Palestine & Israel

[Reaganista]

You're an idiot. So it doesn't matter because US did something horrible? How does it matter that Iran was an ally to the Soviet Union? Who cares?
ever hear of the cold war?

I didn't respond to the rest of your post cause it was pure garbage and I already explained to your idiotic mind that US could have attacked without UN's permission. You'll never understand that though
No I have an inability to understand things that are obviously pure bull****
I think it's genetic

[PepsiMetal]

ever hear of the cold war?

Iran had nothing/very little to do with it, so cold war is irrelevant.

No I have an inability to understand things that are obviously pure bull****
I think it's genetic

US can go against UN and won't get in trouble. It's the truth, there's no reason to question it. Sure if they started killing millions of random people like Hitler, then EU, russia, china, etc... would do something about it, but in attacking small countries, other UN countries most likely will not do anything about it.

[Hababi]

So you want to bomb a town of 200K+ people because there is a thousand or so insurgents? Do you know how ****ing stupid that sounds?

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.



Umm, Japanese attacked US. Iraq didn't.


The insurgents are.


But in Iraq, government has already surrendered. Insurgents are the ones that are fighting. Get it? Insurgents. Meaning that iraqi town for them is probably a foreign place anyways.

So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.



In every one of your posts, you seem to be wanting more wars, more violence, and more killing of innocent civlians. While in my posts, I want less of that. Damn, I am so silly that way. :rolleyes:


No, I want more guilty people to die.



And again, Saddam was a bigger evil than Iranians who overthrew a dictator (Shah).


To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.



They wanted to form a republic government like they had in the 50s, which US overthrew and put a dictator Shah there. You obviously didn't research on this issue enough.



Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.

[PepsiMetal]

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.

So now innocent people are your enemy? :rolleyes:

The insurgents are.

Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, not insurgents. Saddam was an enemy to Al-Qaida, and now Al-Qaida are the major organization responsible for suicide attacks. So you want to bomb an innocent city because there are some foreigner terrorists that came there at the same time as US did? Yeh, sure whatever.

So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.

So you're saying all insurgents are living in Fallujah together? :rolleyes: The only ones you would wipe out are innocent civlians, not insurgents. You can't beat terrorism via military force. Period.

No, I want more guilty people to die.

So how are innocent civlians in Fallujah guilty? Because they live there?

To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.

Again, you don't know the history. You claim Iran had these whacky leaders, yet it hasn't started ONE war. How many jews live in Iraq? Less than 500. (compared to 150k in 1950s) How many jews live in Iran? More than 25,000. Oh damn, how dare that whacky islamic government allows more jewish people to live in their country than Saddam Hussein. :rolleyes: You don't know history, and that's the truth. You wouldn't be making posts like these if you actually knew Iran is a much better nation with much better government in its history than Iraq.

Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.

It's not a dictatorship. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Dictators do not get elected.

Iran is a republic theocracy. President serves on 4 year terms. Dictators have no set terms or years to serve, they serve for as long as they want to. You obviously don't know **** about Iran's politics.

If you have an open-mind to learn the truth about how their political system works, you may, otherwise, don't foolishly compare it to dictatorship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Politics

Compare to dictatorship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship

If you think those two things are the same, then I'm sorry but you're completely wrong.

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.

He's not a pro-life guy. He wishes death upon as many innocent people as possible as long as they're not americans. In other words, Selfish Pro-American life guy.

[Hababi]

This may be an inane point, but, for a pro-life guy you really don't seem to have much concern for civilian lives.


It's a matter of priorities. I don't want to see civilians die, but I most want to defeat the enemy. As such, I'm only interested in pursuing measures that maximize this goal. Civilian casualties should be kept as low as feasable, but in the end, better their civilians than your soldiers.

Ex: I can either bomb the heck out of their city and invade, or just invade. I'll conquer them both ways. But if I bomb, I'll severly weaken them to start with, and only 10 soldiers will die. A few hundred civilians will die. If I don't bomb, a couple hundred soldiers will die in the course of invading. I take the bombing option.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.
Well, comments like this really do make it seem like civilian casualties are an afterthought for you
Iran is a republic theocracy. President serves on 4 year terms. Dictators have no set terms or years to serve, they serve for as long as they want to. You obviously don't know **** about Iran's politics.
Haven't you picked up yet that it is not the president who is dictator?

[Hababi]

So now innocent people are your enemy? :rolleyes:


Insurgents are not innocent. Those who help them are not innocent.



Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, not insurgents. Saddam was an enemy to Al-Qaida, and now Al-Qaida are the major organization responsible for suicide attacks.

He wasn't really an enemy of theirs. He was neither an active enemy nor ally.


So you want to bomb an innocent city because there are some foreigner terrorists that came there at the same time as US did? Yeh, sure whatever.


The people who killed those contractors were natives of Fallujah.



[QUOE]
So you're saying all insurgents are living in Fallujah together? :rolleyes: The only ones you would wipe out are innocent civlians, not insurgents. You can't beat terrorism via military force. Period.
[/QUOTE]

When you kill all the terrorists you will.


So how are innocent civlians in Fallujah guilty? Because they live there?


In war, innocent civilians die. If you're against that, then you must believe we should've never fought Germany.



Again, you don't know the history. You claim Iran had these whacky leaders, yet it hasn't started ONE war.


It just runs a radical regime and funds global jihadist movements.


It's not a dictatorship. I've said this before and I'll say it again. Dictators do not get elected.


Saddam was elected. The election was BS. So was the Iranian election.



Well, comments like this really do make it seem like civilian casualties are an afterthought for you


It's not so much that they're an afterthought, so much as it is that I'm more intent on winning the war. In WW2, we cared about winning the war, and that's why we won. Now we're trying to fight holding back, and we're losing.

[Reaganista]

Iran had nothing/very little to do with it, so cold war is irrelevant.

apart from being an ally of the soviet union
but you're really ill-informed if you think the cold war was irrelevant to any action that the US took during the cold war. it was all-comsuming


US can go against UN and won't get in trouble. It's the truth, there's no reason to question it. Sure if they started killing millions of random people like Hitler, then EU, russia, china, etc... would do something about it, but in attacking small countries, other UN countries most likely will not do anything about it.
you idiot
there would've been massive backlash if the US had assembled 420,000 thousand soldiers from 33 countries to achieve a specific mission with them and then had started doing things which none of those countries had approved of. you don't just go around betraying all of your allies and experience no consequences

[PepsiMetal]

Insurgents are not innocent. Those who help them are not innocent.

So you're saying all 200,000 of people in Fallujah are insurgents? :rolleyes:

He wasn't really an enemy of theirs. He was neither an active enemy nor ally.

Yes he was an enemy. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama asked Saudi's King if they wanted help, because Osama had a huge army after defeating Russians in Afghanistan, but Saudi King refused their "unofficial" military, so they got US' help. So yes, Osama pretty much wanted to kill Saddam and his military but was never given a chance to.

The people who killed those contractors were natives of Fallujah.

So you're going to blame 200,000 people on actions of 10-20 people? Wow, how nice of you. So we should blame all 300 million Americans because Eric Ruddolph bombed clinics and olympics right? :rolleyes:

When you kill all the terrorists you will.

By bombing Fallujah, you will kill 200,000 innocent civlians and 1000 insurgents. Even if you nuked whole middle east, you wouldn't kill all terrorists. Terrorism has always existed, and will always exist. There's no way to stop it.

In war, innocent civilians die. If you're against that, then you must believe we should've never fought Germany.

You want to purposely kill innocent people. I dont. I have no problems making peace, but YOU CAN'T MAKE PEACE BY KILLING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. It will only form more terrorists and opposition groups.

It just runs a radical regime and funds global jihadist movements.

Again, you don't know what jihad is. I can have a jihad of learning Qu'ran. Do you know what that means? Funding jihad movements can mean a million things, and it can be good. Your problem is you associate jihad with terrorists, which is very false.

Radical regime was much worse in Iran in 80s, and 90s, then it is now. It is improving every year though. It takes long time to establish a decent political system in your country.

Saddam was elected. The election was BS. So was the Iranian election.

No. Saddam was basically a military general who just took over the presidential/top ruler position. When Saddam was in charge, there weren't elections to give other candidates a chance to be elected. Whereas in Iran, there will be.

apart from being an ally of the soviet union
but you're really ill-informed if you think the cold war was irrelevant to any action that the US took during the cold war. it was all-comsuming

We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations. US didn't want Iran to have its own driven government in which they'll raise prices in oil, and US would have to fork over more money. Do you know how many allies Soviet Union had? And you think US attacked Iran over all of its other enemies because of that foolish reason? Yea, sure.

there would've been massive backlash if the US had assembled 420,000 thousand soldiers from 33 countries to achieve a specific mission with them and then had started doing things which none of those countries had approved of. you don't just go around betraying all of your allies and experience no consequences

I meant US could have used its own troops to finish Iraq off. Damn you're an idiot. And again, I say this, US didn't need anyone's help to finish Iraq in the first gulf war.

[Hababi]

So you're saying all 200,000 of people in Fallujah are insurgents? :rolleyes:

Were all the citizens of Berlin Nazi's? No. We still bombed it. Because that's what you do in war.





So yes, Osama pretty much wanted to kill Saddam and his military but was never given a chance to.


That's why, according to the 9/11 Comission, Saddam had brief, loose, informal discussions with members of Al Quada? It never went anywhere, and they never worked together, but if Bin Ladin remained so hateful of Saddam, why did that happen at all?



So you're going to blame 200,000 people on actions of 10-20 people?

Did you see the video? There were a whole lot more than 10-20.



By bombing Fallujah, you will kill 200,000 innocent civlians and 1000 insurgents.


There aren't 200,000 innocent civilians in Fallujah, many if not most are insurgent supporters. And, we wouldn't kill them all.



You want to purposely kill innocent people. I dont.


No, I want to kill guilty people.



Again, you don't know what jihad is. I can have a jihad of learning Qu'ran. Do you know what that means? Funding jihad movements can mean a million things, and it can be good. Your problem is you associate jihad with terrorists, which is very false.


:rolleyes: Once again you conflate the issue. The Iranian government is a state sponsor of terrorism.


Radical regime was much worse in Iran in 80s, and 90s, then it is now. It is improving every year though. It takes long time to establish a decent political system in your country.


Oh right that's why they're trying to develope nuclear weapons while talking about destroying Israel. And funding terrorist groups, including insurgents in Iraq.




No. Saddam was basically a military general who just took over the presidential/top ruler position. When Saddam was in charge, there weren't elections to give other candidates a chance to be elected.


Nor were there in Iran. The ruling whacko's selected two candidates who were comfortably whacko enough to please them, and then let the people choose which whacko would be president, a position which is ultimately subservant to grand ruler Al DeathtoAmerica.


Whereas in Iran, there will be.


:lol: Yeah, when the people of Iran overthrow the government.


We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations.


The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

[Atomic Rain]

The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

I think if they'd tried extra-specially hard they'd've managed to not sell them weapons.

[PepsiMetal]

Were all the citizens of Berlin Nazi's? No. We still bombed it. Because that's what you do in war.

Why do you compare a country who started a world domination with a country that hasn't started one war?

That's why, according to the 9/11 Comission, Saddam had brief, loose, informal discussions with members of Al Quada? It never went anywhere, and they never worked together, but if Bin Ladin remained so hateful of Saddam, why did that happen at all?

9/11 Comission is BS. It has gotten bunch of things wrong. Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his people, Saddam was a worthless dictator for his people.

Did you see the video? There were a whole lot more than 10-20.

It doesn't matter. Even if it's 1000 insurgents, that's still a minority when you look at 200K+ city population.


There aren't 200,000 innocent civilians in Fallujah, many if not most are insurgent supporters. And, we wouldn't kill them all.


The population estimation of Fallujah is at least 200,000. It could be as high as 350,000. And yes, most are innocent. If all people in Fallujah support insurgents, than that means all people in Iraq most likely do too, which means they don't want democracy plain and simple. So if that's true, US should just get out.


No, I want to kill guilty people.

Yea, damn those thousands of young kids and babies in Fallujah.


:rolleyes: Once again you conflate the issue. The Iranian government is a state sponsor of terrorism.

Sponsoring terrorism has nothing to do with the word jihad you seem to overuse.


Oh right that's why they're trying to develope nuclear weapons while talking about destroying Israel. And funding terrorist groups, including insurgents in Iraq.

You can't prove they're developing nuclear weapons, so that's false for now.

Wanting to replace Israel's rule with Palestinian is a common thing in the Middle East. That doesn't mean they'll take any action for that.


Nor were there in Iran. The ruling whacko's selected two candidates who were comfortably whacko enough to please them, and then let the people choose which whacko would be president, a position which is ultimately subservant to grand ruler Al DeathtoAmerica.

Umm, again, you don't know anything about Iranian politics. Everyone is whacko to you if it wasn't put in place by USA. Was shah a good ruler? lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Politics

:lol: Yeah, when the people of Iran overthrow the government.

No. Again you show in there how misinformed and uneducation about this topic you are. They overthrew Shah which US and UK had placed in rule. This today's government was the result of them overthrowing the government. Most people in Iran support Ahmadinejad, unlike Shah.

The United States did not "convince" Iraq to attack Iran. In fact, they didn't even want to see the war happen. According to Richard Clarke, they only reluctantly provided any support to Saddam, and tried hard to minimize their involvement in the war.

He worked for the government, what did you expect him to say? Do you really think he would say "Well we gave Saddam chemical weapons and helped speed his program faster so that they can use the weapons on Kurds and Iranians". No. US did in fact convince Saddam, and Donald Rumsfeld was having meetings with Saddam Hussein while he was constantly using chemical weapons.

[The End]

It's much more widespread than you say, and yes. That's how you win wars. You annihilate the enemy.




The insurgents are.



So you kill them. You bomb their strongholds. You wipe them out.




No, I want more guilty people to die.




To install a worse leader, radical Islamic whackjobs.





Iran is not a democratic society. It is a dictatorship. The religious leaders dictate who runs, and prevent any non radical nutjob from running.


YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN. SHUT UP.

[Hababi]

Why do you compare a country who started a world domination with a country that hasn't started one war?

:confused: I'm talking about war tactics in WW2 against war tactics in Iraq.



9/11 Comission is BS.


:rolleyes: Ok, that officially puts you in the "ignorant extremist" camp. Only idiots on each side have attempted to slur the 9/11 Comission Report, which was a thorough, bipartisan effort.



Bin Laden is a freedom fighter for his people



:lol: FREEDOM fighter? Bin Ladin wants a global radical Islamic regime. He wants his people (and all other people) to be under a government like that of the Taliban. Do you know what that's like? If you're not a Muslim, you're executed. If you are a Muslim, but aren't practicing the same type of loopy interpretation, you are executed. If you listen to western music, you are executed. If you are a woman, and you go out without your husband, you are executed. If you go out and aren't mummified in Islamic dress, you are executed. If you steal, your hand is chopped off.

Yeah, that's real freedom fighting. Like flying planes into buildings.




, Saddam was a worthless dictator for his people.


:confused: According to some people here, he had a stable, peaceful government.



It doesn't matter. Even if it's 1000 insurgents

Ok so first we had 10-20, now we're up to 1,000. Keep going.



The population estimation of Fallujah is at least 200,000. It could be as high as 350,000. And yes, most are innocent. If all people in Fallujah support insurgents, than that means all people in Iraq most likely do too, which means they don't want democracy plain and simple. So if that's true, US should just get out.


No, support varies by city. The Kurds overwhelmingly support us. Some Shia do, some don't. Fallujah is an insurgent stronghold.

Once again, since you're not really addressing this point, in war, you bomb enemy cities. In WW2, we bombed Berlin. Was that wrong? Should we instead have marched soldiers in without first weakening enemy enforcements, thus getting many more allied forces killed than necessary?






Sponsoring terrorism has nothing to do with the word jihad you seem to overuse.


For them it does.




You can't prove they're developing nuclear weapons, so that's false for now.


They're openly flaunting their nuclear development, and flat denying all offers for the supply of peaceful nuclear energy. Why? Because they want weapons.


Wanting to replace Israel's rule with Palestinian is a common thing in the Middle East.

Developing nuclear weapons to do so is not.



Umm, again, you don't know anything about Iranian politics. Everyone is whacko to you if it wasn't put in place by USA. Was shah a good ruler? lol


Iran disqualified all non whacko candidates from running in the last election. You're a traitor.




This today's government was the result of them overthrowing the government. Most people in Iran support Ahmadinejad, unlike Shah.


Fact: revolutions are almost always the work of a dedicated minority. Lenin. Mao. Castro. Heck, even the good ones, such as the American revolution, were the work of a dedicated minority. And so was the Iranian revolution.

Fact 2: Revolutions are against weak leaders, not despotic ones. Sometimes the leaders are also despotic, but the worst rulers are almost ALWAYS never overthrown by their people.

Fact 3: Tyranny is often the result of revolutions, not the cause of it. Iran. China. Soviet Union. Cuba.

I suggest you read Brinton's Anatomy of a Revolution.


He worked for the government, what did you expect him to say? Do you really think he would say "Well we gave Saddam chemical weapons and helped speed his program faster so that they can use the weapons on Kurds and Iranians".


Right everyone who disagrees with you is lying, and those isolated few whacko's who agree with you, none of whom were in any position to know what they're talking about, are right.

[coheneran]

Ex: I can either bomb the heck out of their city and invade, or just invade. I'll conquer them both ways. But if I bomb, I'll severly weaken them to start with, and only 10 soldiers will die. A few hundred civilians will die. If I don't bomb, a couple hundred soldiers will die in the course of invading. I take the bombing option.

If you're so intent how no one dying, why don't you just not invade? Our countries have not been involved in a war that wasn't solvable by diplomacy since WWII. In fact, every single war we've been involved in was started by us. WE are the oppressors, don't fool yourself by telling yourself that the world needs to learn democracy. How do parents justify beating up their children? The usual answer is "They need to learn."

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IRAN. SHUT UP.do you actually think it's a democracy?

[coheneran]

They're openly flaunting their nuclear development, and flat denying all offers for the supply of peaceful nuclear energy. Why? Because they want weapons.

That's a lie and I can prove you wrong right now:

"On March 2 [2006], an Associated Press report made it clear that the IAEA's multi-year investigation has not shown "any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." This verdict sharply contradicts the February 4th resolution of the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which reports Iran to the UN Security Council, and strongly challenges the US deceptive propaganda war on Iran."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060325&articleId=2171

According to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (of which Iran is a signatory), any country has a right to peaceful nuclear technology for production of civilian energy.

From wiki:

"Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons."

And, just in case you haven't got the message, even the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is against nuclear weapons, and we all know he calls the shots, not Ahmadinejad:

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons on August 9, 2005. The full text of the fatwa was released in an official statement at the meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna."

So you are plain wrong, fooled by the American media.

PS: The last two quotes are from wiki, just search wiki for Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Hababi]

EDIT: On a side note, could we try and have some basic civility around these parts? I know that everyone knows that they're right and that the other guy is wrong, but it's getting kind of boring. :-/


I try :p It's much easier when I'm debating you or Smokey D ;)


It's more of a democracy than Iraq was, and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, to give 2 examples, but I don't see how it can accurately be called a democracy.


With Saudi Arabia moving to some local elections, I'd say they're essentially on par with one another.

[what]

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

[coheneran]

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

He's a jingoistic patriot, anything is enough for him if it involves the words America, United States, Uncle Sam or Stop Communism:p.

Just a little friendly fire BDR.

[what]

hahhaa more like blind, along with tway but that ones aggresiev and spits a lot

[Reaganista]

We've established before you don't know history at all. US convincing Iraq to attack Iran had nothing to do with its russian relations. US didn't want Iran to have its own driven government in which they'll raise prices in oil, and US would have to fork over more money. Do you know how many allies Soviet Union had? And you think US attacked Iran over all of its other enemies because of that foolish reason? Yea, sure.

if selling weapons to an enemy of a country constitutes an attack, then the US 'attacked' every ally of the soviet union who was involved in a war with a Us ally or potential US ally during the cold war


I meant US could have used its own troops to finish Iraq off. Damn you're an idiot. And again, I say this, US didn't need anyone's help to finish Iraq in the first gulf war.
It doesn't matter what the US needed, what they had was 420,000 foreign troops in Iraq on a mission to stop the invasion of kuwait
I'm not even sure what it is you think this line of disscussion will serve to do, besides demonstrate your ignorance

[Dave de Sylvia]

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?
International observers help. You know, impartial observers who make sure there's no intimidation or anything.

Plus there's the whole "Iran is a totalitarian dictatorial backwards hellhole" aspect to deal with too.

[PepsiMetal]

do you actually think it's a democracy?

Nobody said it's a democracy. But it is a republic theocracy, if you can't accept that, then yes, you don't know nothing about Iranian politics. Which is what BDR is doing.

Ok so first we had 10-20, now we're up to 1,000. Keep going.

You still fail to see the point. Insurgents in Fallujah are a minority, not a majority. Bombing the whole city will not eliminate insurgents. Period. If you don't understand that, then I can't explain it any easier.

It doesn't matter what the US needed, what they had was 420,000 foreign troops in Iraq on a mission to stop the invasion of kuwait
I'm not even sure what it is you think this line of disscussion will serve to do, besides demonstrate your ignorance

You still don't get it. USA DIDN'T HAVE TO USE FOREIGN TROOPS. They had thousands of its own troops in the middle east. What don't you understand about that?

What exactly makes you think that the elections in Iran are false, and the elections in Iraq aren't? Just one fact that the US took part in Iraq's elections? Is that enough for you?

Him + Tway = Ultimate Ignorance

If Iran made it's own FULLY working democracy, they would still complain and will keep complaining unless US puts their democracy in. Iran hasn't started one war in the whole century, yet they still think Iran's the bigger evil than Iraq. That is ignorance at it's worst.

[coheneran]

Did BDR fail to reply to my post because it pwned him good?

[The End]

I try :p It's much easier when I'm debating you or Smokey D ;)



With Saudi Arabia moving to some local elections, I'd say they're essentially on par with one another.

no you don't actually

[Reaganista]

You still don't get it. USA DIDN'T HAVE TO USE FOREIGN TROOPS. They had thousands of its own troops in the middle east. What don't you understand about that?

why should the US act unilaterally when 33 countries were willing to help out?

[coheneran]

What are you kids bickering about?

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

****ing stupid UK academics (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/29/news/britain.php)

[PepsiMetal]

why should the US act unilaterally when 33 countries were willing to help out?

Because if US wanted to remove Saddam then, they could have. Those countries weren't there to remove Saddam, they were there to remove Iraqi military forces from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. But US wants to establish democracies, so they could have done it back then if that was the plan.

[Reaganista]

it wasn't the plan then
the plan then was to try to figure out whether the world was going to end or not while the USSR fell apart

[coheneran]

****ing stupid UK academics (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/29/news/britain.php)

That's not stupid, there's been independent boycotting of the Israeli economy for at least a decade. There've been plenty of battles won by economic boycott. What's the problem?

[Atomic Rain]

****ing stupid UK academics (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/29/news/britain.php)

so what? Uni teachers are just big, smart students anyway.

[BassRevelation1029]

so what? Uni teachers are just big, smart students anyway.
this made me lol

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

That's not stupid, there's been independent boycotting of the Israeli economy for at least a decade. There've been plenty of battles won by economic boycott. What's the problem?Israel's 'apartheid' policies? lol

its just futile posturing

[coheneran]

Israel's 'apartheid' policies? lol

its just futile posturing

Separation of Arabs and Jews isn't apartheid?!

You should read The Yellow Wind (I think it's called), it's David Grossman's first book (or one of them). It's all about the Israeli apartheid.

[coheneran]

So, Israel has taken the opportunity to invade Gaza, blow up a power station and two bridges, and sweep from South to North. The circumstances of this event is interesting, though:

Palestinian guerillas have dug an 800-metres-long tunnel underneath the border, blew up a tank, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another (of course I don't approve, but I think that it is more legitimate than terrorism, and resembles more of a war (though a vastly unequal one) of the "People's Army" against an invading army). One Palestinian guerilla was shot dead during the battle. This comes on the same day that Hamas practically and unofficially accepts Israel's right to exist. Now, how easily could this be solved by diplomacy? What is the guerillas' demand? They want Palestinian women and children to be released from Israeli prisons. They are hardly asking for a terrorist leader's release are they? But of course the Israeli government will not comply. If they did, and this situation was solved quickly, they would have no choice but to start the peace process again, seeing as Hamas are up for it.

So, to recap:

Palestinian Authority (controlled mainly by Hamas) recognises Israel's right to exist, and so the path is open for peace negotiations.

Palestinian guerillas want to trade Israeli soldier for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons.

Israel refuses to negotiate with the Palestinian guerillas, and invades the Gaza Strip instead (destroying an expensive power station and three bridges on the way in).

The Israeli government's response to Hamas's acceptance and the guerilla kidnapping seems to be "Diplomacy is for losers." By refusing to negotiate with the guerillas they are delaying the obvious peace negotiations to come, and so show their unwillingness for peace negotiations. I sense something more behind this, though I couldn't say what. I guess we'll find out in good time.

[GurS]

Out of interest, how is killing two israel soldiers and kidnapping a third A) more legitamate than terrorism, and B) not terrorism?

And, how do you, personally, distinguish between a guerilla fighter and a terrorist?

[coheneran]

Out of interest, how is killing two israel soldiers and kidnapping a third A) more legitamate than terrorism, and B) not terrorism?

And, how do you, personally, distinguish between a guerilla fighter and a terrorist?

I don't agree with killing workers (and soldiers are workers), but in this case it is more legitimate than terrorism because the action wasn't aimed at "innocent people". It was aimed at soldiers. And it wasn't a man blowing himself and a hundred other people up, it was an organised attack on an IDF outpost. Terrorism targets civilians, guerilla warfare targets military installations. For example, WWII partisans targetted German military bases, supply lines and personnel, they did not target civilians.

Another thought just occured to me: Hamas's vague acceptance (I was too rash and bold in my earlier post, it wasn't a complete acceptance) of Israel's right to exist could well be an attempt to make the European Union break the USA's embargo.

[GurS]

Here's a question: you yourself say you don't approve of the actions of the guerillas, and yet believe that the Israeli government should negotiate with them?

Also, because I don't know myself, have any organisations claimed responsibility for those guerillas?

[coheneran]

Here's a question: you yourself say you don't approve of the actions of the guerillas, and yet believe that the Israeli government should negotiate with them?

Also, because I don't know myself, have any organisations claimed responsibility for those guerillas?

I don't approve of killing the soldiers, and I don't approve of the IDF's actions either. Diplomacy is the most peaceful course of action, and people will obviously die if the IDF tries to take the hostage back by force. The Israeli government should negotiate with them for the sake of peace, not because of ideological differences/agreements. I should probably clarify that I agree with what the guerillas are fighting for.

I'm not sure, a couple of news sources say that the guerillas were Hamas, but most news sources are just calling them "Palestinian militants" so right now I'm assuming that they are independent, although Hamas has issued this statement. (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3268663,00.html)

[lfantwister]

Diplomacy is the most peaceful course of action, and people will obviously die if the IDF tries to take the hostage back by force. The Israeli government should negotiate with them for the sake of peace, not because of ideological differences/agreements. I should probably clarify that I agree with what the guerillas are fighting for.

Diplomacy doesn't work. See Oslo, Camp David, or even the unscop partition plan. And while it might be nice to think that it has a chance, we should learn from history. Force is the only way that this region can be pacified.

[coheneran]

Diplomacy doesn't work. See Oslo, Camp David, or even the unscop partition plan. And while it might be nice to think that it has a chance, we should learn from history. Force is the only way that this region can be pacified.

People always, always say that diplomacy doesn't work. I can tell you confidently that no major country in the world spends more money and resources on diplomacy than they do on their military.

As for this situation, if I can see a diplomatic solution, so can Dullmert: Trade the Israeli teenager who's feelings were manipulated and who was forced into the army, exchange him for the hundreds (or thousands, I'm not sure) of innocent Palestinian women and children who are in Israeli prison camps. Like I said, it's not like they are asking for the release of terrorist leaders.

[PepsiMetal]

Why does Israel think bombing a city and its bridges will make this situation any better? They're only making the Hamas more mad. The right thing to do would be free Palestinian prisoners, and they free that soldier.

Just like in Iraq with Jill Carroll's case, once US freed some Iraqi Women Prisoners, Jill was set free. Negotiations > War.

[daku]

So, to recap:

Palestinian Authority (controlled mainly by Hamas) recognises Israel's right to exist, and so the path is open for peace negotiations.

Palestinian guerillas want to trade Israeli soldier for Palestinian women and children held in Israeli prisons.

Israel refuses to negotiate with the Palestinian guerillas, and invades the Gaza Strip instead (destroying an expensive power station and three bridges on the way in).

The Israeli government's response to Hamas's acceptance and the guerilla kidnapping seems to be "Diplomacy is for losers." By refusing to negotiate with the guerillas they are delaying the obvious peace negotiations to come, and so show their unwillingness for peace negotiations. I sense something more behind this, though I couldn't say what. I guess we'll find out in good time.


Whats wrong with you ?
seriously, by your nick im guessing you live at Israel, You seriously think kidnapping a soldier isn't terrorism ? And plus, i don't have a clue why you think they want to trade the Israeli soldier for Palestinian women and children ( nevermind the fact that there isn't one children or one woman held at prison 6 here in israel ), because that's more like suicide bombers cought before the act.
So, trading hundreds of suicide bombers and arabian drug smuglers (sp?) will cause more troubles now don't you think ?

[coheneran]

You seriously think kidnapping a soldier isn't terrorism?

No, it's not. It is just as wrong and evil, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism is a kind of tactic which involves causing fear and terror, hence the name. Suicide-bombing is terrorism. Broadcasting executions is terrorism. Opening fire indiscriminately on civilians is terrorism. Shooting protestors is terrorism. Demolishing houses is terrorism. Staging a precise strike against an enemy military target is NOT terrorism.

And plus, I don't have a clue why you think they want to trade the Israeli soldier for Palestinian women and children because that's more like suicide bombers caught before the act.

If I shoot you, does it make it okay if I say you might have wanted to kill me?

(nevermind the fact that there isn't one children or one woman held at Prison 6 here in Israel)

Prison 6 isn't the only Israeli prison, it is just the prison where the government gets to torture people. There are other prisons. I too doubt that there are Palestinian women and children in Prison 6, that is like saying there are Afghani women and children in Guantanamo Bay.

So, trading hundreds of suicide bombers and Arabic drug smugglers will cause more troubles now don't you think?

Yes it would, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about exchanging innocent women and children for a soldier.

There is nothing wrong with drugs, only with the system. The worst thing about drugs in Israel is the price, and the fact that you can't find decent skunk anywhere.

[GurS]

Children maybe, but I don't agree with releasing women - there have been women suicide bombers, and I refuse to believe that all women in Israeli prisons are innocent.

Whether you sympathise with the Palestinian or Israeli plight, there is no denying that the Mossad is, quite simply, the most efficent and effective secret service active in the world today, without exceptions. So much stuff goes on behind closed doors that we will never know about, law of averages suggests that at least some of those women are not innocent, but were arrested for good cause.

Of course, probably a good percentage (if not majority) of women (and childern if there are any) in Israeli prisons are innocent.

But they are no more innocent then that lad who got kidnapped is (i.e., he's just as innocent as them). And you cannot negotiate with people who demand the release of innocents while holding an innocent themselves.

Whether you like it or not, negotiating with guerillas once, just once, WILL encourage others to do the same. To believe it won't encourage this is pure naivety. And it's not just going to be guerillas, it will be terrorists, too, who will understand that violent action (be it against civillian or military target) gets results.

It sucks hardcore, but if I were in the position, I wouldn't negotiate; it's opening the floodgates for this thing to become commonplace.

And that you CANNOT deny.

[coheneran]

Children maybe, but I don't agree with releasing women - there have been women suicide bombers, and I refuse to believe that all women in Israeli prisons are innocent.

It is not a prison, it is a prison camp. While some of them may have had something to do with militant resistance, it's pretty common for the Israeli government to arrest Palestinian political activists under the guise of terrorism.

Whether you sympathise with the Palestinian or Israeli plight, there is no denying that the Mossad is, quite simply, the most efficent and effective secret service active in the world today, without exceptions. So much stuff goes on behind closed doors that we will never know about, law of averages suggests that at least some of those women are not innocent, but were arrested for good cause.

You do not want to know the terrors that Mossad have caused. Mossad backed and funded the Hamas when they were just starting out (as a way to divide and conquer. They wanted someone to fight the PLO from the inside, and Hamas was born). Mossad torture people. Mossad keep files on Israeli anti-Occupation activists. Mossad are not nice. And saying that they are effective means nothing. Hitler was extremely effective at exterminating ethnic minorities, I don't see you praising him.

Of course, probably a good percentage (if not majority) of women (and childern if there are any) in Israeli prisons are innocent.

But they are no more innocent then that lad who got kidnapped is (i.e., he's just as innocent as them). And you cannot negotiate with people who demand the release of innocents while holding an innocent themselves.

Yup, he's probably innocent (I never once supported the kidnapping, I merely said that it was slightly more legitimate since it was an act of guerilla warfare, not an act of terrorism). He's also only 19. And those are kids and women. Probably innocent as well. Some of those kids probably got arrested for throwing rocks at tanks. I'VE thrown rocks at Israeli tanks, yet I'm not arrested.

Whether you like it or not, negotiating with guerillas once, just once, WILL encourage others to do the same. To believe it won't encourage this is pure naivety. And it's not just going to be guerillas, it will be terrorists, too, who will understand that violent action (be it against civillian or military target) gets results.

It sucks hardcore, but if I were in the position, I wouldn't negotiate; it's opening the floodgates for this thing to become commonplace.

And that you CANNOT deny.

Yes I can. Israel has exchanged prisoners tonnes of times. They did it with the Hizballah, they did it with the PLO. The reason Olmert won't do it now is because he doesn't want to enter peace negotiations, and so far every Israeli incursion into Palestine has ended in more incursions, then full blown intifada. If he can escalate this little bugger into a third intifada, he'll be able to drive up anti-Arabic sentiment (again) and paranoia, and then he'll be able to do most anything he wants.

[GurS]

Firstly, I never said I was praising the Mossad. Not at all. I just said that they are the most effective secret service in the world today - it's fact. I never once said I supported them or their actions - I mean, yes, they do prevent a lot of terrorism, but probably go to very nasty, dodgy lengths to be able to do so.

And, may I ask, are you Palestinian?

[coheneran]

Firstly, I never said I was praising the Mossad. Not at all. I just said that they are the most effective secret service in the world today - it's fact. I never once said I supported them or their actions - I mean, yes, they do prevent a lot of terrorism, but probably go to very nasty, dodgy lengths to be able to do so.

And, may I ask, are you Palestinian?

Israeli. Extremely anti-Zionist.

[GurS]

Boy, you must get a lot at flak from your local community for chucking rocks at Israel tanks.

And let me ask two questions: are you anti-Zionist or just anti-Israeli government (or even anti-Israeli mentality?)

I mean, I'm an Israeli citizen, and I'm pretty much very anti-Israeli mentality - I find the way Israel and Israelis treat Palestinians scarily like the way the Jews were treated under the Third Reich pre-1939 (so, not actual concentration camps (yet?), but the hatred towards them, the laws that discriminate them etc). But I'm not anti-Zionist - I fully believe Israel has a right to exist. You should watch your words if you don't mean the latter :p


Point is, both sides are utterly wrong. Israel, as I said, treats the 'Palestinians' in the same way the pre-1939 Third Reich treated the Jews, and the 'Palestinians' deal with it through terrorism or guerilla action. And, as most of those in the Israeli army wouldn't be there if they could possibly avoid it, I do feel that attacking Israeli soldiers IS terrorism - most of them don't want to be there; trust me, I know, a mate of mine in Israel in the army put a bullet through his head last month.

Basically, by all means attack the Israeli government, but I feel that throwing stones at Israeli tanks is an empty gesture that effects those forced into that situation a hell of a lot more than it does the government.

[dislocated214]

Using your WWII example, I would like to throw this out.

Jews did not fight back, exclusively, against the Third Reich, however the Palestinians have been, or have been trying. Imagine they did what virtually the Jewish population did during the era of the Third Reich.

Addressing the ladder, the Israeli military symbolizes the strength of the Israeli government. When Iraqi citizens attack the American army is that terrorism? When Vietnamese attacked French forces would that be terrorism? I know some of the American forces do not want to be in Iraq either, but that doesn't mean Iraqis should not attack.

[PepsiMetal]

Whether you like it or not, negotiating with guerillas once, just once, WILL encourage others to do the same. To believe it won't encourage this is pure naivety. And it's not just going to be guerillas, it will be terrorists, too, who will understand that violent action (be it against civillian or military target) gets results.

So are you implying that negotiating once means you would always have to negotiate? :confused:

Cause trading innocent vs. innocent people from both sides seems pretty valid. Like coheneran said, they didn't demand release of terrorists.

I fully believe Israel has a right to exist.

I agree, but really, it would have been a wiser idea to make germans pay for the damage they did, then Palestinians. UN could have taken a chunk of German's land, and made Israel there and not formed it where it would be surrounded by Arabian countries. I know they did it for holy land, etc... but really, since when should Politics be ran by religions at all? Israel in the middle east is the biggest cause for violence, and most hatred against jews. But as usual, US/UK/UN tried fixing a problem, when it actually made it even worse, and now they're expecting Israelis and Palestinians to make peace themself.

but that doesn't mean Iraqis should not attack.

I agree, Iraqis have the right to defend their land by attacking the invaders. (In this case, the coalition forces)

[Reaganista]

Iraqis should not attack because advocating tyranny with violence is just about the most morally reprehensible thing any person could do

[coheneran]

What is a country? A country is a piece of land surrounded by invisible lines. It's a stupid concept to begin with that causes more wars and death than it helps solve. There should be no question as to the legitimacy of any country, because every country is illegitimate. That is my view on countries as a whole.

As for Zionism. Zionism is a conquering force. It has nothing to do with land rights or justice, only with power. Going back to its earliest beginnings, Zionism's main supporters were Jewish businessmen and politicians, and its main opposers were Jewish scholars, artists, authors, even rabbis. The Zionist movement (funnily enough, the first ever Zionist organisation was called Kadima, the same as the current Israeli ruling party) was originally secular, and also full of racists. It still is, it is a racist movement. Here is something one of its most prominent leader/supporters said in 1923: "Zionist colonisation must either stop or proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach." Zionism has caused one of today's worst problems in the world, it has displaced a whole ethnic group. All those reasons are why I am anti-Zionist.

As for throwing the rocks. It was during a protest in Bil'in in the West Bank. That village is being separated from its farming lands (which are the only asset the village has) so that Modi'in Illit can build another neighbourhood. I was there with Anarchists Against the Wall, who are just about the only non-Arabic group doing anything right now to actively resist the occupation. Every week they are there, taking down the fence that is cutting off the village from the fields. Israelis, Palestinians and internationals have been shot by the IDF there. They are a wonderful group of people.

As for the current Gaza Incursion situation. It is obvious what Olmert is doing. First he refused to talk to Hamas because they won't accept Israel. Now that they have, he takes the first opportunity to attack Gaza (also, IDF troops have raided the West Bank and arrested the Hamas minister for labour, and jets have flown low over the Syrian president's house emitting sonic booms. Looks like Israel wants to compare penis size) and bugger up the potentially-approaching peace process. Someone talked earlier about how much Mossad must know. Well, if they know so much, they must have known that Palestinian guerillas are digging an eight hundred metres long tunnel into Israel. Of course they wouldn't withdraw those soldiers from the lonely outpost, Olmert needed an excuse to attack Palestine, and where better than in Gaza, where he can blow up their expensive power station (that takes a very long time to rebuild) and shut off their water. God forbid we actually make peace!

Look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1808768,00.html?gusrc=rss

Israeli forces arrested more than 60 Hamas politicians in the West Bank and bombed targets in the Gaza Strip today to increase pressure on Palestinian militants to release an Israeli soldier held captive since Sunday.

[PepsiMetal]

Here are responses from some newspaper agencies in the middle east. 2/4 Israel's newspapers are also against this military offensive battle and think negotiations would work better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5128186.stm

Here's a good quote:
"Western governments may have conspired and connived with the Jewish state and its chosen people, but the rest of the world cannot be sympathetic to a state that is bombing water and power stations and is preventing food from reaching a besieged people, all in the name of freeing one of its soldiers."

[daku]

No, it's not. It is just as wrong and evil, but it is not terrorism. Terrorism is a kind of tactic which involves causing fear and terror, hence the name. Suicide-bombing is terrorism. Broadcasting executions is terrorism. Opening fire indiscriminately on civilians is terrorism. Shooting protestors is terrorism. Demolishing houses is terrorism. Staging a precise strike against an enemy military target is NOT terrorism.

Oh, in that case, I guess it's OK kidnaping 2 soldiers, torture and kill them, slaughter their bodys, and hang them up 2 buildings high up in the air infront of cameras and civilians.
But hey, it's just a precise strike against the military.



If I shoot you, does it make it okay if I say you might have wanted to kill me?


In that situation, Yes.
(Seriously man, sorry but your talking out of your ***)


Prison 6 isn't the only Israeli prison, it is just the prison where the government gets to torture people. There are other prisons. I too doubt that there are Palestinian women and children in Prison 6, that is like saying there are Afghani women and children in Guantanamo Bay.


You doubt ? so your just throwing up words in the air. If you want to bring out facts, check them before you do. There's not one innocent child or woman who's held in israel


Yes it would, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about exchanging innocent women and children for a soldier.

No. it's all about that.


There is nothing wrong with drugs, only with the system. The worst thing about drugs in Israel is the price, and the fact that you can't find decent skunk anywhere.

It doesn't matter, I'm only showing you whats really going on in here, because you only seem to bullsh!t things up.

[daku]

Yes I can. Israel has exchanged prisoners tonnes of times. They did it with the Hizballah, they did it with the PLO. The reason Olmert won't do it now is because he doesn't want to enter peace negotiations, and so far every Israeli incursion into Palestine has ended in more incursions, then full blown intifada. If he can escalate this little bugger into a third intifada, he'll be able to drive up anti-Arabic sentiment (again) and paranoia, and then he'll be able to do most anything he wants.


Yes my friend, promises were made for exchanging prisoners, and what happend next ? none of those promises were ever made, we just got another sucide bombs. so I don't think it's because Olmert doesn't want to enter negotiations, but because he knows they won't compromise, and they'll keep demanding the 67' lines, they will keep fire missles at israel. it has been like it for 3 months.

Paranoid.

[coheneran]

Oh, in that case, I guess it's OK kidnaping 2 soldiers, torture and kill them, slaughter their bodys, and hang them up 2 buildings high up in the air infront of cameras and civilians.
But hey, it's just a precise strike against the military.

That IS terrorism. Kidnapping a soldier to negotiate an exchange isn't terrorism. I never once said it was OK, so stop putting words in my mouth.


In that situation, Yes.
(Seriously man, sorry but your talking out of your ***)

WHAT?! So, I walk up to an innocent man in the street, stick my gun in his mouth and blow his head, it's okay if I say he was going to kill me? You have a seriously twisted view of justice if that is what you think.

You doubt ? so your just throwing up words in the air. If you want to bring out facts, check them before you do. There's not one innocent child or woman who's held in israel

You want me to prove to you there are innocent women and children (again, CHILDREN, in Hebrew, YELADIM) imprisoned in Israel? What am I, a lawyer? If you're so sure, why don't you prove they are all guilty?

No. it's all about that.

So those children and women are suicide bombers and drug-lords now? Do you have anything to back that up? Otherwise, it's very ridiculous.

It doesn't matter, I'm only showing you whats really going on in here, because you only seem to bullsh!t things up.

You seem to think all Palestinians are suicide bombers or drug-smugglers. Have you ever met a Palestinian? Have you ever been in the Territories? They are PEOPLE. Farmers, shop-keepers, cooks, waiters, taxi-drivers, butchers, lawyers, doctors, teachers, authors, artists, factory-workers, computer engineers. They are no different to Israelis, only in the colour of their skin and their language (and even then, half of Palestinian Arabic sounds almost the same as Modern Hebrew).

[coheneran]

Yes my friend, promises were made for exchanging prisoners, and what happend next ? none of those promises were ever made, we just got another sucide bombs. so I don't think it's because Olmert doesn't want to enter negotiations, but because he knows they won't compromise, and they'll keep demanding the 67' lines, they will keep fire missles at israel. it has been like it for 3 months.

Paranoid.

Yes, you are.

Olmert is the worst Prime Minister we've had in my time, and him and Peretz are only doing this to show what big penises they have, since everyone is calling them stupid. They are stupid.

[Smokey D]

I agree, but really, it would have been a wiser idea to make germans pay for the damage they did, then Palestinians. UN could have taken a chunk of German's land, and made Israel there and not formed it where it would be surrounded by Arabian countries. I know they did it for holy land, etc... but really, since when should Politics be ran by religions at all? Israel in the middle east is the biggest cause for violence, and most hatred against jews. But as usual, US/UK/UN tried fixing a problem, when it actually made it even worse, and now they're expecting Israelis and Palestinians to make peace themself.

Well, aside from most Jews not wanting to live next to or in the country that had just tried to anihilate them, what makes you think creating a new state in Europe (in a region traditionally hostile towards its inhabitants, no less) would have created any less problems than creating one in the Middle East? With your origins, you, of all people, should be familiar with the dangers of virulent nationalism. Nor should we forget the utter totality with which the Nazi regime had crushed European Jewry -- from a population of 7 million to less than 1 million. Most of Israel's population came from the United States, with only a distant connection to Europe. Even those recently arrived would no have wanted to return (see my first point).

And besides, geopolitical realities concerning things like the Iron Curtain and the USSR would have made a European 'Jewish homeland' impossible.

[coheneran]

And besides, geopolitical realities concerning things like the Iron Curtain and the USSR would have made a European 'Jewish homeland' impossible.

That's true, the Cold War meant that the Allies needed a trustworthy ally in the Middle-East (ie. an ally that's dependent on them for protection). As it happens, this arrangement also meant that Zionism could go on with the annexation and occupation undisturbed as they had a power (USA) behind an "Iron Wall" (not a joke, it is something Jabotinsky said, I think I quoted it in this thread already) to support them.

[daku]

I have a twisted view? your the one whos wanting to release all the suicide bombers, what good will that too ? give them another chance to kill israel civilians again ?

And that's the point, I don't want you to prove anything that you can't prove.

So those children and women are suicide bombers and drug-lords now? Do you have anything to back that up? Otherwise, it's very ridiculous.

Did i ever said those childrens and womans ( some of them ) are sucide bombers ? drug smuglers?
No. I never said all the palestinians are suicide bombers, your the one whos putting words into my mouth, I actually have met a few, I don't have anything against them, I have something against the terror itself and it's leaders.
And BTW, the drug smuglers, Just to let you know, my cousin is serving at IDF atm, he's at the Jorden border, and everyday they catch palestinians who try to smug(?) out drugs (he and his group catched 1 ton of drugs a month ago.. that's sick :( ).
Who's calling them stupid ? I do agree with you about peretz, all he can do is curse bibi all the time, for god sake the man doesn't know english :|
But Olmert, whats so stupid about him ? is it because he's actually the first prime minister in the whole second intifada that actually does something ?

All in a good spirit mate :)

[coheneran]

DOES something? All he does is kill. That's what all of them ever do. I'm glad Sharon is almost dead, and I'll clap and dance when Olmert and Bibi die as well. Every Israeli Prime Minister so far is responsible for war crimes, because ever since 1948 all the Israeli governments have done is kill Arabs and justify it by pointing at Germany accusingly.

[Smokey D]

That's true, the Cold War meant that the Allies needed a trustworthy ally in the Middle-East (ie. an ally that's dependent on them for protection). As it happens, this arrangement also meant that Zionism could go on with the annexation and occupation undisturbed as they had a power (USA) behind an "Iron Wall" (not a joke, it is something Jabotinsky said, I think I quoted it in this thread already) to support them.

I was talking more about the impracticalities of creating such a state on the frontier of Western capitalism and Soviet communism.

[daku]

DOES something? All he does is kill. That's what all of them ever do. I'm glad Sharon is almost dead, and I'll clap and dance when Olmert and Bibi die as well. Every Israeli Prime Minister so far is responsible for war crimes, because ever since 1948 all the Israeli governments have done is kill Arabs and justify it by pointing at Germany accusingly.

Wow
Seriously, that all i got to say.
All we did was killing arabs for nothing, Yup.. all that time for nothing.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[PepsiMetal]

Well, aside from most Jews not wanting to live next to or in the country that had just tried to anihilate them, what makes you think creating a new state in Europe (in a region traditionally hostile towards its inhabitants, no less) would have created any less problems than creating one in the Middle East? With your origins, you, of all people, should be familiar with the dangers of virulent nationalism. Nor should we forget the utter totality with which the Nazi regime had crushed European Jewry -- from a population of 7 million to less than 1 million. Most of Israel's population came from the United States, with only a distant connection to Europe. Even those recently arrived would no have wanted to return (see my first point).

And besides, geopolitical realities concerning things like the Iron Curtain and the USSR would have made a European 'Jewish homeland' impossible.

This is proving that Israel is an impossible Jewish Homeland too. Palestinians are terorrizing Israelis for one reason. And that is to realize that Israel is the worst place Jews could live at and have government control over it.

At least there would be an answer as to why Israel would actually be on german land. Right now, the only answer is holy land, which goes back to Politics driven by religions, which makes us question why US and UK complain about Islamic governments when such a big decision as this one was based on religions also and it is still protected because of religion.

Germany was over at the end of WWII. With the amount of money and weapons Israel received from US and UK, they could have easily defended themselves in europe.

Wow
Seriously, that all i got to say.
All we did was killing arabs for nothing, Yup.. all that time for nothing.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

What else do you call American, German, Austrian, French, etc... foreigner jews coming into Middle East and forming their own country on occupied land while destroying those people's villages to build your own cities? Palestinians also kill alot of Israelis, but to them, Israelis are just foreigners taking over their land. Formation of Israel has been hell to Jewish and Arab people living there.

[daku]

Taking over their land ?
lol

[Smokey D]

This is proving that Israel is an impossible Jewish Homeland too. Palestinians are terorrizing Israelis for one reason. And that is to realize that Israel is the worst place Jews could live at and have government control over it.

Palestinians are terrorising Israel because they were forced off far more land than they should have been and lost control of Jerusalem to the Israelis, while recent events have conspired to put hardliners in control on both sides. If things had gone to plan in 1948, and then again in '67, I find it hard to believe Palestinian resistence would be as strong.

At least there would be an answer as to why Israel would actually be on german land. Right now, the only answer is holy land, which goes back to Politics driven by religions, which makes us question why US and UK complain about Islamic governments when such a big decision as this one was based on religions also and it is still protected because of religion.

It wouldn't solve anything if it was on German land, British land or in Madagascar. There would always be someone who didn't think the Israelis had a right to it. Perhaps, even, they'd be right -- that argument is beyond my scope.

For the record, the West challenges Middle Eastern theocracies not because they let religion enter politics, but because they use religion to discriminate against groups and deny them their human rights.

Germany was over at the end of WWII. With the amount of money and weapons Israel received from US and UK, they could have easily defended themselves in europe.

It's not like history hasn't proven guns and ethnic tensions don't mix well or anything.

Taking over their land ?

Yeah, that's exactly what happened.

[PepsiMetal]

For the record, the West challenges Middle Eastern theocracies not because they let religion enter politics, but because they use religion to discriminate against groups and deny them their human rights.

But isn't Israel discriminating against Palestinians also?

[coheneran]

Palestinians are terrorising Israel because they were forced off far more land than they should have been and lost control of Jerusalem to the Israelis, while recent events have conspired to put hardliners in control on both sides. If things had gone to plan in 1948, and then again in '67, I find it hard to believe Palestinian resistence would be as strong.



It wouldn't solve anything if it was on German land, British land or in Madagascar. There would always be someone who didn't think the Israelis had a right to it. Perhaps, even, they'd be right -- that argument is beyond my scope.

For the record, the West challenges Middle Eastern theocracies not because they let religion enter politics, but because they use religion to discriminate against groups and deny them their human rights.



It's not like history hasn't proven guns and ethnic tensions don't mix well or anything.



Yeah, that's exactly what happened.

I'm gonna try and sum up your discussion:

Israel had no right to exist, anywhere, because it would have been impossible to do it without displacing other peoples. But since it already exists, and well into the fourth generation, nobody has the right to displace the Israeli people. Now the only nice option is to make peace before any more people lose their homes or die.

[coheneran]

But isn't Israel discriminating against Palestinians also?

Oh incredibly. I mean, not even counting that Israel gets to have control over Palestinian villages' water and electricity, and of course forgetting that Palestinians can't even move from one town to another in their own land without being stripsearched, interrogated, slapped about a bit and then denied access, forgetting all of that, Israel still has a tonne of discrimination laws that affect Arabs in Israel itself, and causes even more discrimination against Arabs from the general Israeli population.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

On some morning politics show today a man on the Isreali side basically said that despite the fact that Hamas were democratically elected they were a terrorist group and as such Israel were going to deal with them like a terrorist group.

When asked if they were going to send ground troups into Gaza the guy said "Obviously i can't divulge in formation on military operations but... yes."




coheneran:

Throwing rocks at a tank = balls, when we consider what tanks do.

[coheneran]

coheneran:

Throwing rocks at a tank = balls, when we consider what tanks do.

Thank you, but it's not as heroic as it sounds when you're standing in the direction opposite to the one the cannon's pointing in. Also, the tanks are more for show (if they bring them along at all) than anything else, and the real worries are the beefy guys with clubs and tear-gas grenades trying to hit you.

So, the IDF has bombed the Palestinian Prime Minister's office, proving once again, and not for the last time unfortunately, that they are idiots.

You know how people watch the world cup penalties, cross their fingers and pray to God that the goalie will dive in the right direction this time? I am sitting here praying that no Palestinian organisation will retaliate, because if they do, then Israel "is just defending itself."

This just in:

The power plant in Gaza which Israel bombed was owned and run by an American firm, and now the United States is making Israel supply the electricity to the whole of Gaza free of charge. Talk about shootin' yourself in the foot.

[PepsiMetal]

Isn't it also funny how when Palestinians take a Prisoner of War (soldier), he is kidnapped or a hostage, but all those thousands of Palestinian fighters that are in Israel's jails aren't hostages nor kidnapped?

The kidnapped soldier is a POV, he isn't a civilian to be considered kidnapped or a hostage.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

I assume you mean POW, which he most definitely isn't.

[coheneran]

I assume you mean POW, which he most definitely isn't.

I thought prisoners taken during the course of a war were prisoners of war.

[PepsiMetal]

I assume you mean POW, which he most definitely isn't.

How is he not a prisoner of war? Doesn't Palestine and Israel have an ongoing war against each other, and any soldiers that are caught are POWs?

[coheneran]

Well, it can be argued that Palestine isn't a country and has no real organised army, so therefore any Palestinian fighters are terrorist prisoners, not prisoners of war. Frankly I think it's bullshit used to make the Israeli government look not-so-evil when they torture prisoners.

[Smokey D]

Well, it is true that he was taken prisoner by a terrorist group not by the Palestinian security forces or any other official organisation. More importantly, there is no declared state of war between Israel and Palestine, however much current circumstances might indicate to the contrary.

[PepsiMetal]

He was taken by Hamas, who are basically the government in Palestine, correct?

[coheneran]

So far most of the news articles have been hazy on which organisation did it, but a few claimed it was Hamas.

EDIT: I like this guy:

"Israel's second reason for striking at Gaza is political. It is seeking to destroy the Hamas government by all possible means - including physical liquidation - because it knows that Hamas's terms for a settlement would be stiffer than it could possibly accept.

It abhors the recent Hamas-Fatah accord, which implicitly recognises Israel, because it threatens to produce a Palestinian partner ready to negotiate the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. Israel has no intention of ever returning to those borders. It is no accident that its assault followed immediately on the Palestinian accord.

Israel will do everything to avoid a negotiation. Hence, it deliberately inflicts inhumane hardships on the Palestinians in order to radicalise them and drive the moderates from the scene. Moderates, who are prepared to talk, are Israel's real enemies."

[Smokey D]

Hamas hasn't really made any steps to recognise Israel recently. Fatah did, however.

[coheneran]

Fatah's always recognised Israel, and just now they made an agreement with Hamas in which Hamas agreed to draw the future Palestinian state's borders at the 1967 Green Line, which is pretty much an acceptance of Israel as the country outside those borders. You can't accept white without accepting black.

[Smokey D]

That's not the same as diplomatic or legal recognition. Fatah didn't recognise Israel until 1993ish, no?

[coheneran]

Probably sometime around those years. You know how it is with politicians though, they can't get elected and immediately change their policies, they take a few months to get the spin going. I think Hamas is on their way to proper recognition, just give the dickweeds time.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I think it's pretty clear the intention of the militants who abducted the solider was not to get prisoners released, it was to start a war.

They're succeeding as far as i can tell.

[coheneran]

If they wanted to revive the intifada (we are still in the 2nd Intifada, it is not over, it's long'un) they would have just sent a suicide bomber into Israel. Think about it, before they kidnapped the soldier, the Gaza-Israel border was pretty much open all the time. It would have been easy to send a suicide bomber right into Tel-Aviv, or at least into Rehovot (which is only a couple miles away). But no, instead they spend time and resources to dig an 800 metres-long tunnel underneath the border and attack an Israeli outpost that has a tank. I don't know about these guys' balls, but I know that if I wanted to get Israel pissed off with me I'd blow up a restaurant (which seems easier than what they chose to do), not go head-to-head with a tank. They're looking to trade a soldier for Palestinian women and children, not to revitalise the war. Olmert is the one who is looking for a fight. We don't get this impression much from the media here, but in Israel every leader so far has had to prove himself (or herself, in the case of one hell-bitch) through military force. Olmert has been looking for an excuse since he got into power. First by by letting that suicide bomber get into Tel-Aviv, then by declaring the temporary wall (which is what it was from the beginning) as the new and future borders of Palestine. The security establishment knows all about the Palestinian militants' operations, they're not stupid. They just choose to let things happen if they think it will strengthen their position. I know it's a nasty accusation to make, but every government does it.

[Smokey D]

The Israeli government is perfectly within its rights to refuse negotiation with terrorists. Whichever group took the soldier knew it would provoke this kind of response in Israel, and trying to divert blame back on to the government is not really fair.

[PepsiMetal]

They're using same tactic as USA is using in Iraq. Try to defeat terorrists by force. That'll never work. Israel's been in war for decades, why keep trying if you know it's not going to fix anything. Making palestinian civlians suffer will only raise their hatred towards Israelis.

Here's a pretty good video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkD3nchD0OM

[Smokey D]

Of course there needs to be a major policy shift on behalf of the Israeli government with respect to the Palestinian issue. However, this does not mean the Israelis should negotiate with terrorists who have committed hostile acts against them.

[PepsiMetal]

Israel has committed hosticle acts against Palestinian civilians too. Except for blowin them selves up, they just bomb a village, or shoot a tank. Results are the same though for both sides.

[Smokey D]

Except the kiddnapping came during a truce.

[coheneran]

Except the kiddnapping came during a truce.

The truce is a Hamas truce, not a full truce, and I'm not sure that this kidnapping was organised by Hamas. On www.newnows.org most (like, 8 out of 10) news sources are calling the kidnappers "Palestinian militants" and a very very few are calling them Hamas militants. Olmert has decided to focus the attack on Hamas, obviously, because he does not want to negotiate with them. I think it is also important to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla warfare. This kidnapping was a guerilla operation, not a terrorist attack.

The truce doesn't mean anything much anyway. I know for a fact that Israel was still demolishing olive orchards and villages, and repressing protests, during this so-called truce. What the truce means is that Hamas have promised not to be physically hostile towards Israel, apparantly it says nothing about Israel demolishing crops and homes.

[coheneran]

Just found out, there are three groups involved in this kidnapping:

The Army of Islam
Al Qassam Brigades
Al Nasser Salaheddin Brigades

[Smokey D]

Even if it was a Hamas only truce, whichever group took him knew it would provoke this response.

And no, it's a terrorist action, though the distinction between terrorism and guerilla warfare becomes hazy when the military is the target.

[coheneran]

Cambridge Dictionary defines terrorism as "the use of violence for political purposes, for example putting bombs in public places." That means every single army in the history of war is a terrorist organisation, in which case saying that Hamas or Hizballah etc. are worse than the Coalition or the IDF is silly.

Dictionary.com, however, gives a more precise definition for terrorism:

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Actually, this seems more thorough, but it's exactly the same as the Cambridge Dictionary definition, apart from adding that property damage is also terrorism, and the vague "unlawful use of force" which ultimately means nothing. I bet under Palestinian law, it's illegal to kill Palestinians, which makes the IDF a terrorist organisation:p.

From a Legal Encyclopedia (on Answers.com):

"Terrorism is the systematic use of terror or violence to achieve political goals. The targets of terrorism include government officials, identified individuals or groups, and innocent bystanders. In most cases terrorists seek to overthrow or destabilize an existing political regime, but totalitarian and dictatorial governments use terror to maintain their power."

[gregulus]

The international media doesn't show anything. They don't tell you Palestinians die every day, that they're shot at every day, that they can't go out for milk without a permit. All they tell you about is when an international journalist gets shot by the IDF, when a bomb goes off in central Tel-Aviv, or when Israel slaughters a thousand people. Anything below a thousand isn't newsworthy, apparantly.
First of all, your analogy about Israel representing David and Palestine representing Goliath couldn't be more off. The international media paints the picture of Palestine, with the lack of a mechinized military, resorting to government backed guerilla tactics (without the cunning used by various other outfits who also use guerilla tactics) and Israel, with the established military acting in retaliation to those attacks by pro-Palestinian groups.

Secondly, the international media announces updates in the conflict daily. Everyday there is a new story about Israeli forces killing a Palestinian civilian or Palestinian forces killing an Israeli citizen. I really just think you're hearing what you want to.

As for my personal opinion on the matter, I'm not very sympathetic towards the Palestinian cause because of the tactics they use daily. Israel and Palestine both need to start resorting to diplomacy rather than violence or any other extreme measures. It should have become apparent years ago that random bombings of civilian targets do not work to intimidate Israel and that those in support of the Palestinian cause are also not so easily intimidated by Israel's show of force. It's getting ridiculous.

[coheneran]

First of all, your analogy about Israel representing David and Palestine representing Goliath couldn't be more off. The international media paints the picture of Palestine, with the lack of a mechinized military, resorting to government backed guerilla tactics (without the cunning used by various other outfits who also use guerilla tactics) and Israel, with the established military acting in retaliation to those attacks by pro-Palestinian groups.

I have no idea how far back you went to extract that quote, but kudos on your patience when it comes to thread trawling.

While what you quoted and your comments on it are true (I posted that before I was using www.newnow.org, so my only news sources were TV, radio and newspaper headlines, and only the mainstream ones at that), I believe I said that my analogy was Israel's representation, not the independent media's. At least, if I didn't say it, I can correct myself now and say that it was what I meant. But having lived in Israel, I can tell you that it is definitely the situation the government puts forward, and Israeli society (Too long ago to try and analyse whether it was the schools, or the adults, or the TV etc.) emanates a distinct anti-Arab sentiment.

[Sammy_L_D]

I've so many Palestine-related threads and my posts are always something like this.

I understand that suicide bombing and killing innocent Israeli civilians is wrong, but this would have never happened if Israel didn't 'start it'. Israel committed various massacres in both Lebanon and Palestine. Such actions fuel the vunerable, got-nothing-to-lose Muslims and turns them to extremists.

Also, if you go back to history, the land belongs to Palestinians.
I haven't read through the read to see if anyone has brought this up or not--my apologies if it has already been covered--but this has no merit.

The land originally belonged to the Israelis. They were fought for thousands of years by the Arabs, and "eventually", the Romans took over, taking it as their land. Then when the empire collapsed a long, long time later, they got some of it back, and naturally, various barbarian hordes took it. Then eventually, the Christians took a strong hold of it, held it for a while, and eventually, lost it to the Arabs.

Short version of events.

[coheneran]

I haven't read through the read to see if anyone has brought this up or not--my apologies if it has already been covered--but this has no merit.

The land originally belonged to the Israelis. They were fought for thousands of years by the Arabs, and "eventually", the Romans took over, taking it as their land. Then when the empire collapsed a long, long time later, they got some of it back, and naturally, various barbarian hordes took it. Then eventually, the Christians took a strong hold of it, held it for a while, and eventually, lost it to the Arabs.

Short version of events.

That's pretty much the Bible's (and the more obscure writings of various saints and minor prophets and rabbis) version of it. The historically accurate one is that no one lived there, in fact man evolved thousands of miles from there, and only travelled up there *when it got too cramped. Just the fact that it got so cramped the man moved shows that it's in our nature to move around when things get cramped, and once the Jews left (probably due to lack of legspace) then they can't come crashing back just because things got too stuffy and uncomfortable where they were previously.





* This is when my mind wandered and I stopped taking the post that seriously.

[The End]

here are some videos on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOtFYiYgvWg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mebuDbe-4Is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciHRtSwzV-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfK82-vPlFU



I hope the guy in the second video gets shot.

[The End]

post other videos if you have any to share here

[The End]

I can see one of two things happening: either the area declines into absolute chaos and we have a string of attacks on israel, israel attacking Palestinians and Lebanon, etc. or, I see the negotiations working out, israel leaving Lebanon and the whole situation declining slowly.

[The End]

but, Med, watch those videos, and tell me what you think! :D

[coheneran]

Pretty interestingly, Israel seems to have launched a series of attacks on Lebanon earlier today. Hezbollah is actually quite a large part of the government there so it's not as horrible as it sounds (it comes in response to Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers), but I can't help thinking that this is going to really **** everything up for the region (even more than normal). Considering the ongoing quiet descent of the Gaza strip into all out anarchy, I can't really see how things go back to the quiet conflict that characterised a lot of last year anytime soon.

Like I said before, this seemed to be the plan from the start. Oh, and those soldiers that Hizballah got, they're not kidnapped, they're prisoners of war. Did you watch BBC News at 9? That Israeli guy who was interviewed was such an imbecile. He actually said "We are not in Lebanon, we are not in Gaza, they started it." The bloody cheek!

But hey, at least the Arabic factions aren't resorting to terror, that adds some minor form of military legitimacy to their struggle, though I still don't agree with either side.

And hey, Israel could have stopped all of this just by exchanging prisoners. I know I know, 'show no weakness' and that bollocks, but seriously, Israel has exchanged prisoners with the PLO and Hizballah before now, the only reason Olmert won't do it now is because he has no military history and wants to look tough. Every Israel national hero so far has had a military history (apart from Hertzl, I'm not absolutely sure about him), but more importantly, every Israeli Prime Minister has been a soldier, at least. Some of them were wanted terrorists back in the day (targetting civilians with bombs, actually). Israeli politics have been dominated with the notion that you have to look tough and have big balls. An Israeli hip-hop group (Hadag Nakhash in their song Bella Bellisima, for anyone who's wondering. Such an amazing band) said once (and I paraphrase), "Israel is not ready for a hero whose bravery lay in morality, not in military prowess."

Also, our defence minister, Peretz (I always forget his first name, there are so many politicians called Peretz or Peres), I don't know what the hell he's doing in there. He was the leader of the labour party (who, unlike in the UK, was actually pretty leftist and liberal socialist) and a former union organiser (a very successful one in fact). He was in the military for a short time, but got wounded and that was that. He should be minister for labour, or better, the minister of treasury, I don't know what the hell he's doing in defence, and he probably doesn't either.

EDIT: Words were repeated way too many times in this post, especially "military".

[PepsiMetal]

WTF is Israel doing? OMG that's so gay now. First they said it was HAMAS who kidnapped a soldier, then they pounded gaza, now it's Hizbollah, so now they're going at Lebannon. They might as well attack Egypt and Syria too. I mean seriously, this is gonna make thousands of lives shittier and hate Israel even more, and all this for supposedly a couple of soldiers. So gay. And that Georgio Bush Bastard was on TV probably not even knowing what the situation is, saying Israel deserves to have kidnapped soldiers returned, then same can be said for palestinian women and children.

It's clear that Israel is breaking some major UN rules here by shutting off and destroying power and water supplies to thousands, if not millions.

EDIT: I see Hezbollah kidnapped soldiers yesterday.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

uhh get your facts straight, please

And I think its really lolworthy calling the Israeli hostages POWs - are you ****ing joking?

[ringworm]

WTF is Israel doing?
The same thing that has been going on over there for thousands of years.
Killing anyone that isn't like you.
The same thing that entire region does on a daily basis.

I can't even watch the news anymore because of the Middle East.

One organization after another that hates, kills, injures, bombs, decapitates, burns, kidnapps…anyone outside of their faith, or most of the time, it's the same faith, just another whacked out version of it.

I mean really, how do you fix a people that only want to wipe out each other?

[Krabsworth]

I mean really, how do you fix a people that only want to wipe out each other?

CONVERT THEM TO CHRISTIANITY MUHAHAHA

[Sun Ra]

I mean really, how do you fix a people that only want to wipe out each other?

Take away their faith.

Edit: darnit beaten

[The End]

uhh get your facts straight, please

And I think its really lolworthy calling the Israeli hostages POWs - are you ****ing joking?

they are POWs. it's a war. they're soldiers. they've been captured. all this equates to a POW.

[PepsiMetal]

Take away their faith.

Edit: darnit beaten

But Israel is a "democracy" and a "free" nation. :lol:

There's no excuse of whatsoever for Israel to just attack random nations around it because they're thought to have terrorist organizations. Israel attacking nations illegally and trying to force their government to do something is an act of terrorism itself.

uhh get your facts straight, please

And I think its really lolworthy calling the Israeli hostages POWs - are you ****ing joking?

Israel - Palestine are in a war.
Israel soldier was kidnapped by palestinian soldiers.
He is a prisoner of war. I know you're going to try and say Hamas or Hizbollah aren't soldiers, but they are. Hamas is the official government and military for Palestine, and while they aren't allowed to buy tanks, or airplanes, that won't mean they're not going to have means of defence or offense.

[coheneran]

Must correct some things.

Hamas did not take the Israeli soldier, Army of Islam and a couple of other organisations (one of them involved with Hamas) took him. As for the Hizballah, they are paid for by Iran but they are the Lebanese militia, though they have a terrorist tactics wing, and they took two soldiers, neither of them Gilad Shalit. The tactic seems to be to put Olmert under more pressure (now that three soldiers are capture, it is embarassing, we are the region's only superpower) to exchange the soldiers for Palestinian citizens (again, citizens, not terrorists or activists or union organisers or radicals, just Palestinian women and kids).

The IDF soldiers the Hizballah captured ARE prisoners of war, since the Hizballah is a militia. Semantically, the Gaza hostage is not a POW, but politically he is. My reasoning is, when a group of people are not considered a real army just because we (we as in The West we) don't like them, that does not make their struggle any less real or justified, and does not make the situation any less of a war.

[PepsiMetal]

That's not what is happening. I don't even agree with what Israel are doing as this could be about to lead to the biggest disaster for Israel, Lebanon and other nearby countries since the 1980s, but Israel aren't just randomly attacking countries thought to have terrorist organisations. The fact that rockets were just fired at an Israeli town from within Lebanon shows that there are terrorist elements that are attacking Israel. The Israeli response is, however, completely disproportionate.

They attacked an international airport in Lebanon which caused it to close down. I don't even know how many civlians were there, but that can't be good.

That target seemed to be pretty random. I'm pretty sure Israel considers all bordering Arab countries to be terrorists or harboring terrorists.

[coheneran]

They attacked an international airport in Lebanon which caused it to close down. I don't even know how many civlians were there, but that can't be good.

That target seemed to be pretty random. I'm pretty sure Israel considers all bordering Arab countries to be terrorists or harboring terrorists.

Yes, but mind you, almost every country in the world has a native organisation or four that is considered terrorist.

[Surgicalgod]

I'm from Saida, Lebanon and I'm currently in the middle of the battlefield.

Although I didn't really support Hezbollah's plan at first, I do now. Hizbollah is trying to get back thousands of prisoners from the Israeli territory, one of which has been there for over 27 years. They had to try and bring them back sooner or later, just like the Israelis are trying to bring their 2 soliders rightnow.

I don't think that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, they're the Lebanese resistance. Everyone fails to see that Hezbollah is just responding to Israeli actions, and fighting terrorism doesn't make one a terrorist. We've been up 2 days now from all the bombings and everything that has been going on in Lebanon, and I think that qualifies the Israeli actions to be labeled as "terrorism actions".

Even if Israel have the right to launch a full war at Lebanon to bring its soldiers back, they have no right whatsoever to destroy infrastructure and kill 50 civilians. And what's worse than that the US are backing them up. Total bull****.

[InvalidUser]

I mean really, how do you fix a people that only want to wipe out each other?
correction: people want Israel off the map. Israel isnt trying to wipe out anyone, but rather save their state.

[Dannyboy15]

I'm from Saida, Lebanon and I'm currently in the middle of the battlefield.

Although I didn't really support Hezbollah's plan at first, I do now. Hizbollah is trying to get back thousands of prisoners from the Israeli territory, one of which has been there for over 27 years. They had to try and bring them back sooner or later, just like the Israelis are trying to bring their 2 soliders rightnow.

I don't think that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, they're the Lebanese resistance. Everyone fails to see that Hezbollah is just responding to Israeli actions, and fighting terrorism doesn't make one a terrorist. We've been up 2 days now from all the bombings and everything that has been going on in Lebanon, and I think that qualifies the Israeli actions to be labeled as "terrorism actions".

Even if Israel have the right to launch a full war at Lebanon to bring its soldiers back, they have no right whatsoever to destroy infrastructure and kill 50 civilians. And what's worse than that the US are backing them up. Total bull****.

Israel wouldn't have touched Lebanon if hezbollah didn't kidnap those soldiers.

[Surgicalgod]

But Israel was destroying Gaza, plus Israel didn't intend to return the prisoners they had anytime, it's been 27 years now. Hezbollah wouldn't have kidnapped those soldiers if Israel didn't have thousands of prisoners and bodies in its territory.

[dislocated214]

The same thing that has been going on over there for thousands of years.
Killing anyone that isn't like you.
The same thing that entire region does on a daily basis.

I can't even watch the news anymore because of the Middle East.

One organization after another that hates, kills, injures, bombs, decapitates, burns, kidnapps…anyone outside of their faith, or most of the time, it's the same faith, just another whacked out version of it.

I mean really, how do you fix a people that only want to wipe out each other?
The Palestinian people don't wish death on Israelis and the Israelis don't wish death on the Palestinians. Both sides want peace. The government of Israel and the IDF however, IMO, do not.

[Surgicalgod]

I never knew we had people from Lebanon here. :-/ Stay safe.

Thanks for caring... I will.

[coheneran]

Israel wouldn't have touched Lebanon if hezbollah didn't kidnap those soldiers.

One could say that Hizballah wouldn't have touched Israel if Israel had returned those Palestinian prisoners. It doesn't matter who started it, and in fact it is a weak argument, for many reasons. There should be no violence, it shouldn't be one-sided so supporting either military side is hypocritical (only if you agree with the former statement of non-violence of course). The other argument is that Israel, being the local and only superpower, should be more responsible and respond in a diplomatic manner, or at least not send the whole military force (now, apparantly, they've called up reservists! Psychotic!) out against a few petty militants.

That's not what you said. You said that Israel was attacking random nations, which they're not. If they attacked Egypt then they'd be doing that. I think bombing Beirut was a completely disproportionate response, but attacking Lebanon follows a certain logic, albeit not one which I support.



Well, legally none of them are prisoners of war, as far as I can tell. Hezbollah is a militia, and the President of Lebanon hasn't sanctioned the capture of the Israeli troops. It's an armed gang capturing people, not an army taking prisoners.

I thought Lebanon was a demilitarised zone, and there were no armies allowed. Never mind, they should still be treated as prisoners of war. I don't actually see the logic of not treating them as POWs, seeing as they have more rights then, and from a Zionist propaganda viewpoint, it's better because then when whatever group starts abusing IDF prisoners they can say "Oh! They're mistreating POWs, see how evil they are!"

The Palestinian people don't wish death on Israelis and the Israelis don't wish death on the Palestinians. Both sides want peace. The government of Israel and the IDF however, IMO, do not.

I agree with you, but lets not forget that the Palestinian leaders are also pretty much arseholes (all leaders are, IMHO:p). And of course there are some extremist "little people" on both sides, and both sides harbour terrorists (Palestine more, obviously).

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

That target seemed to be pretty random. I'm pretty sure Israel considers all bordering Arab countries to be terrorists or harboring terrorists.

As sad as it is, probably. Then again, you can't really blame them. They're this tiny-*** nation in which the majority of people are Jewish and they're surrounded by loads of Muslim nations. Paranoia, you know? Add unto this the fact that America can't really back them up one-hundred-percent... Yeah.

[coheneran]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1698401720504600023&q=history

It's an interview with Amira Hass, an award winning Israeli journalist (and a close family friend) about occupation and terrorism, it's long (58 minutes) but I just have it in the background and I can listen to it. It's good.

[Daisy_5]

As sad as it is, probably. Then again, you can't really blame them. They're this tiny-*** nation in which the majority of people are Jewish and they're surrounded by loads of Muslim nations. Paranoia, you know? Add unto this the fact that America can't really back them up one-hundred-percent... Yeah.

I think it's more the fact that they have to show their power when millitant groups are obviously trying to take the piss. If they'd sat back and done nothing we'd be complaining that they don't care about human lives. Hizbollah entered Israeli territory and kidnapped 2 soldiers. I don't necciserily agree with the force that Israel have used but the fact that Hizbollah have started firing rockets at major population centres shows that Israel HAVE to do something. If they sat back they'd have every terrorist organization in the Middle East probing them and trying to cause a mockery of the Israeli Government.

That target seemed to be pretty random. I'm pretty sure Israel considers all bordering Arab countries to be terrorists or harboring terrorists.

An American ideal,No?


They attacked an international airport in Lebanon which caused it to close down. I don't even know how many civlians were there, but that can't be good.

If you want reasoning for Israel attacking the airport...They don't want the soldiers to leave Lebanon so the most obvious target is any airport. Beirut was more of an example than anything, or at least in my mind.

Wanna know why America backs Israel up on this? What is the one thing America want to do but can't do?. Yes kids,attack Iran. If Israel attack Iran it's doing the American's a great favour and they don't have to get their hands dirty.

If Hizbollah hadn't struck back at Israel then it'd be ok to consider this completley over the top but since they did it escalates things. They're TRYING to feed the fire and it's working.

If Israel attack Syria, Iran comes into play and it all gets very messy. Could be the start of WW3.

UN Sanctions mean ****, Pure ****. They can't enforce anything, Christ they can't even control America let alone Israel. This is gonna get messy.

To the guy from Lebanon, It's sad that you're there but how can you support the actions of Hizbollah? Don't you see that they have pushed Israel to this. Free Prisoners...If they are Terrorists then they have a good reason to keep them locked up, or at least more than likely. Tar Israel with one brush and use it again on America and Britain.

[InvalidUser]

America backs Israel because America fears Israel. Thats all

[StrangeVision]

Come again?

[Bron-Yr-Aur]

Yeah. That's... Valid.

[PepsiMetal]

And here it is: TA DA. US watching Israel's back again and allowing it to continue whatever it wants.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/13/060713195011.0bs4l5nz.html

If you want reasoning for Israel attacking the airport...They don't want the soldiers to leave Lebanon so the most obvious target is any airport. Beirut was more of an example than anything, or at least in my mind.

That's not justified. They're bombing civilian places in hopes to catch the terrorists. Did they catch or kill terrorists at the airport? No.

Wanna know why America backs Israel up on this? What is the one thing America want to do but can't do?. Yes kids,attack Iran. If Israel attack Iran it's doing the American's a great favour and they don't have to get their hands dirty.

You mean same way US attacked Iraq for Israel, and now there's an oil pipeline in production from Mosul, Iraq straight to Israel, which obviously Saddam wouldn't have approved?

It could be true, but whoever attacks Iran will bring whole region into a huge mess.

[dislocated214]

America backs Israel because America fears Israel. Thats all
America backs Israel because Israel keeps American values and policies valid in the Middle-East.

[Reaganista]

America backs israel because america has backed israel

that's really all there is
politicians have incredible inertia

[Smokey D]

The attack on the airport was ostensibly to slow the movement of terrorist groups throughout the region, but was probably designed to impact on Lebanon's (currently in the midst of a tourism boom) economy.

That target seemed to be pretty random. I'm pretty sure Israel considers all bordering Arab countries to be terrorists or harboring terrorists.

This largely stemming from the fact that most countries around Israel, with the possible exception of Jordan, are harbouring terrorists, or at least have a significant terrorist presence.

I don't think that Hezbollah is a terrorist group, they're the Lebanese resistance. Everyone fails to see that Hezbollah is just responding to Israeli actions, and fighting terrorism doesn't make one a terrorist.

I'm sorry, Hezbollah is most definitley a terrorist group. It may be one that happens to be fighting Israel, and maybe it's even legitimate to do so, but it most certainly is a terrorist organisation.

We've been up 2 days now from all the bombings and everything that has been going on in Lebanon, and I think that qualifies the Israeli actions to be labeled as "terrorism actions".

Er, Hezbollah struck first. And no, terrorism is a methodology which Israel has not employed in Lebanon, though it is possible to argue it has used it in Palestine.

That being said, stay safe. I hope you and yours are alright.

[chimp_spanner]

Strange, isn't it, that when a group or faction attack civilians to pressure a ruling body into action or change, it's called terrorism. But when Israel start attacking civilians, destroying their infrastructure and reducing their country to rubble as a means to the same end it's...well, "okay" I guess? I mean they're not doing ANYTHING to the people they're trying to get to, except strengthening their resolve. Oh and potentially creating a whole new generation of terrorists.

It's utterly stupid. But I'm sure this is in someone's best interest that this all happens. America and Co. wouldn't be facilitating, or at least turning a blind eye to this, if it didn't mean they'd benefit in some way. Or maybe, as someone else said, they're simply over-stretched in Eyerack and Afghanistan. Who knows.

**Edit: Ah didn't see your post smokey. Why would you put Israel's actions in Lebanon in a different catagory as those in Palestine, just out of interest?

[coheneran]

To the guy from Lebanon, It's sad that you're there but how can you support the actions of Hizbollah? Don't you see that they have pushed Israel to this. Free Prisoners...If they are Terrorists then they have a good reason to keep them locked up, or at least more than likely. Tar Israel with one brush and use it again on America and Britain.

For the last time, they don't want to exchange the soldiers for terrorists, they want to exchange them for Palestinian women and children!

[Smokey D]

Because Israel was unequivocally struck first by Hezbollah, and has not began to systemtatically dismantle the government/infrastructure of Lebanon with a mind to undermine the political independence or viability of the country.

I do want to make it very clear that 'state terrorism' is not simply 'normal terrorism' carried out by the state. Each are very particular methodologies, usually with very different intentions.


For the last time, they don't want to exchange the soldiers for terrorists, they want to exchange them for Palestinian women and children!

Some of whom may or may not be terrorist. Gender is no preventative.

[coheneran]

Because Israel was unequivocally struck first by Hezbollah, and has not began to systemtatically dismantle the government/infrastructure of Lebanon with a mind to undermine the political independence or viability of the country.

Well, not lately anyway.

I do want to make it very clear that 'state terrorism' is not simply 'normal terrorism' carried out by the state. Each are very particular methodologies, usually with very different intentions.

And state terrorism is way worse, technically, emotionally and physically. Whatever the Palestinian militant factions can do, Israel can unleash something a hundred times worse.

Some of whom may or may not be terrorist. Gender is no preventative.

Gender is something of a preventative, although in theory it's possible that those women would want to blow themselves up, I doubt it. But then by your reasoning, we might as well arrest everyone who doesn't like us because they are potential terrorists, and you know that's bollocks.

[Smokey D]

Well, not lately anyway.

Not recently enough for these attacks to be considered a continuation of an old conflict rather than the beginning of a new one is my point.

And state terrorism is way worse, technically, emotionally and physically. Whatever the Palestinian militant factions can do, Israel can unleash something a hundred times worse.

Probably, but that doesn't mean terrorism is okay or anything.

Gender is something of a preventative, although in theory it's possible that those women would want to blow themselves up, I doubt it. But then by your reasoning, we might as well arrest everyone who doesn't like us because they are potential terrorists, and you know that's bollocks.

Well, there is always the possibility that Israel has specific intelligence regarding the women being held. Stop buying into gendered stereotypes.

[coheneran]

Well, there is always the possibility that Israel has specific intelligence regarding the women being held. Stop buying into gendered stereotypes.

Lol Smokey, are you patronising me?:p

I find it hard to believe that Shin Bet thinks every one of the thousand women imprisoned in Israel is a terrorist. And as for the kids, well come on! They're children in prison because they are Palestinians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Smokey D]

Well, it has been know for children to be used as terrorists, though admittedly prison is probably not the appropriate place for them.

And there are about 1500 women currently incarcerated, last I heard. Out of a female population of approximately 1.5 million, it is not an entirely unreasonable number of suspected female terrorists (something in the order of 0.001% of the general population). Now, of course I'm not sure about anything myself, but unless you have evidence that these women have been falsely imprisoned, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

[chimp_spanner]

Smokey - Okay I kinda get what you meant in response to my question. Not sure I agree, mind. But there ya go.

Regarding the female prisoners; whether they constitute 0.001%, or 0.000001%...it doesn't matter. Any number of wrongly imprisoned women (or children, or men!) is entirely unreasonable. Further evidence, it seems, that the Israelis just don't regard them as people. They're acceptable percentages to be imprisoned, rightly or wrongly. Acceptable percentages to be killed and classed as collaterol(sp) damage. It's totally inhumane. But for some reason the world seems perfectly willing to rationalise and sanitise the actions of Israel. It's like, yeah 50 civilians died but what can ya do. 50 Americans die, it's the end of the friggin world. Human life is human life ya know.

Really don't wanna see where this all ends up, but yeah...not gunna be good.

[Smokey D]

So you do have proof that these women have been falsely imprisoned, then?

It wasn't that it is an acceptable percentage of imprisoned women, but rather that it is not unreasonable for such a small percentage to be involved in some kind of terrorist action.

[coheneran]

Well, it has been know for children to be used as terrorists, though admittedly prison is probably not the appropriate place for them.

And there are about 1500 women currently incarcerated, last I heard. Out of a female population of approximately 1.5 million, it is not an entirely unreasonable number of suspected female terrorists (something in the order of 0.001% of the general population). Now, of course I'm not sure about anything myself, but unless you have evidence that these women have been falsely imprisoned, you really don't have a leg to stand on.

That depends. If they were imprisoned by Sweden then maybe not, but Israel has a history of imprisoning anyone brown if they happen to be somewhere at the wrong time, or if they are related or associated with terrorists. There's something in Israel called administrative detention, which means they can arrest and imprison anyone they want with no trial and no charges (let alone evidence), and the length of imprisonment is indefinite. So you arrest some protestors, stick them in a prison camp somewhere and then forget about them, that's pretty much it. It's a British invention actually, it's back from the time Palestine was a British mandate.

FIDH (http://www.fidh.org/article.php3?id_article=1894) says: "Women, often times the family members of Palestinian activists, are also imprisoned in extremely harsh conditions."

[chimp_spanner]

About as much proof as I have that they're rightly imprisoned!

Well okay, I don't have any proof either way ;) I'm just saying it wouldn't be entirely uncharacteristic of Israel to be holding a large number of them without even probable cause. If that was 1500 Israeli women, it'd be a different story. That's all I'm saying. I know I don't have all the facts, and I'd certainly acknowledge that some of those women may well be terrorists.

I dunno. It's just messy. Very messy :(

[Smokey D]

Well, that's horrific and should be changed immediately.

But do you have specific proof?

[Surgicalgod]

The death toll in Lebanon is now up to 55 civilians (at 3 am last night), I don't know if that number went up any higher. Now they're attacking the airport again, they just destroyed the main building. The attacks on the airport and unjustified. Hizbollah never used the airport to escape Lebanon or move around it plus they can't because of strict security measures on the airport. Other than that, Hizbollah is known for being a stationary resistance force, that means they don't travel around Lebanon. This also makes the attacks on the bridges unjustified.

Just now, the Israeli forced bombed a mobile phone company, and a power station. I fail to see the strategic cause of such attacks. Israel should bomb the Hizbollah stations that can be eaisly located through their satellite technology.

Israel has gone too far and they need to be stopped. It doesn't matter who started this "war" because Lebanon was never at peace with Israel. I think statements from President Bush like "Israel has the right to defend itself." are only making matters worse. Statements like the latter encourage war and leave no room for peace.

The Israeli ego has to fall back if they really believe in peace like they said before.

We need to see steps from superpowers like Russia, US, France, or England. The only country now to react to the situation is Russia which promised to send someone to act as a middle man between both sides today.

[coheneran]

Well, that's horrific and should be changed immediately.

But do you have specific proof?

I haven't been to the prison camps and counted the women, but I trust that human rights activists involved with the FIDH have. It's not often that human rights watch groups lie about prisoner mistreatment. And frankly, I don't trust Shin Bet, and rightly so.

What's the first step in modern warfare when invading a country?

[coheneran]

As a dog listens to its master.

[chimp_spanner]

Well, that's horrific and should be changed immediately.

But do you have specific proof?

The burden of proof is not on me - I'm not the one holding people prisoner without evidence or trial. This does go on. It is documented. I know this as much as I can thousands of miles away, with nothing but a computer, the internet and a collection of - one would hope - reputable news sources.

And hey if America can do it, (and they are doing it) it's not that much of a stretch to believe the countless reports that indicate Israel are doing the same.

**Edit:

I mean, they themselves don't even deny they have the prisoners. They just say their release isn't on the agenda. 300 youths (I believe that to be a conservative amound), and they're trying to tell us every single one is a potential suicide bomber? Well hey they might well be if and when they ever get released. But for the moment, we all know deep down that's not the case.

[Smokey D]

Israel has gone too far and they need to be stopped. It doesn't matter who started this "war" because Lebanon was never at peace with Israel.

Yes it was.

I haven't been to the prison camps and counted the women, but I trust that human rights activists involved with the FIDH have. It's not often that human rights watch groups lie about prisoner mistreatment. And frankly, I don't trust Shin Bet, and rightly so.

Does FIDH have specific proof that these women are being held falsely, and if so, why hasn't it released it?

[coheneran]

Does FIDH have specific proof that these women are being held falsely, and if so, why hasn't it released it?

You know this isn't how it works. If you don't like my source, get one to support your viewpoint, don't try and undermine my source.

FIDH says:

The most common forms of arrest are:

-Roadblocks, where anything can happen given the highly unpredictable behavior of Israeli
soldiers;

-The invasion of entire towns and neighborhoods through the use of considerable means and forces; the entire population is forced from their homes which are then searched and often vandalized, one by one;

-Arrests at border and airport checkpoints

-Kidnapping.

There are also some cases in this report, here's one:

"Case 1: Ziyad a-Shaludi, reported by B’tselem in its information bulletin from 23 January 2003.

On the afternoon of 7 January 2003, 4 Israeli soldiers entered into the a-Shaludi household in Hebron. They went into the room of Shadia a-Shaludi. She testified, “When the soldiers arrived, one of them introduced himself as Rocky and exclaimed 'Wow!' He asked me in Arabic, ‘How are you?’ He then approached me and told me I was cute. I stepped back. Along with another soldier, they went over to the make-up table and Rocky began reading the names of the different perfumes.” Ziyad a-Shaludi, age 15, the stepbrother of Shadia, who had been sitting on thebalcony, entered and held close to Shadia and his little sister, Nivin, age 8, who was also there. Rocky moved in closer and closer to Shadia so he could touch her face with his hand. She shirked and ran to the bathroom. Ziyad positioned himself between the soldiers and Shadia. Rocky ordered him to get out of the way. Ziyad refused and asked them to leave. Rocky shook him and Ziyad fell into us. He picked himself up and the four soldiers began hitting him. They pushed him out of the room and threw him onto the balcony sofa. One of the soldiers punched him, another was bending his arm backwards and yet another was pulling his hair. He fought back and stood up, but one of the soldiers,pg his hair.rew himn o wearing a helmet, head-butted him, which threw him back against the wall before he landed on the sofa. Once the beating came to a stop, they gagged Ziyad and brought him to a military guard post stationed in a neighboring colony, where they left him for three hours. Then, the soldiers guarding him there began to beat him once again. They refused to remove the hard plastic cuffs that were locking his hands so tightly together that they were turning blue. Ziyad was then brought to a police station. He was detained for 9 days before being accused of having attacked a soldier."

Here's the link to the whole report:

http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2003/ps365a.pdf

[Smokey D]

You know this isn't how it works. If you don't like my source, get one to support your viewpoint, don't try and undermine my source.

As far as I can tell, your source hasn't said anything about these women being falsely imprisoned, only that they are being held.

As for the Israel-Lebanon crisis, things seem to be getting worse literally as we speak. It appears Israel has moved well beyond attacking even nominal strategic targets like the airport and is starting to hit resedential areas (perhaps this is accidental, the report wasn't clear). Needless to say, scary stuff. This is most definitely not the way I was hoping Kadema was going to move forward.

[ringworm]

The Palestinian people don't wish death on Israelis and the Israelis don't wish death on the Palestinians. Both sides want peace. The government of Israel and the IDF however, IMO, do not.
Bull, Peace? Ha.
Each side would love to wipe out or for the other to leave THEIR land both feel they are entitled to.
This is the origin of the conflict over their.

[Dannyboy15]

The only country now to react to the situation is Russia which promised to send someone to act as a middle man between both sides today.

I think they're sending an arms dealer too...

[Reaganista]

superpowers like Russia, France, or England
hahahahaha

[coheneran]

Lol Tway, you make me laugh so.

To quote:

"If peace is what you're after, then let us not decieve,
It will come the day the tanks/settlers return to Tel-Aviv"

[Surgicalgod]

Yes it was.

No it wasn't. there were minor disruptions all along the 6 years of "peace". The situation today shows you that they were never at peace.

hahahahaha

???

A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Criteria for superpower status are described in more detail below.

[coheneran]

As far as I can tell, your source hasn't said anything about these women being falsely imprisoned, only that they are being held.

It's a bit hard to make a statistic of falsely accused prisoners when it's almost impossible for a prisoner to get representation:

•Non-Israeli Palestinian lawyers cannot plead cases before the Israeli military courts.

•All lawyers, whether Israeli or not, are subject to travel limitations imposed by army checkpoints; as a result, it is not uncommon that they are unable to gain access to a prisoner camp or arrive after the hearing…

•Meetings between the lawyers and their clients are not confidential.

•There is no public attorney system being paid for by the community.

•Few prisoners have viable access to an attorney.

•There is a huge disparity that exists between the number of people needing defense representation and the number of attorneys available to meet the demand. We have observed that with the exception of a few individuals, the Israeli bar is completely disinterested in the fate of Palestinians being tried as well as those trials carried out before the military Court of Justice.

So the Israeli lawyers (bar a few exceptions) don't want to represent Palestinian prisoners in the military court, and non-Israeli lawyers aren't allowed to represent anyone in military court. So under these circumstances it's a bit of a toughie to prove your innocence when nobody will represent you.

As for the Israel-Lebanon crisis, things seem to be getting worse literally as we speak. It appears Israel has moved well beyond attacking even nominal strategic targets like the airport and is starting to hit resedential areas (perhaps this is accidental, the report wasn't clear). Needless to say, scary stuff. This is most definitely not the way I was hoping Kadema was going to move forward.

Yeah, it's bad.

http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=129344

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

The situation today shows you that they were never at peace.The logic behind this statement doesn't seem very clear - because they have begun hostilities now they were not at peace before? huh

[Surgicalgod]

Yes because when two countries are at peace, they don't launch a full scale war over a minor act that shakes their relationship. And by the way, no they weren't at peace before. Like I said in my other post, throughout those 6 years, many stands and actions from both sides prevented the formation of peace.

[coheneran]

Dude, I think he knows his country's relationship with the local superpower better than you, no offence intended.

Plus, the fact that there've been like six different governments with varying policies in Lebanon just in the last decade kind of seems like it'd be hard to maintain a peaceful relationship.

Found out today, Hizballah were formed during the Israeli-Lebanese war, they didn't form as a terror organisation to liberate Palestine.

[PepsiMetal]

Bull, Peace? Ha.
Each side would love to wipe out or for the other to leave THEIR land both feel they are entitled to.
This is the origin of the conflict over their.

Actually just about every terrorist organization has said muslims and jews can live together in the same state. However, nobody believes they can live as long as Israel exists. And Israel, as in zionism, not jews.

I'm pretty sure if after WWII, the whole part was just left as Palestine, today there wouldn't be this much violence.

Just found out, Hezbollah have attacked Israeli missile boat, and have caused heavy damage to it. Source (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150885994586&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)

Latest reports say over 55 lebanese civlians have died, and 3 militants.

[Iskandar]

I'm pretty sure if after WWII, the whole part was just left as Palestine, today there wouldn't be this much violence.
Of course not. They'd all be Muslim Arabs. At worst there might be sectarian conflicts.

Then of course the Jews, coming off the Holocaust, wouldn't have a homeland.

[Berner]

I really have to wonder what is wrong with everyone on all sides. You'd think they'd realize that this conflict is only going to cause more conflict.

Israel, while having a right to defend it's citizens and own existence, should know that their response is only causing more sympathy for the group they are trying to punish and a possible backlash from the civilians of Lebanon.

The Hezboullah should have realized that by kidnapping those soldiers Israel would respond like this and kill fellow countrymen, people they claim are the sole reason they are doing what they are doing.

These people all need to really think about what they are doing before they do it. I defend neither side on this conflict. Each are to blame. Of course, it will be the innocent citizens who have to suffer once again for someone's political gains. I'm very sick of things like this going on in that area of the world.

[PepsiMetal]

Berner is right. This will not accomplish anything, only more violence and civilian bloodshed.

[coheneran]

In every war, it's the working classes who pay the heaviest price, and the ruling class that gets off more powerful.

[Smokey D]

No it wasn't. there were minor disruptions all along the 6 years of "peace". The situation today shows you that they were never at peace.

If being at peace means not fighting, then Israel and Lebanon were at peace. No doubt it was a strained peace, but there was definitely no persistant state of war between the two countries.

A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Criteria for superpower status are described in more detail below.

Only the USA can project its will through economic and military means effectively enough to be called a super power, though recent events in Iraq have undermined its ability to do even this. Russia and, more importantly, India and China threaten to re-emerge as superpowers in the near future, but the list you provided is really one of so-called great powers, not super ones.

It's a bit hard to make a statistic of falsely accused prisoners when it's almost impossible for a prisoner to get representation:

So what you're really saying is we should get these people due process, not necessarily release them out of hand.

In every war, it's the working classes who pay the heaviest price, and the ruling class that gets off more powerful.

That's not true at all. In World War II, the ruling classes in Germany, Italy and Japan were overthrown in favour of democratic movements. The changes were even more significant surrounding World War I.

[coheneran]

If being at peace means not fighting, then Israel and Lebanon were at peace. No doubt it was a strained peace, but there was definitely no persistant state of war between the two countries.

Semantically, they have been at war, in the same way that South and North Korea have been at war all this time; there's no physical conflict but it is still a state of declared war.

So what you're really saying is we should get these people due process, not necessarily release them out of hand.

I didn't mean to imply that, my mistake if I did. It was less a suggestion and more an attack on the Israeli establishment and its disinclination to treat Palestinians as more than 2nd class citizens.

That's not true at all. In World War II, the ruling classes in Germany, Italy and Japan were overthrown in favour of democratic movements. The changes were even more significant surrounding World War I.

Class goes beyond borders. That's really one of the biggest points of class struggle, and why borders and racism are an obstacle in class liberation.

[Reaganista]

In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

every other country is laughable when compared to the US.

[coheneran]

every other country is laughable when compared to the US.

Not for long, Fortress Europa, here we come!

[Smokey D]

Semantically, they have been at war, in the same way that South and North Korea have been at war all this time; there's no physical conflict but it is still a state of declared war.

As far as I was aware, there was no declared state of war in the first place. I could be wrong.

I didn't mean to imply that, my mistake if I did. It was less a suggestion and more an attack on the Israeli establishment and its disinclination to treat Palestinians as more than 2nd class citizens.

You didn't really imply it, but that's a far better conclusion to your logic than what you have proposed.

Class goes beyond borders. That's really one of the biggest points of class struggle, and why borders and racism are an obstacle in class liberation.

Yes, and some wars definitely empower more people than they disempower. Some do the opposite.

[coheneran]

You didn't really imply it, but that's a far better conclusion to your logic than what you have proposed.

But it wasn't really supposed to be a sequence of reasoning with a conclusion, it was just an attack on Israeli policy.

Yes, and some wars definitely empower more people than they disempower. Some do the opposite.

Empowerment or not, tens of millions died during the world wars, and 0.0001 (or some close figure to that) were part of the ruling class.

[Smokey D]

But it wasn't really supposed to be a sequence of reasoning with a conclusion, it was just an attack on Israeli policy.

Attacking something without providing an alternative is stupid.


Empowerment or not, tens of millions died during the world wars, and 0.0001 (or some close figure to that) were part of the ruling class.

Tens of millions became democratically free as a result of World War I and II.

[coheneran]

Attacking something without providing an alternative is stupid.

My alternative is a world with no borders and no ruling class in any form.

Tens of millions became democratically free as a result of World War I and II.

And yet it's still the same group of people in the ruling class, and workers are still being sent to stupid wars on behalf of the rulers.

[Iskandar]

My alternative is a world with no borders and no ruling class in any form.



And yet it's still the same group of people in the ruling class, and workers are still being sent to stupid wars on behalf of the rulers.
Yeah but with democracy instead of fascism.

It's definitely a major improvement, even if it's not anarcho-commune utopia.:-/

[Smokey D]

My alternative is a world with no borders and no ruling class in any form.

Well, that's unfeasible given the present situation. Try again.



And yet it's still the same group of people in the ruling class, and workers are still being sent to stupid wars on behalf of the rulers.

No it's not. Instead of fascists and monarchists in government, it's democratically elected representatives. If you can't see the improvement between the two, you need to be shot.

[coheneran]

Well, that's unfeasible given the present situation. Try again.

That's my solution and it is possible, but it depends on people ceasing to listen to the rulers.

No it's not. Instead of fascists and monarchists in government, it's democratically elected representatives. If you can't see the improvement between the two, you need to be shot.

It doesn't particularly matter to me how they gained their power, but of course I acknowledge there is a difference between fascism and representative democracy. Also, my statement applies to the capitalists.

[coheneran]

Checkit, article by an award-winning Israeli journalist, and a good family friend. It's translated from Hebrew, so it's not as good as the original.

Can you really not see?

By Amira Hass

( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/756413.html )

Let us leave aside those Israelis whose ideology supports the dispossession of the Palestinian people because "God chose us." Leave aside the judges who whitewash every military policy of killing and destruction. Leave aside the military commanders who knowingly jail an entire nation in pens surrounded by walls, fortified observation towers, machine guns, barbed wire and blinding projectors. Leave aside the ministers. All of these are not counted among the collaborators. These are the architects, the planners, the designers, the executioners.

But there are others. Historians and mathematicians, senior editors, media stars, psychologists and family doctors, lawyers who do not support Gush Emunim and Kadima, teachers and educators, lovers of hiking trails and sing-alongs, high-tech wizards. Where are you? And what about you, researchers of Nazism, the Holocaust and Soviet gulags? Could you all be in favor of systematic discriminating laws? Laws stating that the Arabs of the Galilee will not even be compensated for the damages of the war by the same sums their Jewish neighbors are entitled to (Aryeh Dayan, Haaretz, August 21).

Could it be that you are all in favor of a racist Citizenship Law that forbids an
Israeli Arab from living with his family in his own home? That you side with further expropriation of lands and the demolishing of additional orchards, for another settler neighborhood and another exclusively Jewish road? That you all back the shelling and missile fire killing the old and the young in the Gaza Strip?

Could it be that you all agree that a third of the West Bank (the Jordan Valley) should be off limits to Palestinians? That you all side with an Israeli policy that prevents tens of thousands of Palestinians who have obtained foreign citizenship from returning to their families in the occupied territories?

Could your mind really be so washed with the security excuse, used to forbid Gaza students from studying occupational therapy at Bethlehem and medicine at Abu Dis, and preventing sick people from Rafah from receiving medical treatment in Ramallah? Will also you find it easy to hide behind the explanation "we had no idea": we had no idea that the discrimination practiced in the distribution of water - which is solely controlled by Israel - leaves thousands of Palestinian households without water during the hot summer months; we had no idea that when the IDF blocks the entrance to villages, it also blocks their access to springs or water tanks.

But it cannot be that you don't see the iron gates along route 344 in the West Bank, blocking access to it from the Palestinian villages it passes by. It cannot be that you support preventing the access of thousands of farmers to their land and plantations, that you support the quarantine on Gaza which prevents the entry of medicine for hospitals, the disruption of electricity and water supply to 1.4 million human beings, closing their only outlet to the world for months.

Could it be that you do not know what is happening 15 minutes from your faculties and offices? Is it plausible that you support the system in which Hebrew soldiers, at checkpoints in the heart of the West Bank, are letting tens of thousands of people wait everyday for hours upon hours under the blazing sun, while selecting: residents of Nablus and Tul Karm are not allowed through, 35-year-olds and under - yallah, back to Jenin, residents of the Salem village are not even allowed to be here, a sick woman who skipped the line must learn a lesson and will be purposefully detained for hours. Machsom Watch's site is available for all; in it are countless such testimonies and worse, a day by day routine. But it cannot be that those who are appalled over every swastika painted on a Jewish grave in France and over every anti-Semitic headline in a Spanish local newspaper will not know how to reach this information, and will not be appalled and outraged.

As Jews we all enjoy the privilege Israel gives us, what makes us all collaborators. The question is what does every one of us do in an active and direct daily manner to minimize cooperation with a dispossessing, suppressing regime that never has its fill. Signing a petition and tutting will not do. Israel is a democracy for its Jews. We are not in danger of our lives, we will not be jailed in concentration camps, our livelihood will not be damaged and recreation in the countryside or abroad will not be denied to us. Therefore, the burden of collaboration and direct responsibility is immeasurably heavy.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

My alternative is a world with no borders and no ruling class in any form.


People naturally cling to borders and their possesive nature leads them to lay claim to pieces of land

your vision of an anarchist future is an inattainable utopian ideal





SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

[coheneran]

People naturally cling to borders and their possesive nature leads them to lay claim to pieces of land

your vision of an anarchist future is an inattainable utopian ideal





SAME AS THE OLD BOSS

If this is how we're gonna do it, fine.

People naturally want to do a lot of things that they don't do. Besides which, I'm not convinced people are as naturally possessive as you say they are.

"A map of the world that does not include utopia is not worth a first glance."

http://www.musicanet.org/robokopp/usa/areyoupo.htm

[shaqadelic]

Hey I saw on BBC that there has recently been strong public demand in Israel for a judicial enquiry on the IDF and the executive branch regarding war crimes and they won't be sastified with an assigned commitee anymore. Can you confirm this cohen?

Also in the BBC report, it was said that the public is starting to shift to a dovish mindset to handle Israel's many foreign affair issues. Do confirm yo.

[shaqadelic]

Well, the BBC report included an interview with Olmert's spokeperson and when directed the question what is his thought on the public's shift prefering negotiation over force, she instantly avoided the question.

And besides I am not surpised if the public starts supporting dovish means cause Israel has been using force for decades and still they haven't solved their problems. Sooner or later, you start to think that maybe your country is doing something wrong.

[SubtleDagger]

Israel has been using force for decades and still they haven't solved their problems. Sooner or later, you start to think that maybe your country is doing something wrong.
Israel has had problems and has tried solving them by force for longer than a few decades. :|

[coheneran]

Well, the BBC report included an interview with Olmert's spokeperson and when directed the question what is his thought on the public's shift prefering negotiation over force, she instantly avoided the question.

And besides I am not surpised if the public starts supporting dovish means cause Israel has been using force for decades and still they haven't solved their problems. Sooner or later, you start to think that maybe your country is doing something wrong.

We've solved more of our problems with force than the Palestinians have. That's the main problem, really. Did you like the Amira Hass article?

[shaqadelic]

We've solved more of our problems with force than the Palestinians have. That's the main problem, really. Did you like the Amira Hass article?

Yes. Nothing to comment really other than a big :( at the state of things. Can you confirm the BBC report?

Israel has had problems and has tried solving them by force for longer than a few decades. :|

More than half a century...

[coheneran]

I live in Britain, but if you scroll through Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/) that might bring you something of interest. Can you provide a link for the BBC article please? It sounds interesting.

[shaqadelic]

Well I know that you live in Britain. I was actually hoping you can contact any of your relatives or something in that manner. I saw it on TV, couldn't find a corresponding article on the Net.

I will check the link soon.

[coheneran]

Remember when the Palestinian militants kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit few months back and apparantly ignited this whole conflict? Well, it turns that the day before, the IDF kidnapped two Palestinian civilians from Gaza City, Osama and Mustafa Muamar, and there was no report of it anywhere. I just found out about it in indymedia.

Here's the article, it's a bit short and doesn't expand much. I guess it's more of a commentary than a report:

http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/09/350645.html

[Surgicalgod]

And that's exactly why everyone blames us for starting conflicts.

[semi]

wait where does coheneran stand now? he sounds so different to what he did at the start of this thread.
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12452935&postcount=7

[coheneran]

I'm in the same spot, maybe a little to the left.:p

No, this discovery only re-enforces my anti-zionist view.

[semi]

oic i thought you were zionist :S.
the whole world thinks that Israel is poor little David with his sling and stone and that Palestine is mighty and cruel Goliath with a mechanized army. In fact it's the other way around, The reality is that only a tiny fraction of Palestinians want to keep fighting Israel, and this really annoyed me:
And all that the boys back in Israel wanna do is party and go to university, but they have to give two years of the end of their childhood to military service
as if you are saying why should they be inconvienienced when all they want to do is have a good time.
and whats happening is fine as long as that palestinian dirt doesnt come die anywhere near them with asuicide bomb so they can party in peace.

but then the way you have been posting recently confused me and made me hate you less. now i dont know at all.

[coheneran]

as if you are saying why should they be inconvienienced when all they want to do is have a good time.
and whats happening is fine as long as that palestinian dirt doesnt come die anywhere near them with asuicide bomb so they can party in peace.

Everyone just wants to have a good time and live their lives, why should they be inconvenienced by some bastard power-hungry politicians who need war to justify taking power? I'm talking of the Israeli and the Arab politicians, by the way. Well, it applies to all politicians, really.

[semi]

icic
oh well i misunderstood a lot then.

[White Rabbit]

Remember when the Palestinian militants kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit few months back and apparantly ignited this whole conflict?

They were in enemy territory in lebanon when caught , and what do you think they were doing.....


handing out cookies?

[coheneran]

They were in enemy territory in lebanon when caught , and what do you think they were doing.....


handing out cookies?

You've confused me. Elaborate.

[White Rabbit]

Wasnt Gilad kidnapped in lebanon?

[coheneran]

Wasnt Gilad kidnapped in lebanon?

No. He was captured in an outpost just outside the Gaza border, on Israeli land. The two Palestinian brothers were arrested (when the IDF does it, it's an arrest, but when Palestinians do it, it's a kidnapping, apparantly) in a raid in Gaza City, in Palestinian territory. The only difference between the two events is that the IDF captured civilians while the Palestinian militants captured a soldier.

[Smokey D]

Can you prove that the Israeli government acted unreasonably in arresting/kidnapping these two brothers? I mean, technically the onus is on the Israelis to prove guilt, but are we sure that these people have not commited or were not planning a crime which would make their detainement a proper arrest, not merely a kidnapping?

[coheneran]

I can't prove it at this moment, because I have to go take the dog out to the park. I'll have a gander through the aether later on though.

[The End]

ugh. "Israel."

[coheneran]

Ugh, "nationalism."