BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:36 PM

Thanks for the link Bobad that shows the Israeli soldiers were actually inside Israel when they were kidnapped and murdered.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: freda underhill
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

dianavan - thanks for the link to that article - you answered a question I've been asking myself since the start of this war - "who was invading whose territory when it started"

what the hell were Israeli soldiers doing in Lebanon? of course they were kidnapped - they were conducting a military action on foreign territory. There is no righteousness here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

Maybe five if they start now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:33 PM

What? only TEN years?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:25 PM

It's like this, Foolestroupe. The guy that starts the fight seldom gets to say when the fight ends. A swings at B. Then A says, "Fight's over!" Oh yeah? You think that?

Hezbollah started a war with Israel. Israel will finish Hezbollah. Period. AND, I don't blame Israel one friggin' bit, because if they don't do it today they will be dealing with the same shit ten years from now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:22 PM

Yes it is Ron. The part that sticks to social services didn't start a war that has resulted in about 1000 dead people.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:22 PM

HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATES EMBARRASS THEMSELVES.
Out of Proportion
by Joshua Brook

"Amnesty International has jettisoned international law entirely; instead, the group seems to be defining a war crime as any military action of which Amnesty International disapproves. Its website blithely condemns the Israeli targeting of bridges, roads, power stations, and the Beirut airport as "blatant violations of international law, which include war crimes." This accusation makes no reference to the principle of proportionality or, indeed, to any international legal instrument whatsoever."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:17 PM

"The Hezbollah leader is a pampered arsehole who gladly sends other people's kids off to die on his behalf. "

One could also say that about the leaders of US, Britain, Australia, France, Israel, Iran, etc ...

You want the same treatment for them all too? Or not...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:16 PM

Sorry, Peace--Hezbollah is at least as much a social services organization as a terrorist group--and is seen by most poor Lebanese Shiites as the former--and a long-time bulwark against Israeli aggression. Israel's destruction of bridges, roads, the Beirut airport--and infrastructure all over Lebanon--("to stop resupply of Hezbollah")--and the accompanying "collateral damage"-- has done nothing but strengthen the perception of these--and other--Lebanese--that the strong bulwark is desperately needed.

The crowning irony, as I understand it, is that Olmert, having no military background, felt he had to raise the level of response to Hezbollah provocations in order to defuse right-wing political opponents--to be able to pursue his plan---of further Israeli unilateral withdrawals.

But by this stalemate he may well lose all political power.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 09:13 PM

BTW.

Yes, Israel has a good army and airforce, and they will hold their land despite being outnumbered 50 to 1. And guess what? Ya don't have to like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:52 PM

Hezbollah, which is the topic of this thread despite the attempts of some folks to change it are a terrorist organization who started a war and now have folks whining on their behalf because they got their asses kicked. The Hezbollah leader is a pampered arsehole who gladly sends other people's kids off to die on his behalf. I hope his head is removed from his body when he is at last killed. That way, he can spend eternity wondering how many of the 72 belong to his immediate family.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM

"Currently, more than 600 Palestinians remain in administrative detention. Most of them are held in Ofer Military Camp (in the West Bank) and the Ansar 3/Ketziot Military Camp in the Negev desert, where conditions are extremely harsh.

Amnesty International opposes the practice of administrative detention, and calls for an end to the practice."

Amnesty International considers that the mass arrests and detentions carried out during March and April 2002 were arbitrary.

http://www.amnesty.org.il/reports/MDE_4.html

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 08:00 PM

"As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage?"

"182 Palestinian prisoners and detainees have died in Israeli prisons since the beginning of the occupation as a result of torture or the lack of medical treatment."

What punishment do you suggest for espionage?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 06:48 PM

LH Islamic militants have stated their goals are to destroy America and the West not just Israel(I can only assume West means Europe in general) If you think this is unlikely, think again before it is too late you are an infidel.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,walt
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 06:09 PM

did you know that the zionists are so concerned that they are losing public support across the world that they have set up a specialised website as an instant rebuttal so that its supporters can refer to it for bits of information produced by the govt or its allies.The Israeli govt has appealed for people to use it!! sad but true!
walt

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:30 PM

bb - Its pretty hard to argue with someone who keeps changing the topic.

You were talking about prisoners and then you change it to the number of civilian casualties caused by suicide bombers.

If you want to play that game, the number of Lebanese and Palestinian casualties far exceed the number of Israeli casualties.

You are running in circles. Any way you look at it, Israel has killed far more people in the Middle East than anybody else and the number of prisoners in their jails far outstrips the number of Israelis that have been imprisoned. The Israeli jails are full to the limit and they are inviting private contractors to run them.

As far as the thirteen Jews who were executed in Iran, what punishment do you suggest for espionage?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 04:14 PM

To imagine that any movement can successfully establish a worldwide Islamic dictatorship is simply ludicrous. It's like imagining that the Jehovah's Witnesses...or for that matter, the Buddhists, or the Hindus can take over the world.

It ain't gonna happen. Why are you spreading fear about something that simply cannot possibly happen, Dave?


It makes you sound about as irrational as you believe Hezbollah is.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:23 PM

The following is an abbreviated article from a military analyst.

Keep in mind exactly what Hezbollah is. It is a radical Islamic organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel, and the eventual establishment of a world-wide Islamic dictatorship (in cooperation with its patron, Iran). Hezbollah has taken control of about a third of Lebanon, and runs it as a religious dictatorship, a branch office of the Iranian religious dictatorship. Hezbollah's power base is the 1.3 million Lebanese who are Shia Muslim (like most Iranians are). The Shia comprise about 35 percent of the Lebanese population, and have long been the least prosperous third of the population. Hezbollah not only helped defend Shia interests during the 1975-90 civil war, but gave out tens of billions of dollars in Iranian money over the years. In return for all these favors, Hezbollah asks only for obedience, and volunteers for its trained terrorist force of several thousand fighters. Pro-Hezbollah Shia also dominate in the Lebanese army, a force put together since 1990 with the assistance of the Syrians. The Syrians are also allies of Iran, and consider most of Lebanon as part of Syria. France assembled Lebanon in the 1920s, after World War I, from bits of the recently disbanded Turkish empire. Historically, "Lebanon" was a string of coastal cities in what is now Lebanon. The French added some more territory inland, territory that had traditionally been considered part of Syria. The Syrians have not forgotten, neither have the Lebanese.

As part of the 1990 peace deal, brokered by Saudi Arabia, several divisions of Syrian troops were stationed in eastern Lebanon. These troops were necessary at first, but not for the last decade or so. The Syrians stayed to back up Hezbollah, make money by running the local economy, and because there was no one available to force them out. That changed last year, when years of anger at the Syrian occupation erupted into violent public demonstrations. The Syrians took the hint, and left. The 65 percent of the population that is not Shia (and is mostly Christian), are really unhappy about Syrian influence in Lebanon (the the murder of several Lebanese leaders over the last few years), and the continued existence of Hezbollah. But the Lebanese don't want another round of civil war, just to disarm Hezbollah. Since the Syrian army was sent packing, negotiations were under way with Hezbollah to disarm them, and return "Hezbollahland" to Lebanese control.

Hezbollah was split on the disarmament issue. Many Lebanese Shia wanted to become part of Lebanon, not a state-within-a-state. But the more hardcore Hezbollah believed in the goal of destroying Israel and establishing the worldwide Islamic dictatorship. The hardcore guys pulled off the July 12th kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers. That kind of operation was a violation of the unofficial deal the Israelis and Hezbollah had worked out over the past five years. That raid indicated that Hezbollah was no longer in control of all its fighters.

The Hezbollah attack left Israel with two options. They could either launch a massive invasion, and overrun all of Lebanon and Syria, or do what they did (to encourage the Lebanese and UN to deal with Hezbollah.) The trouble with the second ("small war") option is that it takes longer, and that leaves Hezbollah intact for longer. But the first ("big war") option would leave thousands of Israeli soldiers dead, and involve the occupation, for months, if not years, of Lebanon and Syria. That strategy would involve handing Lebanon back to its elected government with the understanding that there would be no more Hezbollah. But there would still be the a Shia minority, and within that minority there would still be Shia radicals who took orders, or at least direction, from Shia radicals in Iran.

Syria has to be overrun because, if you don't, Hezbollah can retreat to there from occupied Lebanon and set up shop in Syria. Take Syria and you eliminate any refuge (except Iran, where at least the senior Hezbollah people would flee to). While the Syrian military is no pushover, their armed forces have fallen apart since the end of the Cold War, and Soviet subsidies. Syria is a dictatorship run by the Alawite minority. The Alawites are, technically, a Shia sect, and for that reason, Iran subsidizes them. The majority of Syrians are Sunni Moslems. The Alawites have continued to run the nation because they established an efficient police state, and they get enough money from Iran to keep the ramshackle thing going. But the Israeli army could put the Alawites out of business in short order, and turn the place over to the UN for democratic elections (the first in nearly half a century). That would put Sunni Arabs back in power, and eliminate support for Shia Hezbollah.

There's one catch with Syria. Over the last two decades, Syria has invested some of its scan resources in one segment of its armed forces. As a result, Syria has a force of several hundred ballistic missiles, all of which can reach deep into Israel. Syria also has chemical weapons (nerve gas, and others). An attack on Syria puts Israel at risk of taking a few hits from Syrian ballistic missiles armed with chemical warheads. While Israel has its Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, a dozen missiles fired at once could overwhelm it. The risk is several thousand dead Israeli civilians, maybe more. But maybe none, if Israeli plans to take out the Syrian missile forces work. But in the aftermath of this Summers fighting, Israeli planners may have a new respect for possible deceptions and techniques for hiding missiles from attack.

The "big war" strategy has other costs. Mobilizing the entire Israeli armed forces means shutting down much of the Israeli economy, because so many key people are reservists. There is also the risk, however slight, of other Arab states declaring war on Israel. This risk is slight because those other Arab states are Sunni Muslim, and welcome the removal of Iran backed Shia entities (Hezbollah and Syria). But the risk is there.

There's always risk, it's a question of which one you estimate will do you the most good. Israel still has the "big war" option available, and Lebanon and Syria know it. If the small war option doesn't work out, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Iran know what comes next.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:15 PM

Newest "peace" song, at present anti-war demonstrations and pro-Arab rallies:


"All we are saying,
Is Kill All the Jews."

(repeat)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:12 PM

Odd how most people only recognize (or at least object to) casualties on their own side of the imaginary line that separates them from "others", isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 03:01 PM

"According to B'tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinians between September 29, 2000, and November 30, 2002, is 640. Of those, 440 are civilians, including 82 under the age of eighteen. Some 335 were killed inside Israel proper, the rest in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians also killed 27 foreign citizens during this period. "

"From the signing of the Oslo agreements in 1993 until the beginning of August 2002 we know of 198 suicide bombing missions, of which 136 ended with the attackers blowing up others along with themselves."

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:20 PM

"182 Palestinian prisoners and detainees have died in Israeli prisons since the beginning of the occupation as a result of torture or the lack of medical treatment."

http://english.aad-online.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=849

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:26 PM

Free dianavan's mind!

"At least 13 Jews have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution 19 years ago, most of them for either religious reasons or their connection to Israel. For example, in May 1998, Jewish businessman Ruhollah Kakhodah-Zadeh was hanged in prison without a public charge or legal proceeding, apparently for assisting Jews to emigrate.7 "

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

"a nuclear weapons state in the Middle East "

And that is one of the reasons why it still is (much to your consternation, it would appear) a state in the Middle East.

"a tendency to use extreme violence towards its neighbours."

Only in defense, when threatened or attacked by it's neighbours.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 01:23 PM

Free Vanunu!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:58 PM

What Vanunu did was to reveal to the world that there was a nuclear weapons state in the Middle East with a tendency to use extreme violence towards its neighbours.Many suspected that Israel was a nuclear state but Vanunu confirmed all the suspicions.It has also been revealed that both the USA and the UK helped Israel acquire these weapons ...no wonder the neighbouring states are deeply suspicious of both states.
12 years of solitary confinement ...and to come out sane and still prepared to speak out against nuclear weapons makes Vanunu a kind of hero...and he should be allowed to leave that prison which is Israel.Thee is a right of return but no right to leave.
Free Vanunu!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 12:52 PM

no one won.
both sides were itching for a fight and wanted an excuse.
and both sides gladly accepted a ceasefire as the war was getting them nowhere -although possibly Nasrallah came out with more prestige.
in the middle east (still depends on the long term outcome).

from the US standpoint it wasnt just a dress rehearsal for Iran.
it was an attempt to neutralize Hezbollah and reduce any risk to Israel
if there were to be an attempt to take out Irans nuclear sites, which personally I doubt there will be as it would have to be a massive strike accompanied by ground troops - and the US is already overextended.
(even in the US this would still require building support for such an action which I doubt would happen - as the shock of 911 has worn off and the Iraqi WMDs (the main pretext) never materialized.)

In any case Iran could respond by disrupting oil shipping in the persian gulf and world oil prices would double. What the war demonstrated was the massive military advantage doesnt always guarantee victory - especially in days of cheap missile technology.
The Iranians could also use their highspeed torpedoes - knockoffs of the Russian Schkval which can go at 300km/hr underwater - to which the re currently is no easy countermeasure - not just to threaten shipping but also the US navy. (I wouldnt be too overconfident in the US navy's ability to detect enemy vessels - after all one of the carriers bumped into an Iraqi fishing boat last year).

Im not a fan of Irans ruling junta but the US would be better off in getting international cooperation at isolating Iran in trade - especially the oilindustry parts and supporting the opposition in Iran. Even if Iran were to get nukes what is the big deal. After all China and the Russians had them for years and we lived with it. Even Pakistan has the bomb and theyre an ally (if you can call it that).
Guess who was widely in favour of the Iranian nuclear program - Kissinger - and Wolfowitz - but that was back in the seventies and when Kissinger is asked about it his response is 'they were our allies then'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 11:28 AM

What did he do that was heroic and how did he survive if the jails are so bad. Breaching government secrets is treason. Why wasn't he executed?

Issam Makhoul, head of Israeli Communist Party and a former member of Knesset, calls John Crossman, Vanunu "not a traitor," but "an Israeli hero."

Yeah, Commies know traitors from heros.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 18 Aug 06 - 02:30 AM

Mordechai Vanunu served 18 years in an Israeli jail for confirming that Israel was a nuclear weapons state. He had been kidnapped by Israeli agents from Rome.

He served almost 12 years in solitary confinement.

When he was eventually released after serving his time he was still refused permission to leave Israel.

He has renounced his Israeli citizenship and the Jewish religion and has been "adopted" by an American couple.

He has been ordered not to speak to the press and is living in sanctuary in a church annexe.

He has been threatened with death by Zionist extremists.

This man is a modern day hero .He should be allowed to leave Israel but the zionist state wants to make his life a total misery.
Please dont tell us about Israeli jails.
Free Vanunu!
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 11:09 PM

If Dianavan thinks Hezbollah is so admirable and what Iran is doing is so just, let her go to Iran and write something against the government there.

No one would have to endure her crybaby points of view thereafter.

Maybe prisoners are treated better in Iranian jails than they are treated in Israeli Jails

She is the one lacking perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:38 PM

I was not addressing Peace, directly but responding to his comments.

If "eat shit" is the best he can come up with, I can only say that Israel deserves better. I am absolutely sure that there are better ways to make a point. Emotional outbursts of a personal nature only expose the poster as unable to think clearly about the issues.

We are all entitled to our opinions. I am allowed to criticize Israel, the U.S. or any other government. Israel is not holier than any other nation or morally superior to any other nation. To invade a country on the basis of two captured soldiers is ridiculous and would not be tolerated if it was done by any other nation. By Israeli logic, the Palestinians should have invaded Israel long ago.

It was never about saving the Israeli soldiers. Israel used them launch an invasion that was planned long ago. The Zionists with the help of the U.S. and British are hiding behind innocent Jews throughout the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:03 PM

Nothing to be sorry about. Not to worry.

I get tired of the same old same from someone who seems to hate Israelis so much, but has nothing bad to say about a terrorist organization that kills Israelis, Spaniards, Brits--well, damned near anyone they like (or don't like, rather), because they are so hard done-by. They are, IMO, pawns in the game and Iran and Iraq pull their strings. It has nothing to do with the Lebanese people. It is about creating instability and creating discord. However, they messed with the wrong dog. They have decided to pull the tail and now they need help letting go of it. I'd guess that 400 Hezbollah folks have been killed. Too few by thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:58 PM

Sorry, my mistake then. I had a similar phrase in one of my posts and thought that was your response to it. Once again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:49 PM

The remark was from Dianavan and I have asked her not to talk with me on threads. The 'eat shit' was for her. What's it has to do with you I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:42 PM

Peace:"Get some perspective." "Eat shit"

I guess that was aimed at me for my second last post. If you disgaree with me, fine. But 'eat shit' is not an argument. It is also oddly out-of-place with your handle / nom-de-plume. Shouldn't you change your handle 'peace' to 'eat shit'? Have you ever seen me tell you to 'eat shit' (your own or anyone else's) just because I don't always agree with your opinions?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:12 PM

"Get some perspective."

Eat shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM

If this was a dress-rehearsal for an attack on Iran, I hope they learned their lesson. With or without a nuclear arsenal, the Iranian Army is not to be taken lightly. I hope this, at least, slows the U.S. and makes them think a little bit. The U.S. (and Israel it seems) grossly underestimate the power of their enemies.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:57 PM

the reasons behind the attack are more complex..
essentially it is a proxy war with The Iranians and Syrians supplying Hizbollah, and the US helping Israel on the other side.
According to Seymour Hersh latest NewYorker article, an intercepted Hamas communique, stated that since the ceasefire by Hamas since it came to office was achieving nothing it was time for action.
It looks like both sides have been preparing for a fight.
On the US and Israeli side, it is a test in possible preparation for knocking out Iranian nuke sites, from the Iranian side it is a test asymetric guerrila missile defence (and judging from Israels inability to win decisively it was successful)
(see technologyreview.com missiles of august)
from Hizbollahs point of view, they come out as victors - at least in the Arab world, and with more power and popular support in Lebanon.
Although its questionable that they gained much other than widespread destruction of Lebanon.
Ultimately there are no victors though, it will probably lead to a more hardline Netanyahu govt in Israel, who will need to come up with a better response to Hizbollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:40 PM

"Soon, it's 8 x 365 = 2920. And 730 kidnapped."

Compared to how many prisoners in Israel?

Seems to me Israel has been jailing Palestinians for a long time.

Just how many do they have? Of course, they don't count because they're Muslim. At one point, it was estimated that 40% of the male population of Palestine had been imprisoned by Israel. Pleas to the international community have fallen on deaf ears.

Those that have returned from Israeli captivity tell tales of torture and most return disabled for life. This has been going on for years! ...and yet when Hezbollah captures two Israeli soldiers they cry foul and respond by bombing Lebanon.

...and you call Hezbollah and Hamas aggressive when they retalliate and then you say they started it.

Get some perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Nick
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:39 PM

"Hezbolla's assertion of a great victory over Israel and the "destruction of Israel" are absurd. Their mighty missles weren't as effective as a few motivated suicide bombers. They had virtually no guidance and 90% landed in open spaces. Pathetic"

I thought you'd be glad most of the missiles fell in open spaces, rather then on houses and densley populated places like the IDF bombs and missiles?


"Jerusalem----February 7.....In response to Iran's best-selling newspaper announcing a competition to find the best cartoons about the Holocaust, the Israel News Agency launched an SEO - Internet search engine optimization marketing contest to prevent Iran news Websites from reaching top positions in Google"

Iran's action in this regard is reprehensible. Disgareeing with someone's politics is one thing, but deliberately poking fun at their suffering is horrible. I wonder how their (Iran's) one Jewish MP feels?
I think it would be sufficent to block these cartoons (if they are ever written) from appearing. I think it'd be only fair though to block cartoons like the one equating Mohammed with a suicide bomber as well (eg. like the ones the Danes printed).

In the aftermath of the tsunami that killed 200,000 people in Indonesia, I saw a little nes insert that said it all. while on the front page of the paper, the headlines proclaimed that the world had already pledged some millions in relief aid for victims of the disaster, on the inside pages, a few inches of news column related how the Kremiln had approved the year's military budget at some $400 million (or billion, I forget, but a a fortune anyway). I guess the US military budget would have been comparable that year. So, we give a few hundred million to helping people, saving lives, and billions to developing better ways to destroy them.

BTW:
Another typical typo from whatever gremlins upload this stuff to the thread: the sentence that reads "But the facts and figures you'd demand would fill a book and I just have time to write it right now" should read "I don't have time to write it right now" obviously.

Once again, forgot to put my name (real name, not a nom-de-plume, by the way) to my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:13 PM

As usual in any crisis, the Middle East rumor, prevarication and excuses mill has been working overtime. A canard circulated by supposedly respectable people claims that the Hezbollah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers was "legitimate" because the Israeli patrol had entered Lebanese territory. So let us be absolutely clear about this: Certainly Hizbollah's attack broke the United Nations rules in southern Lebanon--a "violent breach" of the Blue Line, it was called by Geir Pedersen, the senior UN official in the country--and was bound to unleash the air force, tanks and gunboats of Israel on to this frail, dangerous country".

The source of the above quote is none other than Robert Fisk, who is not suspected of any Zionist sympathies. Even Fisk understands that the Hezbollah, who are allowed by the Lebanese to represent them, committed a clear act of aggression.

A second excuse that has been circulating is that the Hezbollah and Israel are morally equivalent, because the Israelis hold Lebanese prisoners for "no reason," as hostages to be traded. The prisoner whom the Hezbollah want to retrieve apparently is Samir Kuntar. Kuntar has been jailed in Israel since a 1979 attack in the northern town of Nahariyah, in which he entered an apartment and murdered three family members and an Israeli police officer. There is no moral equivalence between imprisoning the murderous Kuntar and kidnapping soldiers or civilians who are going about their business.

A third excuse that has been circulating is that the Hezbollah attacked a "legitimate" target - soldiers. This is very confused and confusing. If the Hezbollah are allowed to attack soldiers, then Israel is at war with Lebanon, and Israel is allowed to retaliate against any and all targets that it considers to be strategic. In any case, the kidnapping was accompanied by a rocket attack on Israel. Rocket attacks are aimed at civilians and are not "legitimate."

Less controversial but more confusing fog surrounds the nature of the missiles or rockets in use by Hezbollah. An Israeli "Saar-5" missile cruiser was hit by an Iranian Fajr missile. It is not clear if these missiles were fired by Iranian crews operating in Lebanon, or by Hezbollah trained in the operation of these missles. It is not clear (to me anyhow) if the reference is to the sophisticated naval missiles developed by Iran, or to a truck mounted Katyusha like rocket, also called "Fajr." Both have been supplied to the Hezbullah by Iran The nature of the rockets that hit Haifa, killing nine people is also in doubt. These are not Katyousha rockets. They are variously identified as "Shaheen" or "Shihab" missiles, but those have a range of up to 1,500 kilometers and clearly are not what struck Haifa. Israeli sources claim that fragments of the rockets indicate that they are of Syrian manufacture.

Much of the Arab world is still of the opinion that this "incident" will end like all the others, in an exchange of prisoners. In Asharq Al Awsa, Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed writes:

It is likely that after the military operations, Israel will release a thousand Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in return for the release of its three soldiers. All parties will then announce their victories. I hope that then you will look carefully at the situation and whether it was a victory bearing in mind the number of victims, the suffering, the politics and the damages.

If that happens, then of course it will be a victory for the Hizbollah and Iran. President Ahmadinejad is determined to wipe out Zionism and Israel, and he will fight Israel to the last Lebanese, so it would be pure profit. Likewise Hassan Nasrallah will claim a victory. Nobody else will get any victory. However, Israel has upped the ante. Defense Minister Peretz and PM Olmert have both declared that Israel will not stop until the Hezbollah is disarmed and the Lebanese army is deployed along the border with Israel.

The Jihadist forces backed by Iran have clearly hijacked the Palestinian issue and many other issues in the Middle East, as David Brooks notes in the New York Times. They have also hijacked the Lebanese government. Therefore there is no way forward for peace or for Lebanese freedom or any other desirable goal as long as the Hezbollah and the Hamas remain in control of the destinies of Lebanon and Palestine, allowing Iran and Syria to dictate the agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 07:01 PM

Old Guy: "The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorism� of United States foreign policy"

This comment on Noam Chomsky is supposed to show him to be heartless and completely out-of-touch with the 'American' psyche. First: if we only ever said what was popular with everyone, we might as well give up and ever hoping to say anything that was true. It might not be popular with American people to start comparing their 9-11 dead with the Third World poor who've died as a result of deeply unjust trade rules that are pushed in tandem with US foreign policy. Noam Chmosky is taking a big risk in even daring to talk about them in such terms. But I think what he's being trying to do is to bring a sense of perspective to the issue that has been lacking because of the emotions raised. 3,000 plus dead is a lot of people, but even though the relatives of those dead might not like to hear it in the same breath, hundreds of millions have died in the Third World thanks to the globalising forces of US foriegn policy. The real emotive problem that they have with it is a deep down and unconscious racism: along the lines of 'one American is worth a hundred slant eyed foreigners'. Therefore one American death is a catastrophe while thousands of foreigners barely rasies an eyelid. (By the way for teh record, I think one American death is as big a disaster as one death anywhere).
Now probably some of you will imediately jump to the attack and demand I produce a raft of facts and figures ("Unless I can put my hands in the wounds in His side, I will not believe") and fair enough, we'd all like facts and figures all the time to back things up. But the facts and figures you'd demand would fill a book and I just have time to write it right now. It's unlikely any of the Doubting Thomases would be happy with the numbers anyway, and would just say 'this or that report was flawed, innaccurate etc.,'
So I'll limit myself to just a few words on it: Someone further back this thread posted a list of countries the US has either directly attacked or whose democracies it has interefered with since WW2, all with disastrous consequences for the people in those countries. But it didn't even start there with the Munroe doctrine - it goes back further. Think of the Phillipines during the Spanish-American war, just over a hundred years ago, etc., etc., It is beyond a shadow of doubt that the US HAS invaded these countries, propped up tin-pot dictators (Saddam was only the latest in a long line around the world) who tortured and terrorised their people into cowed obedience. Now this obedience wasn't just to their tin-pot dictator, but through him, to his American overlords and their economic ideologies. The whoe, point of invading these countries was to bring 'development'. This translates as forcing those countries to open up their markets to corporations that already had a vast headstart, destroying local industry and markets in the process. Enforced monoculture etc., etc., The irnoy is that model hasn't even worked in the US - yes, the country is fabulously wealthy, but the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Alongside them are the thousands of trailer trash, minority groups etc., struggling to get by on $7 an hour shit jobs and gratuities if they're extra nice to the customer (so their bosses don't have to pay them decent wages). Then these corporations show their loyalty to their slaves by downsizing and throwing thousands of them on the breadline just at the very moment they're making record profits. The corporation then relocates to a 'third world country' where they suck the blood dry of the next round of vict- I mean, employees. It was called 'development theory' back in the 1940s when words like 'colonialism' and imperialism were no longer popular. Nowadays, it's cunningly and simply called 'democracy'. Now, who can argue against 'democracy'? Power to the people and all that. Except when you realise that what Bush et al are exporting as 'democracy' is the failed exploitational ideology of the greedy corporations (the ones who really drive White House foreign policy). Finally South America has woken up to the disaster that neo-liberal economics has brought to the region, and are finding a voice of resistance in people like Hugo Chavez, one of the first S.American leaders to actually be doing something to improve the lot of his people. He gets elected democratically, and what does the US do? Does the White House nod approvingly that the people of Venezuela used their vote to choose their leader, as the Arabs of Iraq are called on to do? Not at all! Deeply annoyed that the people didn't vote correctly, and horror of horrors, elected someone with a sense of social responsibility, the White House actually tried to get rid of him in a Coup d'Etat! That alone, if nothing else, makes a mockery of their claims to champions of democracy. If they'd succeeded, there'd be another Pinochet on the puppet throne torturing and 'disappearing' his serfs as big US companies plundered the country and its oil. The US has used terror, torture, threats, bullied you name it, to accomplish its own personal aims. Currently, depsite all Bush's rhetoric about any country harbouring terrorists being terrorists themselves, he continues to give shelter to Luis Posada Carillos, the Cuban terrorist who blew up an airliner because Luis is anti-Castro. So it in fact if the terrorist is on the side of the White House, then it seems he is re-defined as not being a terrorist. That, in essence, is the very definition of terrorism. There's no other way to see it. The US administration (and most republican administrations - eg Regan) are terrorist in nature. Someone back along (Old Guy, I think said "The only people that admire a terrorist organization are terrorists.May a Kaytusha fly up your ass. Or are you launching them?" That makes Old Guy a terrorist. The Bush administration are in fact, basically nothing better than a terror organisation. The only difference between them and say, the Taliban, is that they have the gloss of respectability (based on a highly compromised and suspect election) tons of money and 'wearing suits'. But make no mistake, their aims (reshaping the Middle East, and later, the world to suit their ideology and agenda) and methods (we'll talk to you if you agree to do what we want, but if you refuse we'll bomb you to smithereens) are no different. This places all of us in a quandry! What are we supposed to do when Bush urges us to help in the fight against terrorism, when he himself and his pirate crew are some of the world's top terrorists? Is he telling us to try and stop him?
They remind me sometimes of the Martians in those old B-movies who used to invade Earth. They'd arrive here in their shiny spaceships with their vastly superior technology, talking a gobbledigook no-one could understand, then lay waste to everything round them while saying they come in peace (remember Mars Attacks? 'Don't run away! We come in peace!' ZZap! Psssh! Pow! Don't run away! We come in Peace!') No one and nothing could stop them until they ran out of steam, and by the time they were finished the world had usually been made into a cross betwen a vast rubbish dump and graveyard. There's something deeply Freudian about those movies really - they're not about aliens, they're about history. It made you wonder what was the point of ut all, since by the time they'd won the battle and conquered the earth, there was nothing left to rule over. A bit of a pyrrhic victory really, but unfortunately we all have to suffer for it.

And all for control of a dirty black liquid that drives the wheels of the US economy and keeps it on the move! If some of the billions and bilions of dollars gobbled up in destroying so many lives had been invested instead in finding alternatives to oil and improving lives (how much - or little - did the Katrina victims get, I wonder)...!

By the way, just one more disclaimer: since I have criticised the US, some may accuse me simplistically of being anti-American. To that, I say b******t. I know there are many Americans deeply opposed to the disaster course the White House and its various appendages are determined to drag them. To them, may hat goes off, moreover as they are voicing their opposition at a time when to do so is to draw potential harrasment (you think those wiretap and surveillance laws are all about terrorists, do ya? A 'terrorist' is anyone who disagrees with the Presidnet or people like him!) on themselves. These are the real heroes of our age. It's much easier just to roll over and give in to the bullying of the White House and say all the PC stuff, but it's also the cowards' road.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:45 PM

THAT, Walt, is the smartest thing you've said in over a month. Keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: bobad
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:44 PM

"What's more, a substantial segment of the Israeli population is opposed to what's been going on."

Can you let us know exactlty how many are encompassed by that "substantial segment?"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:19 PM

However, Doug, you raise a very interesting point that I think should be taken further. Indeed Israel took a sledge hammer to a peanut (I'da said walnut, but the Carter reference has affected my metaphors). And was that response merited?

Hezbollah only killed eight soldiers and kidnapped two others. Hey, what the hell's eight soldiers' lives? They are just soldiers and they get paid to take the risk. But let's assume Israel lets it pass and just continues on as if nothing happened. Soon, it's 8 x 365 = 2920. And 730 kidnapped. Yeah, just eight soldiers, and then the suicide bombings, and just a few rockets per day, nothing substantial. Yeah. Israel, the aggressor nation. Attacking those poor folks with Hezbollah. Jeeze, I feel tears in my eyes . . . .

(Doug: none of that is addressed to you. Just a general statement to keep the terrorist supporters focused on their love of the peace-seeking Hezbollah organization and their hatred of Jews, Zionists and people like me who are neither but still support Israel.)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:18 PM

Some of the most trenchant critics of Israel's aggressive policies towards the Palestinians and Lebanon are Jewish.

What's more, a substantial segment of the Israeli population is opposed to what's been going on.

I guess they're all self-hating anti-Semites, huh?

***

And Douggie-Boy:

You're not worthy to lick President Carter's boots. What the hell worthwhile have you ever done?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:11 PM

The man knows his goobers, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 06:08 PM

Not according to our illustrious ex-president Carter, Peace. In a interview with Der Spiegel in Germany he referred to Israel's unwarranted attack on Lebanon. I guess that means Israel started the war. After all, Jimmy Boy's got himself a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing "peace" to the Mid-East. (A pause while somebody asks, "What peace")

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 03:50 PM

"It has just been demonstrated in Lebanon."

Some stuff fell down, no doubt. Imagine what Lebanon would look like if it had been Israel's intent to destroy as many buildings as possible. Do you think Beirut would look as good as it does? The missile, artilery and bomb damage was restricted and contained to Hezbollah targets. And as we know, Hezbollah started the war.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 03:47 PM

correction to typo error in above
second paragraph should read

The CIA sponsored a military coup which overthrew the elected govy of Dr Allende....
hugo