BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,Hezbollah, killer of civilians
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 04:58 PM

Not only did the forces of Hezbollah kill Israeli civilians indiscriminately, they hid behind Lebanese civilians to do it. Such a display of Arab courage is bound to be inspirational if it is trumpeted enough. When Hitler used this technique, it was called The Big Lie.
The majority of people are not hoodwinked by these lies, but in Europe there are many leaders who are simply ignoring the facts. Meanwhile, it is turning out that as in so many cases, the Arab side and their press paritisans simply lie and fake the pictures.
I have seen an Indian movie where the Muslim terrorists kill a member of their own side in order to create a 'victim'.

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

Its been said before.

Israeli soldiers hide behind armored tanks.

Hezbollah hides behind the walls of their homes.

Who is more cowardly, Guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 06:11 PM

"The makings of a compromise, however, emerged from all-day meetings in Beirut, the Post said, citing senior officials involved in the negotiations, and Prime Minister Fouad Siniora scheduled a Cabinet session today for what he hoped would be formal approval of the deal. Hezbollah indicated it would be willing to pull back its fighters and weapons in exchange for a promise from the Lebanese Army not to probe too carefully for underground bunkers and weapons caches, the officials said.

Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, had insisted that any disarmament of his militia -- even in the border area -- should be handled in longer-term discussions within the Lebanese government, according to government ministers. But the Lebanese Army, backed by key political leaders, refused to send troops into the just-becalmed battle zone until Hezbollah's missiles, rockets, and other weapons were taken north of the Litani River, the ministers said."

The war will restart thanks to the Hezbollah trash.

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

AND, brought to you by the folks who support Hezbollah:

"By Israel News Agency Staff

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"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:45 PM

"The idealogies concerning Vietnam and the mideast are very different (religeous incited idealogy vs political)"

OK, just to be naughty then :-) there is not a lot of practical difference in effect between the two...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 08:53 PM

"Do people that fire from behind women and children classify as bullying militarist thugs?"

Well, if they are sitting in their lounge room with their families when some bullying better militarily equipped militarist expansionist thugs come over the hill... I'd say no....

but then what you say "people that fire from behind women and children"

might equally apply to the Israeli 'settlers' - even from before the UN 'recognised the state of Israel' when the previous Arabic dwellers tried to get their 'traditional' farms back...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:02 PM

"France was heavily involved there and nearly went bankrupt trying to prevent the Northern communist regime from taking over the South. Our involvement [in Vietnam] was NOT an attack"

... just that the 'provoking attack' by the North on the US ships in a certain Bay was later acknowledged as a 'staged' one, just like 'Germany vs certain other European Contries'....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:15 PM

There already is a Palestinian state. It's called Jordan.

One of the big asymmetric arguments is why it's not okay for Jews to live in their ancestral homeland among Arabs and Muslims, but in Islamic / Arab states it's okay to forbid freedom of religion to the extent of capitol punishment should a Muslim convert to another faith.

This lopsided viewpoint is typically taken as a 'given' among the Israel baiters and bashers.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:34 PM

I have 'ancestral homelands' in Germany, England, Ireland and Scotland.

So now WHO's living on MY land?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:36 PM

SHEEP!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 09:41 PM

close - political sheep...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:35 PM

"even from before the UN 'recognised the state of Israel' when the previous Arabic dwellers tried to get their 'traditional' farms back..."

Can you finish this or is your attention span too short?

Did you read the Arabs or Jews first thread? Jews were Arabs fuckhead. Muslims were Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:40 PM

Something tells me that the next time Hezbollah starts something they will be dead meat. The Israelis showed great restraint and they will not hesitate to flatten the place next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Aug 06 - 11:52 PM

It's not easy to "flatten" a place. Not easy at all. That has just been demonstrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:09 AM

Did Israel forcibly evict these 600,000 Arabs from their homes in 1948? Or did they leave voluntarily? This is the salient question.

Here is a collection of historical quotations from Arab leaders, relating to these Palestinian refugees:

On April 23, 1948 Jamal Husseini, acting chairman of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee (AHC), told the UN Security Council:

"The Arabs did not want to submit to a truce... They preferred to abandon their homes, belongings and everything they possessed."

On September 6, 1948, the Beirut Daily Telegraph quoted Emil Ghory, secretary of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, as saying:

"The fact that there are those refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously..."

On October 2, 1948, the London Economist reported, in an eyewitness account of the flight of Haifa's Arabs:

"There is little doubt that the most potent of the factors [in the flight] were the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive urging all Arabs in Haifa to quit... And it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

The Jordanian daily Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949:

"The Arab states... encouraged the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies."

On June 8, 1951, Habib Issa, secretary-general of the Arab League, wrote in the New York Lebanese daily al-Hoda that in 1948, Azzam Pasha, then League secretary, had...

"...assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade... Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property, and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states."

On April 9, 1953, the Jordanian daily al-Urdun quoted a refugee, Yunes Ahmed Assad, formerly of Deir Yassin, as saying:

"For the flight and fall of the other villages, it is our leaders who are responsible, because of the dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs... they instilled fear and terror into the hearts of the Arabs of Palestine until they fled, leaving their homes and property to the enemy."

Another refugee told the Jordanian daily a-Difaa on September 6, 1954: "The Arab governments told us, 'Get out so that we can get in.' So we got out, but they did not get in."

Former Prime Minister of Syria, Khaled al-Azem, in his memoirs, published in 1973, listed what he thought were the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948:

"The fifth factor was the call by the Arab governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and leave for the bordering Arab countries... We brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees by calling on them and pleading with them to leave their land."

In the March 1976 issue of "Falastin a-Thaura," then the official PLO journal, PLO spokesman Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") wrote:

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."

British Foreign Office Document #371/75342/XC/A/4991 records:

"Following a visit to refugees in Gaza, a British diplomat reported the following: 'But while they express no bitterness against the Jews... they speak with the utmost bitterness of the Egyptians and other Arab states: 'We know who our enemies are,' they will say, and they are referring to their Arab brothers who, they declare, persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes."

For the million and a half Arabs still in Israel I guess the Israelis fucked up, or are the Arabs all in prisons? 70% of Palestine became Jordan and the arabs were welcomed as Jordanians no other Arab country accepted them and 860,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries and their property expropriated (some $30 billion by estimate)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:16 AM

Clearly, the Arab goverments at the time miscalculated tremendously and their policy was misguided and proved to be a complete failure. They underestimated the effectiveness of the fledgling Israeli military.

I doubt that anyone would make that mistake now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:23 AM

Why is it not easy to "flatten" a place? Where has it just been demonstrated?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:26 AM

reply to slag
Keep taking the tablets bubba!
hugo

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Slag
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:59 AM

As opposed to KoolAid? In regards to those who think Israel should be denied their homeland please reference the posting "SRO at Eden's Gate".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 05:50 AM

Slag
The homeland that is Israel was once Palestinian...they were expelled by force and terror and quite understandably they would like their land,homes and villages etc returned to them.The last time I looked the waging of ethnic cleansing was a crime.

The plight of the Palestinian people was one of the first issues on the agenda of the then new UN in 1948 and it is still the major flashpoint in the Middle East.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 08:09 AM

"Why is it not easy to "flatten" a place? Where has it just been demonstrated? "

Well you see, there is just this bloody possibility that Iran...

Say, let's start moving all those nice valuable archeological items out now... before they start to glow...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 09:44 AM

It's not easy to flatten a place because people are surprisingly resilient, and the number of targets is almost infinite.

It has just been demonstrated in Lebanon.


Yes, a few places have been "flattened", more or less, in recent history. Hamburg. Dresden. Much of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo. Most of Stalingrad in 1942. But it ain't easy...unless you use nuclear weapons. Then it is pretty easy, but the repercussions may not be so good.

Countries normally invade other countries looking for a quick, decisive victory. What they usually find instead is a long, painful occupation that slowly bleeds them dry and finally destroys their will to remain there.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:36 AM

Ok let's see the truth of what LH is claiming.

Japan and Germany were occupied after WW2. Neither resulted in a long painfull occupation that bled anybody dry. In fact, how many people are driving Mercedes or Volkswagens or Hondas or Lexii?

Someone tried to flatten Lebanon and failed? Israel was trying to knock out Hezbollah rocket launchers. If they wanted it flat, it would be flat.

LH seems to have fallen prey to propaganda fed to him by MSM.

"This is the first time anyone has stood up the Israel"
This is the first time Israel has shown restraint in an armed conflict.

He admires Castro, He admires Hezbollah but I presume he doesn't want to live in Cuba or the Middle east. A very conflicted person. Like a teenager that hates his "controlling" parents but admires Rap Stars that use drugs and try to kill each other.

I am no lover of the Jews. My father hated Jews, although one of his best friends was a Jewish electrician named Eli. My Dad grew up in a time when there was an extreme bias agintst Jews. The International Jew is responsible for all of our troubles" Henry ford wrote several books condeming the International Jew and even owned an anti Jewish newspaper.

Even after this upbringing I can detect bullshit and all this stuff about how admirable Hezbollah is and how the Jews are bullies is just bullshit that liberal, idealistic jello brains want to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 10:50 AM

To Old Guy
It seems to me that any whisper of criticism of Israel and the critic is painted as Osama Bin Ladin's brother by the Zionists who rush to defend Israel' actions in Lebanon and Gaza.

Some of the most trenchant critics of Israel's aggressive policies towards the Palestinians and Lebanon are Jewish...I am thinking of people like Noam Chomsky,widely regarded as one of the foremost intellectuals in the world, John Rose the British/Jewish writer and Miriam Karlin again a British/Jewish actor.

Ethnic cleansing and the indiscriminate bombing of children is wrong and a war crime.
ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:18 PM

If "Ethnic cleansing and the indiscriminate bombing of children is wrong and a war crime.", why does Hezbollah do it? Why does Noam Chomsky condone it?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: Old Guy
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 12:36 PM

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/21/may03/chomsky.htm

The hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky
by Keith Windschuttle

"Today, Chomsky’s hypocrisy stands as the most revealing measure of the sorry depths to which the left-wing political activism he has done so much to propagate has now sunk."

Noam Chomsky was the most conspicuous American intellectual to rationalize the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The death toll, he argued, was minor compared to the list of Third World victims of the “far more extreme terrorismâ€쳌 of United States foreign policy. Despite its calculated affront to mainstream opinion, this sentiment went down very well with Chomsky’s own constituency. He has never been more popular among the academic and intellectual left than he is today.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Hezbollah Winning?
From: GUEST,hugo
Date: 17 Aug 06 - 01:46 PM

Chomsky is no apologist for any form of terrorism! He has however ,forensically pointed out the state terrorism that his own country ,the USA has been involved with for many decades.
To take a few examples:

The CIA sponsored govt of Dr Allende in Chile in 1973 which led to the deaths of thousands of opponents of the military...many more were tortured,others thrown from helicopters into the ocean ,while others fled into an uncertain exile. Thank you Mr Kissinger and Richard Nixon.

Then there was the US attack on Vietnam in which around a million Vietnamese were killed and a country destroyed..it still hasn't recovered and the USA still has not compensated the Vietnamese for the death and destruction it caused.

Then there was the US trained death squads that roamed Central America in the mid 1980s killing tens of thousands of innocent people....we are seeing similar shadowy tactics in Iraq today....courtesy of the School For th Americas which trained a generation of torturers in Georgia,USA.

Saddam Hussein was a close friend and ally of the USA for many years right up until the end of the war against Iran .

There are others almost too numerous to mention.
hugo

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

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: 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 - 06:11 PM

The man knows his goobers, however.

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 - 06:19 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: 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 - 06:45 PM

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

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

"Get some perspective."

Eat shit.

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 - 08:49 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 - 08:58 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.