to move? Okay, so it was two questions.