MovieChat Forums > Politics > Evidence Of UN Aid To Hamas On And After...

Evidence Of UN Aid To Hamas On And After October 7th

posted 8 months ago by JoWilli (19957)
20 replies | jump to latest

At least 42 UNRWA Employees Participated in October 7.

https://unwatch.org/evidence-of-unrwa-aid-to-hamas-on-and-after-october-7th/

Intelligence Reveals Details of U.N. Agency Staff’s Links to Oct. 7 Attack
Around 10% of Palestinian aid agency’s 12,000 staff in Gaza have links to militants, according to intelligence dossier

I stand with Israel. Bless Israel and protect the brave IDF soldiers

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/at-least-12-u-n-agency-employees-involved-in-oct-7-attacks-intelligence-reports-say-a7de8f36

this is why we need President Trump back as the real president.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18049) 8 months ago

Not too surprised really, Dementia Joe is supporting both sides so he can launder money to Ukraine.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18049) 8 months ago

NO Peace until Hamas is Out of power.

reply

[–] TimeTunnel (4769) 8 months ago

"NO Peace until Hamas is Out of power."

Agreed.
Other than that, both articles in the OP are more than a month old.
Certainly no surprise anymore.
And the UN is not the USA. 🤓

But true, The UN should do a better job of vetting its employees.
Especially the blue helmets.

reply

[–] RS (106) 8 months ago

Anyone aiding Hamas is a traitor to their nation.

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18049) 8 months ago

That would be Dictator Joe. He is arming and supplying both sides.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 8 months ago

Joe Biden decides how UNRWA operates now, does he?

reply

[–] Bubbathegut (18049) 8 months ago

No, the US gives them money.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

Something that comes from a biased source is not "evidence."

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 8 months ago

Are you really calling the Wall Street Journal biased? And why do you even feel the need to defend UNRWA from charges that its workers were involved in the 10/7 attack when you defended the attack itself on its merits? Why would the attack itself be totally okay but not UNRWA involvement in the attack?

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

I am calling the UN Watch biased.
They are a spokes group that is a mouthpiece for Israel.

Tons of lies came out from Israel regarding Hamas to cover up their war crimes and to justify their genocide and this is most likely another one.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 8 months ago

Even if you think UNWatch is biased, it cited the Wall Street Journal for its claim. You would know that if you actually looked at the UNWatch page that was linked to. And why do you even care that UNRWA workers were involved in the Hamas attack when you defend the attack itself on its merits?

I don't know of any lies told by Israel about Hamas. And Israel is NOT committing genocide.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

Just because it shows up in a credible media piece does not mean the source tells the truth.

If it comes from Israel it most likely is a lie.
Starting from day one about beheaded babies and other ones thrown in an oven.
(Those were the charred body remains from rockets the IDF fired knowingly and intentionally at their own hostages, most likely.)
Saying that Hamas was using hospitals as bases when they never did.
Like with video of IDF terrorists pointing to a schedule on a wall claiming it was for hostage guards when it turned out to be a shift change for hospital workers.
Or they will plant their own weapons in the hospital saying they belong to Hamas when they don't.
Or saying a hole is part of the Hamas tunnel network when it is a hole that goes to a reservoir.

Investigation disproves Israel claim of Hamas tunnel under Gaza hospital
The hatch Israel claimed was a Hamas tunnel is only a water reservoir for the hospital.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/8/investigation-disproves-israel-claim-of-hamas-tunnel-under-gaza-hospital

When you support the liars it doesn't do you any good when you make your claims of the blockade being "legal" and this is not a "genocide."

It is an illegal blockade and it is a genocide.

It figures you would lie for the liars seeing what a crackpot you are.

Your trolling bores me and I need you to leave me alone.
Since you won't do that I'll have to put you on ignore.

Bye.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2039) 8 months ago

TL:DR

Saying that proves that you're wrong about everything!

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 8 months ago

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-29-2024-4c49c2fb89c3bfd4963f2260b34943c1

you can use this new search tool called Google.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

The burden of proof is on the one making the claims so no need to bitch at me about it.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 8 months ago

[–] WarrenPeace (2040) 10 hours ago
Something that comes from a biased source is not "evidence."

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-29-2024-4c49c2fb89c3bfd4963f2260b34943c1

An Israeli document obtained Monday spelled out allegations against a dozen U.N. employees the country says took part in Hamas’ Oct. 7 assault — claiming seven stormed into Israeli territory, including one who participated in a kidnapping and another who helped to steal a soldier’s body.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

See my response to that crackpot troll Rusty as to why anything coming from Israel cannot be trusted.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 8 months ago

his posts are spot on and tell the truth, attacking the source of info is the same thing as character assassination. if Israel posts fake news then every news source posts fake news.

reply

[–] WarrenPeace (2267) 8 months ago

Rusty is an annoying troll who is full of shit about the Israel situation I had to put him on ignore.

reply

[–] JoWilli (19957) 8 months ago

I would say he is not a troll, his posts are logical and provide sources. yeah they might be a bit long but that doesnt make someone a troll.

I think there are a lot of dems who are anti-Semites and they also support Hamas and terrorism and war.

its a good thing social media didnt exist in 1942, cause woke dems would be supporting Hitler.

and also its a good thing social media didnt exist in 1943, cause woke dems would be supporting Japan.

reply