Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
DC09

French 'killed Ivorian civilians'

20 posts in this topic

Parliament speaker Mamadou Coulibaly said the French had killed 30 people and wounded more than 100 in the main cities of Abidjan and Yamassoukro.

The French have denied this - saying they fired warning shots on protesters near Abidjan airport and a French base.

French citizens were attacked after French forces destroyed five Ivorian government aircraft.

France had responded to an earlier Ivorian air attack on the rebel town of Bouake that left nine French peacekeepers dead - a government breach of a ceasefire signed in July 2003.

The first French troop reinforcements have arrived at Abidjan airport.

Paris has said it is sending more troops and aircraft to the region to stop the escalating violence.

It has 4,000 troops in the country, part of a 10,000-strong UN force mandated to enforce a peace deal between rebels in the north and President Gbagbo's government in the south.

The UN Security Council moved swiftly to back the French action, and called on all sides to stop the fighting.

Full Article

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they slaughtered innocents? in a country they shouldn't be in (UN backing or no)

you sure it isn't the US pretending to be french?

don't you people see? they only invaded to get a stranglehold on world Cocoa supplies!

NO BLOOD FOR COCOA!

Edited by bathory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too funny Bathory......... laugh.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO BLOOD FOR COCOA!

347069[/snapback]

LMAO!

We should stage a protest! No blood for cocoa! w00t.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez...What is wrong with some people?

I really don't thing anybody is condoning the French for what is happening here...UN backing or not. They're just as bad.

But this action doesn't make for what is happening in Iraq any more legitimate does it?

Too funny Bathory.

That sums you up for a start...oops! Another insult.

Vimjams

ph34r.gif

Edited by vimjams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they slaughtered innocents? in a country they shouldn't be in (UN backing or no)

you sure it isn't the US pretending to be french?

don't you people see? they only invaded to get a stranglehold on world Cocoa supplies!

France have not invaded The Ivory Coast!!! It is a former colony of France and they are trying to keep the peace. They are PeaceKeepers. They have certainly never gone in 'gun ho' determined to take over and control this area.

As for killing civilians yes this is terrible however you ignore the fact that the French were targeted over there and that they have retaliated so that instead you can try to mock them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vimjams Posted Today, 12:26 PM

  Jeez...What is wrong with some people?

I really don't thing anybody is condoning the French for what is happening here...UN backing or not. They're just as bad.

But this action doesn't make for what is happening in Iraq any more legitimate does it? 

I am not trying to legitimize Iraq, I am for our military being there. Just making an effort to point out that it is not always the United States who is the aggressor. That is All

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, the coalition is in Iraq as peacekeepers as well, at the request of the new government. We're getting rid of the idiots who want drag Iraq back into the dark ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
France have not invaded The Ivory Coast!!! It is a former colony of France and they are trying to keep the peace.

I'm sorry but that doesn't make it right.

Israel is a former colony of UK and we won't appreciate if British soldiers will invade our country.

The US is also a former colony of the UK, and I you can be certain they won't want the British to invade their country.

But wait, Iraq too is a former colony of the United Kingdom, so one could say they are invading this country, which most of it was already under UN control (the no flying zones of northern and southern Iraq), to save it's people from a tyrant rolleyes.gif....

I'm sorry, but the fact that any country is a former colony of another country, doesn't give any right to the former colonialist country to interfere with the former colony's internal agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just making an effort to point out that it is not always the United States who is the aggressor. That is All

You realy don't need to make any effort in this respect...The UK is as much the aggressor... and probably even more so because the biggest bunch of two faced liars sits on those green benches in the House of Commons.

Vimjams

ph34r.gif

Edited by vimjams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the coalition is in Iraq as peacekeepers as well, at the request of the new government. We're getting rid of the idiots who want drag Iraq back into the dark ages

LOL AFTER we invaded the country lol.

ERIKL by your reckoning then i take it you dont agree with ANY peacekeeping mssions???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wun, regarding the form of peackeeping today, no.

It has no real effect and the UN itself is a corrupt terror-supporter and powerless body.

Most of the UN members violet one of the very basic condition of becomming a member, and that's allowing citizens to rule themselves.

Most UN members are dictatorships, and thus I see no moral justification for UN's decsions or actions.

In my opinion, a new organization should be created, called United Democratic Nations, uniting all democracies, with it's base in New Delhi, India (after all, 50% of all citizens who live under democracy are Indians), with it's military being based on NATO (all democracies should join) and with economic relations and market similiar to the European Union.

This will be a true world government that will unite 30% of the world population.

The other, non-democratic nations, could be observers, and will be encouraged to make reforms and become a democracy. They'll have economic incentive and political incentive to do so (seeing the common market of the other democracies, and the common treaties etc.).

This will eventually end all wars and ofcourse terrorism, as there is no single known event of two democracies fighting eachother in modern times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has no real effect and the UN itself is a corrupt terror-supporter and powerless body

This is not true, first of all, and what upsets me the most is that this kind of approaches is what led to the degeneration of the League of Nations in the 30's and eventually into WW2. The only reason UN isn't doing is job as best as it could, is because goverments like the Bush administration has absolutely no respect for the Global Community and believes falsely to be leader not of the United States but of the entire humankind.

I will not even begin to mention the humanitary support UN has given in the last 40 years, i will just ask where was the US army (this force of freedom, democracy and liberation for all free people) when Haiti was drowning? Where the %(#¤$ is this liberating army of USA that cares for human rights and democracy, while Africa is literally bathing in blood, genocide, and the most blatant violation of human rights-among them the most important, the right to exist? What I saw, was UN peacekeepers in Haiti maintaining order and supplying food. What I saw, was UN troops, badly outnumbered, struggling to protect civilians in Ivory Coast. What I saw in Ex-Yugoslavian republics was UN peacekeepers, trying to maintain safety and order after the bravado of NATO, which bombed European ground while European Union was smelling its toes in bafflement, trying to figure out what to do...

with it's military being based on NATO (all democracies should join)

NATO is a military organisation that now, after the collapse of Soviet Union, has absolutely no purpose of existence.

This will be a true world government that will unite 30% of the world population.

Oh yes! Indeed! In the same way that Bush represents 50% of the world (Sorry, I meant to say Americans), when not only half of the actual population voted, but there were votes that were "discarded", which I still fail to understand why and on what legitimate grounds this procedure takes place. What kind of true goverment is that, as you said, that unites 30% of the world population? And actually when in this 30% will not be included African states, many Asian states and so on?

This will eventually end all wars and ofcourse terrorism, as there is no single known event of two democracies fighting eachother in modern times

No, it will not end all wars, neither terrorism. It will create a massive world-wide hatred towards the states that "possess" by the minor countries that are left outside of the big party...

Edited by Asterix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO BLOOD FOR COCOA!

Lol, true or not, thats still funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

keep the peace by killing civilians? nice work!

(for the record i'm all for the french being there as peace keepers, I just don't see UN backing as being relevant anymore because of the level of curruption involved)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wun, regarding the form of peackeeping today, no.

It has no real effect .....

Forget about East Timor?

Aussies went there with UN backing and now they are an independent country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

erikl is basing his opinions on the fact that he has a very one sided opinion of the UN , which we have discussed on many occassions.

I just simply wont beleiev this right wing crap about the UN being this horrendously corrupt organisation that has absolutley no merit whatsoever , its all b******s.

Yes there is some corruption but in which country in which walk of life is there not.

I think youll find erikl there is no master conspiracy against israel at the UN and no wider conspiracy in france against isreal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wun, you are incredibly naive.

First of all, UN's involvement in terrorism against Israeli which you seem to forgot - like the employment of Hamas activists in UNRAW.

Second, there's the anti-Semitic and poor resolution of 1975 which stated that Zionism is racism (but I guess other nations' aspirations for a country of their own isn't racist, eh?), which was later cancelled in 1990.

Then we have all those non-binding resolutions that simply bash Israel on everything - like a vandictive ex-girl friend who tries to hurt you in any way possible.

If you'll check the record of UN's resolutions, you'll see that something like 25% of it's non-binding resolutions are against Israel, for stupid things like "oh, Israel want to have a military parade for their independence day? well to bad - CONDEMN!".

The fact that none of those resolutions are binding, means that Israel never broke the law, or else the UN would have passed a binding resolution.

This is all the result of huge UN corruption, the oil-for-food being at the centre.

And ofcourse the fact that the UN have totalitarian majority.

I don't understand how you can see any moral justification for what the UN is doing. Forget left vs. right here. The basic truth is that 2/3 of the UN's members are dictatorships, who can't even respect their own citizens' rights.

Why do we, democracies that give rights to our citizens, listen to what they decide?

This is nothing short of hypocricy.

Has a matter of fact - the entire existance of the UN today in it's current form is one huge hypocricy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why the French are so up and running about the Ivory Coast! If it is a UN mandate then why are the French providing half of the force? Are there no other countries in the world that have troops for peace keeping other than the French, especially the countries with less interest in the place? How can the French be an objetive peace keeping force in a country that was their colony and in which they still have interests? Was the Ivory Coast a greater danger to world peace than Saddam, according to the French? At what point would the French and their peacekeeping allies be okay to leave the Ivory Coast? Are the extra troops that the French are sending in, requested by the security council or is it a unilateral French decision?

The UN and its secutity council are looking more and more like an instrument in the hands of the five countries with veto power and are losing their credibility by the day! Sending the French to the Ivory Coast for peacekeeping is the latest mess up of the UN in a line of world class screw ups by this outdated, undemocratic organisation, or rather by its permenant members that systematically use it for their own interests instead of real world peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zephyr, the UN is an hypocrictic, corrupted and paradoxic organization.

It has no moral justifications to exist today.

Maybe some decades ago in the Cold War it was good to use as a way for the western world and the soviet bloc to talk to eachother, but now that the Cold War is over, this body, the UN, is useless.

It should be dismantled.

I think all democratic nations should redraw and create their own organizations, a UDN (United Democratic Nations) that will be much more powerfull and much stronger, and will bond all those countries together like the EU is binding European countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.