You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
UN: Israeli cluster bombs 'immoral'
2006-08-31
The UN's humanitarian chief has described Israel's use of cluster bombs in south Lebanon during the final three days of the conflict there as "shocking" and "immoral". Jan Egelund said on Wednesday that thousands of Lebanese civilians remain at risk from unexploded cluster bombs dropped there.
“What's shocking and I would say completely immoral is that 90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution...”
"What's shocking and I would say completely immoral is that 90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution, when we knew there would be an end."

Egelund said that the UN had assessed "nearly 85 per cent of bombed areas in south Lebanon" and identified "359 separate cluster bomb strike locations that are contaminated with as many 100,000 unexploded bomblets". In Geneva, Chris Clark, head of the UN Mine Action Service in southern Lebanon, said there had been a total of 59 confirmed casualties, including 13 deaths, caused by the explosives since the end of hostilities on August 14.
Posted by:Fred

#21  I condemn Israel for not using cluster bombs on UN positions. Particularly where Kofi and Egelund are standing at the moment.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-08-31 07:37  

#20  Oh, by the way, I am told that the Jews are breathing. Is this immoral too, Mr Egelund?
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-31 19:40  

#19  "In the last 72 hours of the conflict when [Israel] knew there would be an end" (Jan Egeland)

Usually, in any cartesian world, a war is fought till the end of this war. But now, the UN is saying that, 72 hours before the end of this war, Israel shouldn't have used weapons, because she knew that there would be an end to this war; - but 144 hours before the end of this war, Israel shouldn't have used weapons, because she knew that 72 hours after this moment, she would have known that there would be an end to this war; - and 216 hours before the end of this war (...); - and 288 hours before (...); - so, in fact, at the very beginning of this war, Israel shouldn't have used weapons at all.

For the UN, Israel (and the Jews) has no right to use weapons.

That is reminiscent of Warsaw's ghetto , when the nazis accused the Jews, who were fighting back, of using weapons...
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-31 19:38  

#18  Of course, the marvelous Egeland doesn't mention the fact that during those last 72 hours of the conflict, Hezbollah fired an unprecedentend amount of rockets on Israel, and that Israel was thus only retaliating.

But we know that, for the UN, the Jews, and them solely, have never the right to retaliate to anything.
Posted by: leroidavid   2006-08-31 19:21  

#17  OK, I'm done. Cue the pygmys.
A keeper refering to a keeper.

A keeper.
Posted by: 6   2006-08-31 17:50  

#16  I hope Jan's eaten alive by syphilitic pygmys

Dude, that's harsh! Those syphilitic pygmys are probably the offspring of UN Peacekeepers.

Note: Even though we are talking 'shocking and immoral', good taste prevents me from mentioning yesterday's story about UN penises injured while engaged in attempted goat boinking.

OK, I'm done. Cue the pygmys.
Posted by: SteveS   2006-08-31 15:05  

#15  Egeland said he would launch an appeal for more money for mine clearance when he attends Thursday's conference in Stockholm on Lebanon's reconstruction.

Ummmmmmmmm, Jan? Fuck you.

Posted by: tu3031   2006-08-31 14:31  

#14  From Al-Jizz. Whodda thunk it?
Okay, Jan. Next time they'll just use napalm just to keep you happy...
Posted by: tu3031   2006-08-31 14:29  

#13  Well gee, Jan - according to the tenets of the "First Church of Whack The Jihadi Bastards", all's fair in war. So bite me, diplo-boy. I got yer morals hangin'...
Posted by: mojo   2006-08-31 11:50  

#12  Well, just exactly how do you define 'morality', Mr. Egelund?

It's difficult to converse with someone in a meaningfull fashion when they have completely different definitions for words than you do.
Posted by: mcsegeek1   2006-08-31 11:10  

#11  To fight a terrorist gang which does not abide by Geneva conventions for warfare, an attacked country must use only PC approved weapons.
Further suggestions are for warning all area people in advance of any bombing...say with a sign off sheet for documentation, also, frontal assaults only because we must assume the terrorist gangs don't understand evolved warfare, also, provide a team roster for all participating units to the terrorists or at least to the press before any hostilities take place.
Anything else ?
Posted by: wxjames   2006-08-31 10:51  

#10  I must have missed the reference to firing missiles into cities and towns with no military significance.
Posted by: doc   2006-08-31 10:20  

#9  The UN and its pantheon of irrelevant elitist rogues have the moral clarity of dirty dish water. Whenever personal danger exists for them and their priestcraft, cut and run, is their modus operandi.

Ever the since second Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld embraced the self serving idiotarian multiculturalist pro-villian appeasenik approach completely, the UN has no true soul worth tuppence. And Kofi's gang prospered corruptively especially because of that. Yes, the UN deserve only to FOAD so that more light can potentially shine on the human situation. Bad 'medicine' is as good as any veritable poison.
Posted by: Duh!   2006-08-31 08:33  

#8  
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the
sinktrap. Further violations may result in
banning.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2006-08-31 07:37  

#7  Thge imorality rests firmly on the UN and the UN troops under it command for allowing Hezb'allah to get away with what it did right under it's noses. Israel again is tard with a brush rightfully deserved by someone else.

Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-08-31 02:41  

#6  LOL, Frank G!

I'd say Egeland is especially reprehensible, but it's a wash at the top of the UN - Kofi, Morlock-Brown, Egeland - each is a hypocritical lying scumbag of the first order. The only thing I find remarkable, anymore, is the consistency of their transparent biased spew. No doubt every utterance is from an agreed-upon script of anti-Israel / anti-US vilification. Vulture Elites, indeed. The day we withdraw funding from these parasites will be VM (Victory for Morality) Day - True Morality.
Posted by: cruiser   2006-08-31 02:31  

#5  Â“What's shocking and I would say completely immoral is that 90 per cent of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict when we knew there would be a resolution...”

Probably because Israel was pounding them so hard, dumba$$.
Posted by: gorb   2006-08-31 02:11  

#4  These morons take moral relativism into the realm of absurd perverted fantasy. FOAD, Egelund.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-31 01:28  

#3  imagine! The UN accusing someone else of immorality. YJCMTSU. I hope Jan's eaten alive by syphilitic pygmys
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-31 00:47  

#2  One would think that might discourage future rocket attacks?

Of course Hezb does lack that key "cause & effect" gene.

Posted by: 3dc   2006-08-31 00:36  

#1  Yeah, use DPICM next time...
Posted by: Sneagum Theremp9559   2006-08-31 00:16  

00:00