re the Sharon quote; a report was aired on a radio station based on newspaper reports. CAMERA started two letter campaigns to have the story retracted but did not succeed.
There are many anti-arab quotes that can be found. The point is that hatred exists on both sides.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Diuretic wrote: Just picking up on the source point by Koan - yes K, it is very frustrating. I know that no source is totally objective but it's annoying to have to be suspicious of every website. At least in Wikipedia the fights are in the open 
that's how I feel about wikipedia as well. it's a great starting point for finding other sources and you can learn even more by reading the discussion page.
that's how I feel about wikipedia as well. it's a great starting point for finding other sources and you can learn even more by reading the discussion page.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: It seems to me that Israel has attracted a people with an extremist mindset from throughout the world and that is the main cause for the conflict.
Um...what?
The numbers look like 1.2 billion Muslims
14.6 million Jews
It only takes a few spewing hatred on each side to create animosity between them as cultures.
I do believe it is true that Arabs and Jews got along just fine until the flood of 600 000 Jews into Palestine. I wouldn't call them 600 000 Zionists though. I'd say they were 600 000 terrified and angry people with nowhere else to go.
Um...what?
The numbers look like 1.2 billion Muslims
14.6 million Jews
It only takes a few spewing hatred on each side to create animosity between them as cultures.
I do believe it is true that Arabs and Jews got along just fine until the flood of 600 000 Jews into Palestine. I wouldn't call them 600 000 Zionists though. I'd say they were 600 000 terrified and angry people with nowhere else to go.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote:
The world needs to accept that both parties in control are guilty in this. Neither the Israeli government/powers or the Palastinian government/powers have a right to rule there because they have failed to find a path to peace.
yeah, for sure.
that's why israel has been at peace with egypt for twenty eight years.
that's why israel has been at peace with jordan for twelve years.
it's so convenient to ignore what doesn't suit your argument.
The world needs to accept that both parties in control are guilty in this. Neither the Israeli government/powers or the Palastinian government/powers have a right to rule there because they have failed to find a path to peace.
yeah, for sure.
that's why israel has been at peace with egypt for twenty eight years.
that's why israel has been at peace with jordan for twelve years.
it's so convenient to ignore what doesn't suit your argument.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Scrat wrote: Since 1948 extremists have run Israel. The Zionists. Their system is much like ours, influence is pedaled and if you are not with a certain party/group toeing the line you will get nowhere.
Why this date? could you explain the reasons for your statement? That second sentence means nothing to me. Ambiguous at best.
Scrat wrote: It was the same with the communists in Russia and like the Repugnican party in America now. ''You're with us or you're against us" and there is no middle path.
Exactly what part of communism are you bringing into this? Could you be more specific? Also, terms like "Repugnican" bring nothing to the discussion except illuminating bias. The term Republican would have done just fine. I've heard the phrase attributed to Bush. When did the "communists" say it? Just curious.
You aren't trying to say that the Republican party are like communists, are you? I wonder why you had to attribute the phrase to any specific group. Its poor logic stands out on its own.
Why this date? could you explain the reasons for your statement? That second sentence means nothing to me. Ambiguous at best.
Scrat wrote: It was the same with the communists in Russia and like the Repugnican party in America now. ''You're with us or you're against us" and there is no middle path.
Exactly what part of communism are you bringing into this? Could you be more specific? Also, terms like "Repugnican" bring nothing to the discussion except illuminating bias. The term Republican would have done just fine. I've heard the phrase attributed to Bush. When did the "communists" say it? Just curious.
You aren't trying to say that the Republican party are like communists, are you? I wonder why you had to attribute the phrase to any specific group. Its poor logic stands out on its own.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: yeah, for sure.
that's why israel has been at peace with egypt for twenty eight years.
that's why israel has been at peace with jordan for twelve years.
it's so convenient to ignore what doesn't suit your argument.
Very true. How long do you think it will be before extremists start getting more and more support support in both these countries the longer Israel's action in lebanon is allowed to continue?
Like it or not most people in the world and particularly the middle east consider Israel's action to be way over the top and see them as the aggressors in this. If you think irt has no effect in egypt and jordan you are kidding yourself. They have enough problems with Islamic extremists without Israel making them in to heroes.
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-t ... -situation
Meanwhile Israel’s repeated air strikes against the Lebanese army risk destroying the very institution Israeli leaders say they want to promote at Hezbollah’s expense.
“The Israelis are in the process of attacking the very instrument of implementation for Resolution 1559, said Joseph Bahout of Beirut’s Institute of Political Studies.
“The Israeli offensive is not going to help the Lebanese state or its efforts to impose its sovereignty, he warned.
“The army risks falling apart under the pressure.
Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr has defiantly answered an Israeli threat to invade Lebanon in force.
“The Lebanese army will resist and defend the country and prove that it is an army worthy of respect, he said.
posted by scrat
The world needs to accept that both parties in control are guilty in this. Neither the Israeli government/powers or the Palastinian government/powers have a right to rule there because they have failed to find a path to peace.
I would suggest that the world does it seems to be only the US govt that thinks there is right and wrong. I would like to credit the American people with a bit more savvy.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... 214548.ece
Mass protests have erupted across much of the Muslim world against the war in Lebanon, prompting louder and more desperate calls for a ceasefire from governments fearful of a popular backlash.
Have a trawl through the european papers only the fringe have anything good to say about Israel at the moment.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 214560.ece
The extent of the Labour backbench unrest over Tony Blair's handling of the Middle East crisis is laid bare for the first time today in a petition calling for an immediate ceasefire.
More than 110 Labour MPs, including Paul Clark, the parliamentary private secretary to John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, have signed the petition. That would be enough to wipe out Mr Blair's Commons majority. Mr Blair will not face the immediate threat of a vote because the Commons has risen for the summer recess, but it shows that he has lost the support of almost a third of the Parliamentary Labour Party on the issue.
Tony Blair can be removed as prime minister, unlike a president he is in office at the will of parliament. Looks like labout MP's are beginning to get the knives out for him.
Personally I think the so called special relationship is a load horseshit but out of curiosity if TB gets kicked out would anybody in the states actually notice or even care?
that's why israel has been at peace with egypt for twenty eight years.
that's why israel has been at peace with jordan for twelve years.
it's so convenient to ignore what doesn't suit your argument.
Very true. How long do you think it will be before extremists start getting more and more support support in both these countries the longer Israel's action in lebanon is allowed to continue?
Like it or not most people in the world and particularly the middle east consider Israel's action to be way over the top and see them as the aggressors in this. If you think irt has no effect in egypt and jordan you are kidding yourself. They have enough problems with Islamic extremists without Israel making them in to heroes.
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-t ... -situation
Meanwhile Israel’s repeated air strikes against the Lebanese army risk destroying the very institution Israeli leaders say they want to promote at Hezbollah’s expense.
“The Israelis are in the process of attacking the very instrument of implementation for Resolution 1559, said Joseph Bahout of Beirut’s Institute of Political Studies.
“The Israeli offensive is not going to help the Lebanese state or its efforts to impose its sovereignty, he warned.
“The army risks falling apart under the pressure.
Lebanese Defence Minister Elias Murr has defiantly answered an Israeli threat to invade Lebanon in force.
“The Lebanese army will resist and defend the country and prove that it is an army worthy of respect, he said.
posted by scrat
The world needs to accept that both parties in control are guilty in this. Neither the Israeli government/powers or the Palastinian government/powers have a right to rule there because they have failed to find a path to peace.
I would suggest that the world does it seems to be only the US govt that thinks there is right and wrong. I would like to credit the American people with a bit more savvy.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/pol ... 214548.ece
Mass protests have erupted across much of the Muslim world against the war in Lebanon, prompting louder and more desperate calls for a ceasefire from governments fearful of a popular backlash.
Have a trawl through the european papers only the fringe have anything good to say about Israel at the moment.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 214560.ece
The extent of the Labour backbench unrest over Tony Blair's handling of the Middle East crisis is laid bare for the first time today in a petition calling for an immediate ceasefire.
More than 110 Labour MPs, including Paul Clark, the parliamentary private secretary to John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, have signed the petition. That would be enough to wipe out Mr Blair's Commons majority. Mr Blair will not face the immediate threat of a vote because the Commons has risen for the summer recess, but it shows that he has lost the support of almost a third of the Parliamentary Labour Party on the issue.
Tony Blair can be removed as prime minister, unlike a president he is in office at the will of parliament. Looks like labout MP's are beginning to get the knives out for him.
Personally I think the so called special relationship is a load horseshit but out of curiosity if TB gets kicked out would anybody in the states actually notice or even care?
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: Very true. How long do you think it will be before extremists start getting more and more support support in both these countries the longer Israel's action in lebanon is allowed to continue?
i don't know. how long before the world community stops glossing over and begins to vilify hezbollah for their sickening tactics?
(missiles sent specifically and intentionally into purely civilian neighborhoods, said missiles packed with steel balls to maximize death and destruction; cowardly launching their attacks on israel from within civilian neighborhoods and homes, so that when israel retaliates, it's sure to kill civilians on their side, which gives them a cheap rallying cry; kidnapping israelis in order to force prisoner exchanges, which going by past history have been on average one israeli hostage securing the release of hundreds and hundreds of prisoners from israel)
the one-way condemnation that seems to be the rule of order lately is pretty sickening to my mind. constant apologies for hezbollah, constant condemnation of israel for responding to attack. i've yet to hear a single one of the hezbollah-apologists decry hezbollah's tactics. i absolutely condemn israel's actions that put civilians in harms way. even if hezbollah is launching attacks while cowering behind civilians, it's still wrong that lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of this.
it could be avoided of course, if hezbollah wasn't using lebanese civilians as human shields.
i don't know. how long before the world community stops glossing over and begins to vilify hezbollah for their sickening tactics?
(missiles sent specifically and intentionally into purely civilian neighborhoods, said missiles packed with steel balls to maximize death and destruction; cowardly launching their attacks on israel from within civilian neighborhoods and homes, so that when israel retaliates, it's sure to kill civilians on their side, which gives them a cheap rallying cry; kidnapping israelis in order to force prisoner exchanges, which going by past history have been on average one israeli hostage securing the release of hundreds and hundreds of prisoners from israel)
the one-way condemnation that seems to be the rule of order lately is pretty sickening to my mind. constant apologies for hezbollah, constant condemnation of israel for responding to attack. i've yet to hear a single one of the hezbollah-apologists decry hezbollah's tactics. i absolutely condemn israel's actions that put civilians in harms way. even if hezbollah is launching attacks while cowering behind civilians, it's still wrong that lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of this.
it could be avoided of course, if hezbollah wasn't using lebanese civilians as human shields.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: Very true. How long do you think it will be before extremists start getting more and more support
and come on now. there's never been a shortage of support for the destruction of israel. neither egypt nor jordan like israel. but they, at least, have reasonably civil societies, that were willing to negotiate a peace with israel. where is hezbollah's willingness to negotiate? there is none. zero. death to israel is their offer.
does hezbollah have grievances, even legitimate grievances? surely. absolutely. where is the negotiation? how is it that two other largely muslim countries, egypt and jordan, which share far more border with israel than either lebanon or syria, are able to live peacefully with israel?
and come on now. there's never been a shortage of support for the destruction of israel. neither egypt nor jordan like israel. but they, at least, have reasonably civil societies, that were willing to negotiate a peace with israel. where is hezbollah's willingness to negotiate? there is none. zero. death to israel is their offer.
does hezbollah have grievances, even legitimate grievances? surely. absolutely. where is the negotiation? how is it that two other largely muslim countries, egypt and jordan, which share far more border with israel than either lebanon or syria, are able to live peacefully with israel?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: and come on now. there's never been a shortage of support for the destruction of israel. neither egypt nor jordan like israel. but they, at least, have reasonably civil societies, that were willing to negotiate a peace with israel. where is hezbollah's willingness to negotiate? there is none. zero. death to israel is their offer.
does hezbollah have grievances, even legitimate grievances? surely. absolutely. where is the negotiation? how is it that two other largely muslim countries, egypt and jordan, which share far more border with israel than either lebanon or syria, are able to live peacefully with israel?
Because they want to. Most people do not want to go to war only extremists on both sides actually want a war and I suspect some are delighted to be getting what they want. There are religious extremists in Israel who want all palestinians destryoed just as much as there are islamic ones who want Isreal destroyed. As well as a few nutty christians who think there is some kind of crusade here.
The longer this goes on the more and more people in muslim countries are going to start demanding something be done. Even moderates and those who oppose Hezbollah and other extremists islamic groups are being left with no choice but warfare if talking and negotiation doesn't take place. This is doing nothing for Israel's security and nothing to make America any safer from terrorist attacks. Those very same countries you vaunt as living peacefully with Israel can very easily go the other way if their people want them to. Saudi and Jordan and the like may not be democracies but they can still be overthrown by extremists if they get enough support, you should worry about that happening.
Palestinians have a right to exist as well without being occupied by a foreign power that takes all their best land and uses their resources such as the water under their feet. All this stems from the simple fact that israel does not extend to others the very thing it claims for itself. The only reason they still occupy parts of palestine is because they are strong enough to do so not because it is morally right
Israel is not without blame in this nor are they innocent victims. They cannot win a guerrila war in lebanon and it's either that or stop fighting and start talking. Hexbollah got exactly the reaction it was looking for. You don't defeat terrorists by playing the game the way they want you to.
The US could stop Israel tomorrow if they wanted. That they don't means you are identified with them. If you are not very careful you are going to be drawn in to a long drawn war that will make paupers of the US. It took 50,00 dead in Vietnam before people started seriously questioning what was going on, how many do you think it will take before you start wondering what on earth you are doing now and start suspecting that maybe your govt is not being honest and there is something wrong? I doubt very much that most people in the middle east hate americans as a people just what your government is doing in your name.
does hezbollah have grievances, even legitimate grievances? surely. absolutely. where is the negotiation? how is it that two other largely muslim countries, egypt and jordan, which share far more border with israel than either lebanon or syria, are able to live peacefully with israel?
Because they want to. Most people do not want to go to war only extremists on both sides actually want a war and I suspect some are delighted to be getting what they want. There are religious extremists in Israel who want all palestinians destryoed just as much as there are islamic ones who want Isreal destroyed. As well as a few nutty christians who think there is some kind of crusade here.
The longer this goes on the more and more people in muslim countries are going to start demanding something be done. Even moderates and those who oppose Hezbollah and other extremists islamic groups are being left with no choice but warfare if talking and negotiation doesn't take place. This is doing nothing for Israel's security and nothing to make America any safer from terrorist attacks. Those very same countries you vaunt as living peacefully with Israel can very easily go the other way if their people want them to. Saudi and Jordan and the like may not be democracies but they can still be overthrown by extremists if they get enough support, you should worry about that happening.
Palestinians have a right to exist as well without being occupied by a foreign power that takes all their best land and uses their resources such as the water under their feet. All this stems from the simple fact that israel does not extend to others the very thing it claims for itself. The only reason they still occupy parts of palestine is because they are strong enough to do so not because it is morally right
Israel is not without blame in this nor are they innocent victims. They cannot win a guerrila war in lebanon and it's either that or stop fighting and start talking. Hexbollah got exactly the reaction it was looking for. You don't defeat terrorists by playing the game the way they want you to.
The US could stop Israel tomorrow if they wanted. That they don't means you are identified with them. If you are not very careful you are going to be drawn in to a long drawn war that will make paupers of the US. It took 50,00 dead in Vietnam before people started seriously questioning what was going on, how many do you think it will take before you start wondering what on earth you are doing now and start suspecting that maybe your govt is not being honest and there is something wrong? I doubt very much that most people in the middle east hate americans as a people just what your government is doing in your name.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
IMO The reason why Egypt can live in peace with Israel is because they are being paid too by the USA.
Between 1979 and 2003, the US has provided Egypt with about $30 billion in military aid making Egypt the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame.
Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni the former Commandant of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) once said, "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me to the region." Egypt was also described during the Clinton Administration as the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key US ally in the Middle East. US military assistance to Egypt was considered part of the administration's strategy to maintaining continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as critical route for US warships transiting to the Gulf.
The Egyptian military provides indirect support for the foreign policy of Egypt in the region. Egypt is the strongest military power on the African continent, and the second largest in the Middle East, after Israel - (Source: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual Middle East Strategic Balance). The real test of American-Egyptian friendship is whether the US administration is capable of adopting an even-handed policy towards the two key states in the Middle East.
War on terrorism
Despite differences and periods of friction in relations between the two countries, the US-Egyptian relations under Mubarak have evolved moving beyond the Middle East peace process towards an independent bilateral friendship. It was in the US interest that Egypt was able to present moderate voice in Arab councils and persuade other Arab states to join the peace process and to normalize their relations with the US.
However lately Egyptian-American relations have become a little tense. This is due to a great extent to the Egyptian unwillingness to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilization missions. Egypt strongly backed the US in its war against international terrorism after 11 September attacks, but refused to send troops to Afghanistan neither during the war nor after it. Egypt also opposed US military intervention of March 2003 in Iraq, continued to oppose US occupation of the country after the war and further refused to comply with US requests to send troops to the country even under a UN umbrella.
The issue of participation in the post-war construction efforts in Iraq has been controversial in Egypt and in the Arab world as a whole. Opponents see that the war was illegal and it is necessary to wait until Iraq has legal representative government to deal with it. On the other hand supporters of participation argued that the responsibility to protect Iraqis and to help them in time of crisis should prevail and guide the Egyptian action in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Egypt
Between 1979 and 2003, the US has provided Egypt with about $30 billion in military aid making Egypt the second largest recipient of US military aid after Israel. Also, Egypt received about $30 billion in economic aid within the same time frame.
Military cooperation between the US and Egypt is probably the strongest aspect of their strategic partnership. General Anthony Zinni the former Commandant of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) once said, "Egypt is the most important country in my area of responsibility because of the access it gives me to the region." Egypt was also described during the Clinton Administration as the most prominent player in the Arab world and a key US ally in the Middle East. US military assistance to Egypt was considered part of the administration's strategy to maintaining continued availability of Persian Gulf energy resources and to secure the Suez Canal, which serves both as an important international oil route and as critical route for US warships transiting to the Gulf.
The Egyptian military provides indirect support for the foreign policy of Egypt in the region. Egypt is the strongest military power on the African continent, and the second largest in the Middle East, after Israel - (Source: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies' annual Middle East Strategic Balance). The real test of American-Egyptian friendship is whether the US administration is capable of adopting an even-handed policy towards the two key states in the Middle East.
War on terrorism
Despite differences and periods of friction in relations between the two countries, the US-Egyptian relations under Mubarak have evolved moving beyond the Middle East peace process towards an independent bilateral friendship. It was in the US interest that Egypt was able to present moderate voice in Arab councils and persuade other Arab states to join the peace process and to normalize their relations with the US.
However lately Egyptian-American relations have become a little tense. This is due to a great extent to the Egyptian unwillingness to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq in peace stabilization missions. Egypt strongly backed the US in its war against international terrorism after 11 September attacks, but refused to send troops to Afghanistan neither during the war nor after it. Egypt also opposed US military intervention of March 2003 in Iraq, continued to oppose US occupation of the country after the war and further refused to comply with US requests to send troops to the country even under a UN umbrella.
The issue of participation in the post-war construction efforts in Iraq has been controversial in Egypt and in the Arab world as a whole. Opponents see that the war was illegal and it is necessary to wait until Iraq has legal representative government to deal with it. On the other hand supporters of participation argued that the responsibility to protect Iraqis and to help them in time of crisis should prevail and guide the Egyptian action in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Egypt
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
We would send a tractor to plough in the demilitarized area. We knew the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until the Syrians would shoot. Then we would use artillery and the air force.
-Moshe Dayan
lessons on how to create justification for dropping bombs.
-Moshe Dayan
lessons on how to create justification for dropping bombs.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
"Using the moral yardstick mentioned by [Moshe Sharett], I must ask: Are [we justified] in opening fire on the [Palestinian] Arabs who cross to reap the crops they planted in our territory; they, their women, and their children? Will this stand up to moral scrutiny . . .? We shoot at those from among the 200,000 hungry [Palestinian] Arabs who cross the line [to graze their flocks]---- will this stand up to moral review? Arabs cross to collect the grain that they left in the abandoned [term often used by Israelis to describe the ethnically cleansed] villages and we set mines for them and they go back without an arm or a leg. . . . [It may be that this] cannot pass review, but I know no other method of guarding the borders. then tomorrow the State of Israel will have no borders."
another gem from Moshe Dayan
another gem from Moshe Dayan
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Here's what Saudi Arabia thinks (they are the "good arabs" as far as the States are concerned, aren't they?)
source
Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, yesterday described the current Israeli military campaign against Lebanon as "Zionist terrorism" and urged that the perpetrators behind the aggression must be tried for committing war crimes
...
He said the current campaign of the Jewish state against Lebanon and Palestine had unmasked those who have been supporting the enemy and misleading the world opinion by raising the slogans of humaneness, peace and democracy.
Sudais said the new world order failed to stop Israeli barbarism and despotism. "We should know that these killings and aggression are directed against every Muslim," he said.
The imam also spoke about the irony of calling the heinous Israeli aggression and massacres as legitimate acts of self-defense and condemning the resistance of the oppressed as acts of terrorism.
He said this policy of double standard would not help bring about peace and security in the Middle East and it would only trigger hatred and hostility among nations. He said the barbaric bombardments, killings and destruction in Lebanon would remain in people's memory forever.
source
Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, yesterday described the current Israeli military campaign against Lebanon as "Zionist terrorism" and urged that the perpetrators behind the aggression must be tried for committing war crimes
...
He said the current campaign of the Jewish state against Lebanon and Palestine had unmasked those who have been supporting the enemy and misleading the world opinion by raising the slogans of humaneness, peace and democracy.
Sudais said the new world order failed to stop Israeli barbarism and despotism. "We should know that these killings and aggression are directed against every Muslim," he said.
The imam also spoke about the irony of calling the heinous Israeli aggression and massacres as legitimate acts of self-defense and condemning the resistance of the oppressed as acts of terrorism.
He said this policy of double standard would not help bring about peace and security in the Middle East and it would only trigger hatred and hostility among nations. He said the barbaric bombardments, killings and destruction in Lebanon would remain in people's memory forever.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
SnoozeControl wrote: Excellent argument, Bronwen. You really proved your point with the use of insults. :rolleyes:Don't speak to Bronwyn that way! She's obviously showing what a strong Christian she is (she knows more about Catholics than the Pope, y'know) by doing unto others ... :yh_think ... as she would have others treat her. ... :sneaky:
Carry on!
Carry on!
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Just had a thought, Bronwen.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: Just had a thought, Bronwen.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.
never heard of the diaspora, have you. unsurprising.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.
never heard of the diaspora, have you. unsurprising.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
I think you refer to Jewish claims on Arab countries. I never know with you. I think you should actually make a statement before I bother responding.
fyi, since you obviously didn't put me on ignore and I can't ignore you when email notifications disregard ignore lists...for the record, you engaged me. with a non-statement.
fyi, since you obviously didn't put me on ignore and I can't ignore you when email notifications disregard ignore lists...for the record, you engaged me. with a non-statement.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: I think you refer to Jewish claims on Arab countries. I never know with you. I think you should actually make a statement before I bother responding.
i love the spin. 'jewish claims on arab countries'. how about arab claims on the jewish country? how about the romans driving the jews from palestine? the egyptians enslaving them? germany didn't drive the jews out of their land for chrissakes. that would have been too much trouble. they merely exterminated them. the remaining european jews decided to return to their homeland. i realize you consider that to be a lie. you only consider arab claims to the land to be valid. the question of course being, 'why'. i recognize arab/palestinian claim to the land. as well as recognizing jewish claim to the land.
fyi, since you obviously didn't put me on ignore and I can't ignore you when email notifications disregard ignore lists...for the record, you engaged me. with a non-statement.
you are still on ignore. unfortunately, 'ignore' isn't nearly thorough enough. i'm still presented with constant reminders that you're blathering along here. and being a masochist, i occasionally click on one to see what pap you're spouting again.
i love the spin. 'jewish claims on arab countries'. how about arab claims on the jewish country? how about the romans driving the jews from palestine? the egyptians enslaving them? germany didn't drive the jews out of their land for chrissakes. that would have been too much trouble. they merely exterminated them. the remaining european jews decided to return to their homeland. i realize you consider that to be a lie. you only consider arab claims to the land to be valid. the question of course being, 'why'. i recognize arab/palestinian claim to the land. as well as recognizing jewish claim to the land.
fyi, since you obviously didn't put me on ignore and I can't ignore you when email notifications disregard ignore lists...for the record, you engaged me. with a non-statement.
you are still on ignore. unfortunately, 'ignore' isn't nearly thorough enough. i'm still presented with constant reminders that you're blathering along here. and being a masochist, i occasionally click on one to see what pap you're spouting again.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
the difference here is that you want the jews driven out of israel, and the nation abolished. points for your candor, as ugly as it is. i on the other hand would like to see the nations learn to live in peace. israel and egypt have, for 28 years. israel and jordan have, for 12 years. you of course never, ever acknowledge that. progress has been made, even to the point of israel withdrawing its settlers and returning land to the palestinians, in the name of ensuring broader peace.
israel has worked hard to make a lasting peace with its neighbors. it has also had many failings. who the aggressors are shouldn't matter. a peaceful solution is what is needed. suggesting that the jews should leave israel is not a peaceful solution, considering they are now and have for a long time been at peace with their two largest neighbors.
israel has worked hard to make a lasting peace with its neighbors. it has also had many failings. who the aggressors are shouldn't matter. a peaceful solution is what is needed. suggesting that the jews should leave israel is not a peaceful solution, considering they are now and have for a long time been at peace with their two largest neighbors.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
you missed this "pap" then:
"As The Arabs See The Jews"
In it you'll find a precise outline as to the bs about Jewish rights to the land.
Quick link here.
I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere. Note: I won't take your word for it. I want a higher authority.
"As The Arabs See The Jews"
In it you'll find a precise outline as to the bs about Jewish rights to the land.
Quick link here.
I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere. Note: I won't take your word for it. I want a higher authority.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
yup israel's worked real hard. here's what they've been doing.
Attached files
Attached files
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: you missed this "pap" then:
"As The Arabs See The Jews"
In it you'll find a precise outline as to the bs about Jewish rights to the land.
Quick link here.
I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere. Note: I won't take your word for it. I want a higher authority.
you must be kidding. a statement by a monarch, who clearly has his own agenda - and of course written more than fifty years ago - is a "precise outline" as to the "bs" about a jewish right to the land? good lord.
you are aware that the jews are as much arab as the palestinians? that alone should be your first clue.
"Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more."
yeah. no bigotry there. "forced on us".
jewish expansionism has been on the 'back burner' for decades. israel is relatively content with its borders, with the exception of some tiny areas in dispute. contrast with israels former takeover of the entire sinai peninsula, later ceded back to egypt - in the name of peace.
it is not the israelis who do not want to get along with their neighbors. the arabs may have gotten along with the jews in times past, indeed for many great stretches. that is not the case now. hezbollah, iranian mullahs, call for the destruction of israel. not getting along peacefully with it.
again, your candor in being on the side of those who want to destroy israel is appreciated. we do know where you stand. not on the side of peaceful resolution though, that's for sure.
"As The Arabs See The Jews"
In it you'll find a precise outline as to the bs about Jewish rights to the land.
Quick link here.
I defy you to find a history of such plain honesty elsewhere. Note: I won't take your word for it. I want a higher authority.
you must be kidding. a statement by a monarch, who clearly has his own agenda - and of course written more than fifty years ago - is a "precise outline" as to the "bs" about a jewish right to the land? good lord.
you are aware that the jews are as much arab as the palestinians? that alone should be your first clue.
"Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more."
yeah. no bigotry there. "forced on us".
jewish expansionism has been on the 'back burner' for decades. israel is relatively content with its borders, with the exception of some tiny areas in dispute. contrast with israels former takeover of the entire sinai peninsula, later ceded back to egypt - in the name of peace.
it is not the israelis who do not want to get along with their neighbors. the arabs may have gotten along with the jews in times past, indeed for many great stretches. that is not the case now. hezbollah, iranian mullahs, call for the destruction of israel. not getting along peacefully with it.
again, your candor in being on the side of those who want to destroy israel is appreciated. we do know where you stand. not on the side of peaceful resolution though, that's for sure.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: yup israel's worked real hard. here's what they've been doing.
yeah. do ignore the entire sinai peninsula, a land mass many times larger than the current israel, ceded back to egypt in the name of peace.
do ignore israels pullout from much of the region your sweet little map ends with, since then. i didn't realize it was still 1999. where'd the last seven years of israel's good-faith - and by force with its own citizens - return of lands in the gaza go?
yeah. do ignore the entire sinai peninsula, a land mass many times larger than the current israel, ceded back to egypt in the name of peace.
do ignore israels pullout from much of the region your sweet little map ends with, since then. i didn't realize it was still 1999. where'd the last seven years of israel's good-faith - and by force with its own citizens - return of lands in the gaza go?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
I'm waiting for a source. While your opinion may grand in your own imagination, it does not suffice as evidence.
why am I feeling deja vu?
why am I feeling deja vu?
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
fun with backpeddling:
anastrophe wrote: your argument falls flat on its face when confronted with the fact that jordan and egypt have a lasting, negotiated peace with israel. both 'arab' countries. both bordering israel (the two borders comprising to my eye about 90 percent of israel's borders).
regarding the statements by the King of Jordan (who's relative currently holds the same POV)
anastrophe wrote: you must be kidding. a statement by a monarch, who clearly has his own agenda
you are aware that the palestinians are as much semite as the israelis? that alone should be your first clue.
anastrophe wrote: your argument falls flat on its face when confronted with the fact that jordan and egypt have a lasting, negotiated peace with israel. both 'arab' countries. both bordering israel (the two borders comprising to my eye about 90 percent of israel's borders).
regarding the statements by the King of Jordan (who's relative currently holds the same POV)
anastrophe wrote: you must be kidding. a statement by a monarch, who clearly has his own agenda
you are aware that the palestinians are as much semite as the israelis? that alone should be your first clue.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: I'm waiting for a source. While your opinion may grand in your own imagination, it does not suffice as evidence.
why am I feeling deja vu?
how does one provide "evidence" in response to an opinion piece? the hashemite king presented his opinion on the matter. this is laughable. can you not read? you don't see that the king's statement is his opinion, and not a history as presented by...you know...a historian?
"Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers."
interesting. i guess he took a poll? because later:
"You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it."
sorry. if i post an opinion piece, i don't look for someone to counter with "evidence" to contradict it, since that's not how opinions work.
why am I feeling deja vu?
how does one provide "evidence" in response to an opinion piece? the hashemite king presented his opinion on the matter. this is laughable. can you not read? you don't see that the king's statement is his opinion, and not a history as presented by...you know...a historian?
"Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers."
interesting. i guess he took a poll? because later:
"You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it."
sorry. if i post an opinion piece, i don't look for someone to counter with "evidence" to contradict it, since that's not how opinions work.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: fun with backpeddling:
regarding the statements by the King of Jordan (who's relative currently holds the same POV)
you are aware that the palestinians are as much semite as the israelis? that alone should be your first clue.
yet remarkably, they are at peace. apparently things have changed over the ensuing fifty years or so.
i thought you were on the side of peace? apparently not. anyone who suggests israel must be abolished is not in favor of peace.
if someone suggests that israel and its neighbors negotiate and work towards peace - that's being in favor of peace.
israel exists. it has for fifty years. there's a notion known as "live with it" that rather applies. egypt and jordan have learned to do so. rather than calling for the destruction of israel, perhaps you might have constructive ideas for how lebanon and syria (and by proxy, hezbollah) might learn to live in peace with israel, as have egypt and jordan.
i love how you still have not - will not - acknowledge that peace. speaks volumes!
regarding the statements by the King of Jordan (who's relative currently holds the same POV)
you are aware that the palestinians are as much semite as the israelis? that alone should be your first clue.
yet remarkably, they are at peace. apparently things have changed over the ensuing fifty years or so.
i thought you were on the side of peace? apparently not. anyone who suggests israel must be abolished is not in favor of peace.
if someone suggests that israel and its neighbors negotiate and work towards peace - that's being in favor of peace.
israel exists. it has for fifty years. there's a notion known as "live with it" that rather applies. egypt and jordan have learned to do so. rather than calling for the destruction of israel, perhaps you might have constructive ideas for how lebanon and syria (and by proxy, hezbollah) might learn to live in peace with israel, as have egypt and jordan.
i love how you still have not - will not - acknowledge that peace. speaks volumes!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
the claim by the king that palestine has been an entirely arab land continuously for 1300 years....while also pointing out that jews have lived in the same land at peace with their neighbors also - tends to further erode his argument. whose land is it really then? there have been jewish arab inhabitants of palestine the entire time as the palestinian arabs. that their population was minority to the palestinian arabs is irrelevant.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
blah blah blah...
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: blah blah blah...
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
i think a historian can provide a less biased interpretation of the history.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
if only you were actually providing sources, rather than merely posting opinion pieces and claiming "i have a source".
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
i think a historian can provide a less biased interpretation of the history.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
if only you were actually providing sources, rather than merely posting opinion pieces and claiming "i have a source".
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
here - since you so enjoy this game apparently - here's a 'source' that's quite counter to the hashemite king.
http://www.jimena.org/
since it's an advocacy site, it may also be characterized in the 'opinion' realm to some degree. of course, it's a little more contemporary than the hashemite king's opinion piece.
"When the issue of refugees is raised within the context of the Middle East, people invariably refer to Palestinian refugees, not former Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Yet, there were two major population movements that occurred during years of turmoil in the Middle East. In fact, there were more former Jewish refugees uprooted from Arab countries (over 850,0001) than there were Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. (UN estimate: 726,0002)"
http://www.jimena.org/
since it's an advocacy site, it may also be characterized in the 'opinion' realm to some degree. of course, it's a little more contemporary than the hashemite king's opinion piece.
"When the issue of refugees is raised within the context of the Middle East, people invariably refer to Palestinian refugees, not former Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Yet, there were two major population movements that occurred during years of turmoil in the Middle East. In fact, there were more former Jewish refugees uprooted from Arab countries (over 850,0001) than there were Palestinians who became refugees in 1948. (UN estimate: 726,0002)"
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
anastrophe wrote: i don't know. how long before the world community stops glossing over and begins to vilify hezbollah for their sickening tactics?
(missiles sent specifically and intentionally into purely civilian neighborhoods, said missiles packed with steel balls to maximize death and destruction; cowardly launching their attacks on israel from within civilian neighborhoods and homes, so that when israel retaliates, it's sure to kill civilians on their side, which gives them a cheap rallying cry; kidnapping israelis in order to force prisoner exchanges, which going by past history have been on average one israeli hostage securing the release of hundreds and hundreds of prisoners from israel)
the one-way condemnation that seems to be the rule of order lately is pretty sickening to my mind. constant apologies for hezbollah, constant condemnation of israel for responding to attack. i've yet to hear a single one of the hezbollah-apologists decry hezbollah's tactics. i absolutely condemn israel's actions that put civilians in harms way. even if hezbollah is launching attacks while cowering behind civilians, it's still wrong that lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of this.
it could be avoided of course, if hezbollah wasn't using lebanese civilians as human shields.
Missed this comment earlier. Why do you assume those who condemn Israel's action are necessarily pro Hezbollah? The world community, as you put it, is very well aware of what hezbollah is. The US had never suffered a terrorist attack from muslim extremists until 911 theyb were happening in europe long before 2001. That is why they are alarmed at actions that are likely to gain them and thier ilk more amd more support. Israel and the US are playing right in to their hands by what they are doing in Lebanon.
Try and get away from this if you are not with us you are against us mind set. As well as Egypt and Jordan Syria and Iran have also lived in peace with Israel. Now GW seems set on attacking Iran. Perhaps if Iran wasn't being threatened all the time they wouldn't feel the need to fund Hezbollah or supply them with rockets.
Hezbollah is wrong to use civilians as human shields (interesting term, do you see hezbollah as a legitimate combatant army) but Israel is wrong to slaughter them. It's Israeli actions in Palestine that have brought this on. They have culpability in all of this as much as Hamas do.
Also whether you can face up to it or not US foreign policy has a lot to answer for with regerd to what is happening now. Hopefully soon the great US public will waken up to that fact and stop assuming everything the US does or has done is good.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/342351.html
I was a firm believer in the war on terror, its aims, resolution never to bow down and eventually its ultimate success. This article would have reflected that, but while trawling through reams and reams of official government releases in order to write said article, I found evidence that starting in 1979 the American Government, headed up then by President Carter had begun a policy of funding Islamic terrorists to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. As well as extensive evidence that this policy was not only expanded in Afghanistan but also other groups opposing communism were funded in other countries. Eventually my own views were changed and this article will now show, that since 1979 successive American Presidents selectively or intentionally ignorant attitude toward unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions, has figured largely in the scourge of Islamic extremist terrorism the world now faces.
Dismissing criticism as just anti american or anti israeli is simplistic and not worthy of you. I can't stand Tony Blair and increasingly most people in the UK can't either. That doesn't make us anti british. People in the UK are becoming increasingly hostile to being involved in Iraq, most didn't want to be in the first place.
What Israel is doing in Lebanon is making things worse, criticising them doesn't make you anti semitic or mean you want israel to be removed. It means you think what they are doing is wrong.
posted by Bronwen
These are the scum you support, Issie. While the Israelis work hard to earn a living for their familes and defend their women and children against terrorists, your bunch is lying on their bellies in some filthy mosque, listening to a deranged lunatic rant and rave over a loudspeaker about 'Holy War', then they go out and commit atrocities against their neighbors, using their own women and children as human shields, and taking advantage of the mentally disturbed among them by sending them out to blow themselves up. And meanwhile, the hoardes are in the streets, waving their YELLOW flags and screaming 'Death to Israel! Death to America! Kill them all! We're INNOCENT civilians!'
This is the reality of Islamic terrorism and this is what must be destroyed. The Israelis are off to a good start, but it's going to be a long struggle, and yes, it could very well turn into WW3. If that occurs, there WILL be a brighter tomorrow, a tomorrow without Islamic terrorism.
Wasn't going to say anything but it is an Interesting comment Bronwen. What next? After getting rid of the nasty islamists will you turn on your protestant neighbours to bring them back to holy mother church? I suspect a good few orangemen that would welcome the challenge having never left behind the religious hatreds of the past. The most rabid of them nowadays pick their victims carefully but if you ever visit glasgow, borrow a celtic church and visit a pub in Ibrox for a lesson in sectarianism at it's most basic level. Being female you might not get your head kicked in. but if you want a fight I'm sure you could start one.
Millions have died because of religious conflicts in previous centuries such a pity that someone in the 21st would welcome such horror and activcely hope fpot it to happen.
(missiles sent specifically and intentionally into purely civilian neighborhoods, said missiles packed with steel balls to maximize death and destruction; cowardly launching their attacks on israel from within civilian neighborhoods and homes, so that when israel retaliates, it's sure to kill civilians on their side, which gives them a cheap rallying cry; kidnapping israelis in order to force prisoner exchanges, which going by past history have been on average one israeli hostage securing the release of hundreds and hundreds of prisoners from israel)
the one-way condemnation that seems to be the rule of order lately is pretty sickening to my mind. constant apologies for hezbollah, constant condemnation of israel for responding to attack. i've yet to hear a single one of the hezbollah-apologists decry hezbollah's tactics. i absolutely condemn israel's actions that put civilians in harms way. even if hezbollah is launching attacks while cowering behind civilians, it's still wrong that lebanese civilians are taking the brunt of this.
it could be avoided of course, if hezbollah wasn't using lebanese civilians as human shields.
Missed this comment earlier. Why do you assume those who condemn Israel's action are necessarily pro Hezbollah? The world community, as you put it, is very well aware of what hezbollah is. The US had never suffered a terrorist attack from muslim extremists until 911 theyb were happening in europe long before 2001. That is why they are alarmed at actions that are likely to gain them and thier ilk more amd more support. Israel and the US are playing right in to their hands by what they are doing in Lebanon.
Try and get away from this if you are not with us you are against us mind set. As well as Egypt and Jordan Syria and Iran have also lived in peace with Israel. Now GW seems set on attacking Iran. Perhaps if Iran wasn't being threatened all the time they wouldn't feel the need to fund Hezbollah or supply them with rockets.
Hezbollah is wrong to use civilians as human shields (interesting term, do you see hezbollah as a legitimate combatant army) but Israel is wrong to slaughter them. It's Israeli actions in Palestine that have brought this on. They have culpability in all of this as much as Hamas do.
Also whether you can face up to it or not US foreign policy has a lot to answer for with regerd to what is happening now. Hopefully soon the great US public will waken up to that fact and stop assuming everything the US does or has done is good.
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/06/342351.html
I was a firm believer in the war on terror, its aims, resolution never to bow down and eventually its ultimate success. This article would have reflected that, but while trawling through reams and reams of official government releases in order to write said article, I found evidence that starting in 1979 the American Government, headed up then by President Carter had begun a policy of funding Islamic terrorists to fight the soviets in Afghanistan. As well as extensive evidence that this policy was not only expanded in Afghanistan but also other groups opposing communism were funded in other countries. Eventually my own views were changed and this article will now show, that since 1979 successive American Presidents selectively or intentionally ignorant attitude toward unintended consequences of foreign policy decisions, has figured largely in the scourge of Islamic extremist terrorism the world now faces.
Dismissing criticism as just anti american or anti israeli is simplistic and not worthy of you. I can't stand Tony Blair and increasingly most people in the UK can't either. That doesn't make us anti british. People in the UK are becoming increasingly hostile to being involved in Iraq, most didn't want to be in the first place.
What Israel is doing in Lebanon is making things worse, criticising them doesn't make you anti semitic or mean you want israel to be removed. It means you think what they are doing is wrong.
posted by Bronwen
These are the scum you support, Issie. While the Israelis work hard to earn a living for their familes and defend their women and children against terrorists, your bunch is lying on their bellies in some filthy mosque, listening to a deranged lunatic rant and rave over a loudspeaker about 'Holy War', then they go out and commit atrocities against their neighbors, using their own women and children as human shields, and taking advantage of the mentally disturbed among them by sending them out to blow themselves up. And meanwhile, the hoardes are in the streets, waving their YELLOW flags and screaming 'Death to Israel! Death to America! Kill them all! We're INNOCENT civilians!'
This is the reality of Islamic terrorism and this is what must be destroyed. The Israelis are off to a good start, but it's going to be a long struggle, and yes, it could very well turn into WW3. If that occurs, there WILL be a brighter tomorrow, a tomorrow without Islamic terrorism.
Wasn't going to say anything but it is an Interesting comment Bronwen. What next? After getting rid of the nasty islamists will you turn on your protestant neighbours to bring them back to holy mother church? I suspect a good few orangemen that would welcome the challenge having never left behind the religious hatreds of the past. The most rabid of them nowadays pick their victims carefully but if you ever visit glasgow, borrow a celtic church and visit a pub in Ibrox for a lesson in sectarianism at it's most basic level. Being female you might not get your head kicked in. but if you want a fight I'm sure you could start one.
Millions have died because of religious conflicts in previous centuries such a pity that someone in the 21st would welcome such horror and activcely hope fpot it to happen.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote: Missed this comment earlier. Why do you assume those who condemn Israel's action are necessarily pro Hezbollah? The world community, as you put it, is very well aware of what hezbollah is. The US had never suffered a terrorist attack from muslim extremists until 911 theyb were happening in europe long before 2001.
islamic extremists tried to blow up the world trade center in 1993. they failed to bring it down then, though they did cause some loss of life and badly damaged some of the foundation. amazingly, engineers were able to repair the damage.
i'm not assuming that those who condemn israel's actions are necessarily pro hezbollah. i'm referring specifically to those who actually are apologists for hezbollah.
islamic extremists tried to blow up the world trade center in 1993. they failed to bring it down then, though they did cause some loss of life and badly damaged some of the foundation. amazingly, engineers were able to repair the damage.
i'm not assuming that those who condemn israel's actions are necessarily pro hezbollah. i'm referring specifically to those who actually are apologists for hezbollah.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
gmc wrote:
Try and get away from this if you are not with us you are against us mind set.
as your previous - try not characterizing everybody as having the mindset you describe.
Syria and Iran have also lived in peace with Israel.
uh, no, not so much really. technically, lebanon and syria are still 'at peace' with israel, i don't think war has yet been formally declared. iran has been rather openly arming hezbollah, via syria. it's not much of a secret. technically, they're at peace; they're merely providing the weapons for their proxy to use to kill israelis.
Now GW seems set on attacking Iran. Perhaps if Iran wasn't being threatened all the time they wouldn't feel the need to fund Hezbollah or supply them with rockets.
gw is not set on attacking iran. i guess it depends upon how broadly you characterize "set on'. i think your argument is awfully slippery though. iran is threatened by the US, so they fund hezbollah and give them rockets to kill israelis. uh, okay.
Hezbollah is wrong to use civilians as human shields (interesting term, do you see hezbollah as a legitimate combatant army) but Israel is wrong to slaughter them. It's Israeli actions in Palestine that have brought this on. They have culpability in all of this as much as Hamas do.
as much as? there we will surely never agree. the plight of the palestinians can be dealt with peacefully. israel has been trying. they've forcibly withdrawn their own settlers from the west bank. progress is slow, no argument. lobbing missiles at random into israeli civilian districts is not what one might call a peaceful approach to resolution.
Also whether you can face up to it or not US foreign policy has a lot to answer for with regerd to what is happening now. Hopefully soon the great US public will waken up to that fact and stop assuming everything the US does or has done is good.
Dismissing criticism as just anti american or anti israeli is simplistic and not worthy of you. I can't stand Tony Blair and increasingly most people in the UK can't either. That doesn't make us anti british. People in the UK are becoming increasingly hostile to being involved in Iraq, most didn't want to be in the first place.
again, i'll toss back at you your own comment. stop assuming we all think in one monolithic way - or at least, please stop characterizing us as so.
What Israel is doing in Lebanon is making things worse, criticising them doesn't make you anti semitic or mean you want israel to be removed. It means you think what they are doing is wrong.
many here have stated that they do indeed want israel removed, abolished, eliminated, vaporized, whatever euphemism fits.
Try and get away from this if you are not with us you are against us mind set.
as your previous - try not characterizing everybody as having the mindset you describe.
Syria and Iran have also lived in peace with Israel.
uh, no, not so much really. technically, lebanon and syria are still 'at peace' with israel, i don't think war has yet been formally declared. iran has been rather openly arming hezbollah, via syria. it's not much of a secret. technically, they're at peace; they're merely providing the weapons for their proxy to use to kill israelis.
Now GW seems set on attacking Iran. Perhaps if Iran wasn't being threatened all the time they wouldn't feel the need to fund Hezbollah or supply them with rockets.
gw is not set on attacking iran. i guess it depends upon how broadly you characterize "set on'. i think your argument is awfully slippery though. iran is threatened by the US, so they fund hezbollah and give them rockets to kill israelis. uh, okay.
Hezbollah is wrong to use civilians as human shields (interesting term, do you see hezbollah as a legitimate combatant army) but Israel is wrong to slaughter them. It's Israeli actions in Palestine that have brought this on. They have culpability in all of this as much as Hamas do.
as much as? there we will surely never agree. the plight of the palestinians can be dealt with peacefully. israel has been trying. they've forcibly withdrawn their own settlers from the west bank. progress is slow, no argument. lobbing missiles at random into israeli civilian districts is not what one might call a peaceful approach to resolution.
Also whether you can face up to it or not US foreign policy has a lot to answer for with regerd to what is happening now. Hopefully soon the great US public will waken up to that fact and stop assuming everything the US does or has done is good.
Dismissing criticism as just anti american or anti israeli is simplistic and not worthy of you. I can't stand Tony Blair and increasingly most people in the UK can't either. That doesn't make us anti british. People in the UK are becoming increasingly hostile to being involved in Iraq, most didn't want to be in the first place.
again, i'll toss back at you your own comment. stop assuming we all think in one monolithic way - or at least, please stop characterizing us as so.
What Israel is doing in Lebanon is making things worse, criticising them doesn't make you anti semitic or mean you want israel to be removed. It means you think what they are doing is wrong.
many here have stated that they do indeed want israel removed, abolished, eliminated, vaporized, whatever euphemism fits.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: blah blah blah...
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
here's another author's opinion.
http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm
which do we believe? the hashemite king or the arab jew? perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. but claiming either as a definitive "source", when both are personal impressions of the matter, is utter foley.
anastrophe, do you just have your own authority to fall back on?
I think the King of Jordan who signed peace treaties knows more than you.
You've reached the category of Capt. Ray, imo. No source is good enough for you unless it comes from you.
I don't argue with you, it's pointless. I only write for the readership. Build your straw men and have fun burning them down.
here's another author's opinion.
http://www.jimena.org/faq/memmi.htm
which do we believe? the hashemite king or the arab jew? perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between. but claiming either as a definitive "source", when both are personal impressions of the matter, is utter foley.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
koan wrote: Just had a thought, Bronwen.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.Y'know, no one has ever shown me a deed to ONE SQUARE INCH of that land that was supposed to have been stolen.
As I keep saying, anyone unfamiliar with the history of the area can read about it WITHOUT BIAS in any good encyclopedia such as the Britannica. There is no question that many good people, especially younger people who were not around when Israel and Jordan were born (and when Palestine CEASED TO EXIST, a fact of history that only fools and charlatans deny) ARE unfamiliar with the historical facts. That is why liars, Jew-haters and terrorist-supporters like some contributors to this thread are able to get away with such slander and such nonsense.
I was just watching TV, Lebanon has rejected the UN cease-fire resolution. They obviously want Israel to continue pounding the sh*t out of them. Israel will, I'm sure, oblige them.
Since you are from Germany (Rhine-Westphalia) and Germany (not the Arab countries) is actually the place that so displaced the Jews, why doesn't your country house Israel?
You seem to be quite sure that they are purely victims.
If nothing else, you could at least lobby for the country to give up their land for all the displaced Arabs since Israel took over their land.Y'know, no one has ever shown me a deed to ONE SQUARE INCH of that land that was supposed to have been stolen.
As I keep saying, anyone unfamiliar with the history of the area can read about it WITHOUT BIAS in any good encyclopedia such as the Britannica. There is no question that many good people, especially younger people who were not around when Israel and Jordan were born (and when Palestine CEASED TO EXIST, a fact of history that only fools and charlatans deny) ARE unfamiliar with the historical facts. That is why liars, Jew-haters and terrorist-supporters like some contributors to this thread are able to get away with such slander and such nonsense.
I was just watching TV, Lebanon has rejected the UN cease-fire resolution. They obviously want Israel to continue pounding the sh*t out of them. Israel will, I'm sure, oblige them.
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Show me, please, in any contemporary bookstore, or any newsstand, a map or an atlas or a gazeteer that lists Palestine. There ain't no such place, not politically, only historically.
when Israel and Jordan were born (and when Palestine CEASED TO EXIST)
Please make your mind up, did it or did it not exist.?
when Israel and Jordan were born (and when Palestine CEASED TO EXIST)
Please make your mind up, did it or did it not exist.?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Bronwen wrote: Lebanon has rejected the UN cease-fire resolution. They obviously want Israel to continue pounding the sh*t out of them. Israel will, I'm sure, oblige them.There's the Brownwin logic we've all come to expect. :wah:
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Show me, please, in any contemporary bookstore, or any newsstand, a map or an atlas or a gazeteer that lists Palestine. There ain't no such place, not politically, only historically.
Click on image to enlarge
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
Click on image to enlarge
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Issie wrote: Show me, please, in any contemporary bookstore, or any newsstand, a map or an atlas or a gazeteer that lists Palestine. There ain't no such place, not politically, only historically.
Click on image to enlargeOOooooooo!! Smack! :yh_rotfl
Click on image to enlargeOOooooooo!! Smack! :yh_rotfl
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Here`s one for you Bronwen....while you are watching the European version of CNN, which broadcasts a different version to the American people..
Are these people lying as well.? This was for Europe eyes only.
http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me5.html
Are these people lying as well.? This was for Europe eyes only.
http://brasscheck.com/videos/middleeast/me5.html
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
As a point of information, the current total of Palestinian dead in Gaza since June 25th is now 319, most of whom are (as usual) unarmed non-combatant civilians killed at a distance (from the BBC radio news last night). Not intending their particular deaths scarcely excuses the matter. The only casualty I know of on the Israeli side around Gaza is a single soldier shot by his own side.
The equivalent total in the Lebanon since July 12th exceeds 600 by some margin. Perhaps if someone sees a snapshot figure for that total, or for that of Israeli civilian deaths - I have seen 27 mentioned - they might post it here.
The word of the day remains "disproportionate". Exercising an ability to kill or destroy on such a scale merely hands the moral ascendency to the other side on a plate.
The equivalent total in the Lebanon since July 12th exceeds 600 by some margin. Perhaps if someone sees a snapshot figure for that total, or for that of Israeli civilian deaths - I have seen 27 mentioned - they might post it here.
The word of the day remains "disproportionate". Exercising an ability to kill or destroy on such a scale merely hands the moral ascendency to the other side on a plate.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
500,000 Lebanese flee the carnage: Israelis killed in first firefight on the ground
Accountable wrote: OOooooooo!! Smack! :yh_rotfl
uh - you are aware that's not a validated image? it's just an image posted to a hosting service?
you are aware that the entire region was known as palestine before it became israel?
uh - you are aware that's not a validated image? it's just an image posted to a hosting service?
you are aware that the entire region was known as palestine before it became israel?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]