BS: The right to attack - what gall!

Subject: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:31 PM

American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to, and this assumption is implicitly woven into statements by the US media all the time....such as the following statements today quoted regarding Robert Gates, President Bush's new choice to take over the Pentagon in the place of Rumsfeld:

"Gates did not completely rule out an attack on Iran, which insists its nuclear program is only for power generation, but said: "I believe that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort."

"He also said he did not favor an attack on Syria, another foe of the United States in the Middle East"

****

Well. What collosal gall and hubris is demonstrated by these kind of statements, often repeated on USA media. What other western country's media openly discusses the possibility of "attacking" this or that other country at some point? Who else would have that much gall? That much nerve?

Hitler had that much nerve, and we see where it eventually got him.

It's a kind of Orwellian media technique, this constant speaking of the readiness to attack this or that other country which has somehow failed to meet American requirements or demands in some way. By talking about it all the time, one normalizes the idea in the minds of the American public. They begin to think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to openly threaten other countries with attack, label them as "evil", identify them as "a foe of America", and speculate about when it would be most advantageous to invade them!

Un-frikkin'-believable. This is criminal behaviour on the part of the USA, and would not be tolerated by the rest of the world, had the USA not the military and financial power to ignore what the rest of the world thinks most of the time.

This kind of arrogance, this kind of placid acceptance of the right of a major power to commit full-scale aggression at will against any small, weak target of choice is almost without precedent in modern times, unless one compares it with the actions taken by the fascist nations, Germany, Italy, and Japan in the late 30's and early 40's...and the action taken by Russia in the winter war against Finland in the same historical period.

All those actions, by the way, were opposed and condemned by the USA at the time, and regarded for what they were: naked, illegal aggression by the large against the small.

The USA has thus become the very thing it promised to fight against back in those days. And so, much of the American public apparently takes such rhetoric for granted, as the next possible criminal assault upon another nation is openly discussed in their media.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:43 PM

Good Lord, they're gonna attack Gaul?
That will piss off the French.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:44 PM

Sorry. I misread the title.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Rapparee
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM

It's called "pre-emption" and is part of the Bush doctrine of "Getting Along Well With Others."

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:48 PM

"By talking about it all the time, one normalizes the idea in the minds of the American public. They begin to think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to openly threaten other countries with attack, label them as "evil", identify them as "a foe of America", and speculate about when it would be most advantageous to invade them!"

We don't all think it is acceptable. Lots of us are apalled at the current regime. That said, attacking countries that displease the govt is not new nor is it exclusively American, even among the "good guys" whoever you think of as being in that category.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:50 PM

Well - if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked. Y'all just don't have the firepower or the delivery systems to get it there. America does - so it has to step up to the plate.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,KB
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:54 PM

I was the guest, forgot to sign. Maybe I should just join up so it's not an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:58 PM

Once upon a time the Saharans pissed us off and we sent beavers, about fifteen of them.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Emma B
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:59 PM

Peace - they would have to get past this guy first

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:15 PM

"Well - if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked."

Please clarify - you are being ironic, are you not? Surely you are not saying that there is something intrinsically good about someone in the Middle East being attacked? Otherwise, it seems to me that you're making a good argument as to why it should be left up to the Canadians.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:25 PM

Sorry Wesley but it has been established, I think, that it was not necessary for anyone to 'step up to the plate' at all, & it certainly wasnt a case of HAD to...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shaneo
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:30 PM

Never underestimate the stupidity of the masses ?
You get the government you vote for.
Little Hawk that was brilliant.
Every time George Bush opens his mouth
he thanks God and say ''may God bless America''.
Well it's a pity he does not follow God's word.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:42 PM

Paul - It's not really "stepping up to the plate" - that was sarcasm. What our government is actually trying to do is act like the biggest bully in the school yard, boldly walk up and steal the plate, and then ignore anyone who objects.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:56 PM

Ah, now I see....beg pardon, but your sarcasm went over my head in that instance. Apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 04:56 PM

What about the nuclear non proliferation treaty? Should we just sit back and wait for some other country to stop that in Iran? Should every country that wants nuclear weapons go ahead and develop them? What would be the future of mankind if we allowed that to happen? Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Should we mind our own business and let them do it?

If a big dog comes at me with his teeth bared and growling, should I wait until it bites me before I blow its damned head off?

I abhor what Bush did in Iraq. He called it a preemptive strike. Bullshit, there was never a threat to us, and what he did was just like what Japan did on 12/7/41. Now, any country in the world can invade any other country and say, "America did it, why can't we"?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:17 PM

Please clarify - you are being ironic, are you not?

Well, at least you did consider that as one alternative, memyself.

Mind, it goes both ways. Only the other day I misread a perfectly serious post by an American as being tongue in cheek.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM

" if we left it up to the Canadians no one in the Middle East would be attacked." Yeah. ;-) Exactly. If we left it up to any sane and responsible administration, no one would be attacked.

Kendall, the "big dog, teeth bared and growling" that you speak of is the USA, not Iran. Iran has not "vowed to wipe Israel off the map", they simply didn't say that.   And no matter how many times that myth is repeated by the USA media and political people who attempting to arrange the next war it will not change the fact that Iran NEVER made that statement. They would be delighted if Israel vanished off the map...just as Israel would be delighted it they did, but they have never said that they intend to take military action to make it happen. To clarify what I am saying, please read this article by Gwynne Dyer, a well-known Canadian political columnist, as he provides some background on Ahmadinejad's misquoted statement, which was deliberately taken out of context and used to further neocon political aims...

Read this for what Ahmadinejad really said, and in what context...

And this...for another excellent article on Iran and the USA

Isreal, meanwhile, HAS tried to wipe half of Lebanon off the map twice now. Isreal has launched pre-emptive attacks on its neighbours. Iraq has tried to wipe Iran off the map (with USA encouragement and indirect assistance). The USA and the UK have, to all intents and purposes, wiped Iraq off the map as a viable country, and the USA periodically threatens to do the same to Iran and Syria.

So who are the real aggressors here? Who are the dogs who not only show their teeth but go straight for the jugular?

These aggressors' routine is always to claim that they are protecting themselves, if not the entire world! That was Hitler's claim too, when he attacked the Jews, the Poles, and everyone else that he attacked. He was, so he said, "protecting" the German nation and saving the world from Jews, Communists, and other such terrible people, who would surely destroy us all if he didn't get them first. Ha. Ha.

The same logic is used by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Amos
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM

Little Hawk:

Israel's attack on Lebanon was provoked, you may recall. Granted, the response was disproportionate and perhaps unwise, but it was not unilateral.

A

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:58 PM

I don't buy that, Amos. Israel was waiting eagerly for such provocation, in my opinion. Such provocations can always be found in such a situation...but if they are not found, then they can be arranged or manufactured (like the Tonkin Gulf incident that never happened).

No such situation in the Arab-Israeli conflict is EVER unilateral, because both sides have been offering each other various provocations on a pretty steady basis ever since the conflict began. There have been a thousand excuses on both sides for starting a major war. Hell, ten thousand. The responsibility is still upon the one who sets that major war in motion...and he invevitably will do it at a time of his own choosing, when he figures he can gain the most out of it.

The Israeli government, in this last case, figured wrong. They miscalculated.

That war was not fought over a handful of killed or kidnapped Israeli soldiers. (in my opinion) They were the excuse for starting it...and a good way to get the Israeli public upset enough so they would support it.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:02 PM

Kendall said "If a big dog comes at me with his teeth bared and growling, should I wait until it bites me before I blow its damned head off? Even if Iran HAD vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" that 'big dog, teeth bared & growling' isnt coming at the U.S. (or the U.K.) but at Israel...& yes, the concept of Nuclear Deterrence, might, it is to be hoped, caution them against doing that, but sadly, Bush has wasted his chances...after the debacle in Iraq, & the insufficiently well-pursued venture in Afghanistan, to attack Iran, even conventionally, would, without any shadow of a doubt, cause such an upsurge in terrorist attacks against the U.S. & its interests as to be beyond the worst fears of anyone. The Islamic world really would then feel that the war was against every Muslim nation, & react accordingly.

I hope I'm wrong, but I really do see more '9/11's & 7/7's in the future if we are not VERY careful.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:03 PM

A peculiar thing about nuclear warfare. The country that strikes first is most apt to be the victor (such as that may be). Several nations around the globe are so equiped and here's what they get for their troubles: other countries nuclear weapons aimed at THEM! The have just joined the Great Standoff! What fun! Now enter Iran which appears to be desperately racing to join the party. But wait! Do they want to play "Great Standoff" too? I DON'T THINK SO! No, Their avowed and stated aim is to erase Israel and the Great Satan ( Farsi for USA) from the map. But according to LH and like minded little bird brains (note to BB brains, see Big Brain, Little Brain thread) that's OK. Why is that OK? Do you share their views? Do you hate Jews? What's the matter? Are their noses to big for you? Maybe it's because they have inter-married with monkeys? Thank God Darwin proved that we only descended from monkeys. Those Jews! And yeah, who cares if terrorists, kamikazes and the like attack the US. I mean, that has to be our fault, eh guys? And speaking of Hitler, I seem to remember that he was a product of France's wisdom for punishing Germany after the Great (and Glorious) War (WWI) and suck-ass Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. I love Churchill's great (And Glorious) speech where he asks his brothers across the sea (uh, that would be the USA, you know, the Great Satan) to come on over and bail England's butt out of the sling at the cost of our blood, sweat, and tears. And "What Gual!" You said it. The Vichy French. At what cost to Americans' blood sweat and tears to arrange De Gual's triumphant (and Glorious) entry into Paris? Window dressing. What keen memories. Yeah. I agree, there is a lot of gall but on who's part. I agree with Mr. Bush. Nations like individuals have a right and even a duty to defend their life and to remove a credible armed threat. I don't care if you like it or not. That's the way it comes down. Capitulation, slavery and bloody warfare seems to be Europe's stock and trade. No thanks. Stop inviting US.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:09 PM

eh?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,memyself
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:15 PM

Little Hawk recommends a column by Gwynne Dyer, as he or someone else did recently in another thread. I haven't read this particular article, but in a general way, I heartily join in any such recommendation. Gwynne Dyer is knowledgeable, intelligent, hard-nosed, and looks at each situation he tackles on its own merits, without applying some extraneous political outlook to it, other than a flexible combination of liberalism and pragmatism. (Note to American right-wingers and international neo-cons: "liberal" is not a dirty word).

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shields Folk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:25 PM

I have a god given right!

OK, and which god gave it to you?
Have you got written evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:38 PM

Just read the Gwynne Dyer articles, Slag.

Iran did NOT "vow to wipe Israel off the map". They didn't, they didn't, they didn't, and just because American media keeps saying endlessly that they did, you believe it. Well, you're mistaken. I can't blame you, it's all you ever hear on your TV, right, so it must be true, right? ;-)

Why would you think I hate Jews? I do not hate Jews at all, I like Jews. I hate aggression, and the USA, the UK, and Israel have been practicing aggression lately in the Middle East. I am not taking any racial, religious or cultural sides in this, I am simply opposing people who launch wars of aggression. Those people in recent times have been Saddam (in '91), Bush, Blair, and Ehud Olmert...in that order.

This is not a case of me supporting Muslims and opposing Jews. It is a case of me opposing aggression.

And what is your problem about the French? They fought valorously in 1940, but they were badly outmaneuvered in a tactical sense, and the Germans quickly beat them. Fine. Is that any reason to despise the French nation? I don't think so. The Germans would have beaten any conventional army on the field of battle in western Europe in 1940, Americans and Brits included...they were just on a roll at the time, had the tactical air force and tank divisions to do the job, and they were employing new and tremendously effective blitzkrieg tactics that caught everyone else flatfooted.

The French have always been a courageous nation, they've always been good fighters, and if you don't think so then you've been hoodwinked by popular mythology.

The people in Vichy did what they had to do, militarily speaking, during the German occupation of France. They dealt with reality. They were between a rock and a hard place, and they did what anyone in their position would have done. They waited it out.

As for De Gaulle, he was a pretty good battlefield commander, even if he did have an ego the size of Paris... ;-)

But read Gwynne Dyer. I'm sure he's better informed than I am, because it's his job to be.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:43 PM

There's always provocation when there's a border with people on each side armed to the teeth and distrusting each other. It's just a question of whether the people involved want to use it as a reason for escalating the conflict.

Look at this year's Israeli assault from the Lebanese side, and the skirmish that was used to justify the war was one that had been started by Israel. And the rocket bombardment that was presented as the cause and justification of the Israeli attack actually followed the start of air strikes by Israel.

Looked at from the Israeli side, there had been some previous rockets, and there was always the potential for more (as was demonstrated in the events that followed the Israeli attack). And the Israeli incursion into Lebanese soil that set off the initial skirmish was only a couple of feet.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

Exactly. On a border between 2 sets of deadly enemies, there is always provocation, as McGrath says. Hell, we could have had a hundred full-scale renewals of the Korean War by now. The reason we haven't is, both governments decided not to do that. A sensible decision on their part, I'd say.

Israel was looking for an excuse to go into Lebanon, and it never takes long to find one. The USA is looking for excuses to attack Iran too....or at least they were. It's getting harder and harder to do that now, given the public's disillusionment with the failed war in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:54 PM

From Aljazeera

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map                  

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.>

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:58 PM

They are expressing their opinion about the matter. Read the first Gwynne Dyer link, please. If you're not willing to, I will block and paste it here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:59 PM

I did.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shields Folk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:01 PM

Shit man, I'm western imperialist scum and I can see Israel are a problem.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:02 PM

You mean denial is river in Egypt?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:14 PM

Really? ;-) Hmm. What countries are you figuring to conquer first, Shields Folk? Not Canada, I hope! If so, be advised that we may not look so tough but looks can be deceiving. There are a lot of beaver in those woods.

************

I think, bobad, if someone wanted to characterize another country (say...the USA? or Iran? Or North Korea? Or South Korea? Or China? Or Russia?) as a dire threat...and if they were willing to search through every word of every speech on every occasion by the leaders and major spokespersons of that country for any snippet or phrase that would suggest that that country might want to attack someone...

Then they would find it. Big deal. The USA has uttered so many blatant threats against various other countries on so many occasions by now that their clinging to this one verbal straw of Ahmadinejad's, spoken in a speech to a bunch of students, in order to depict his country as being willing to engage in mass suicide in order to strike Israel is simply pathetic.

But people buy it. On the basis of one idle, ill-considered phrase spoken by one politician, people are willing to start planning a pre-emptive war that would end up killing hundreds of thousands of people in all probability.

Well, I bet there are Iranians who buy the exaggerated "Great Satan" rhetoric too. After all, there are some fools everywhere, aren't there?

It is really quite foolish to imagine that Iran would fling some nukes at Israel, because the Israeli and American response would destroy Iran. The Iranians are not a nation of halfwits or lunatics....but American propaganda would wish them to be thought as such, so it can justify launching another unprovoked war.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:14 PM

"Why would you think I hate Jews? I do not hate Jews at all, I like Jews. I hate aggression, and the USA, the UK, and Israel have been practicing aggression lately in the Middle East."

I will believe that when I see you posting as much and as vehemently about terrorist factions that attack innocent Israelis.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:18 PM

"Waist deep in the Great Big Muddy", pdq? ;-) Which river are we talkin' about?

Anyway, it's all about oil. There's lots of oil in Iran, and Iran is right between a network of other vital oil regions. It's the most strategic piece of real estate left in that region that the USA has not bought out or invaded yet.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:22 PM

Ahmadinejad hopes to see a day when there won't be the name Israel on the map.

Bush/Blair, in fact any number of people, would hope to see a day when there is no "North Korea" on the map. The same way there is no USSR on the map these days, no matter how hard you look.

Many people in Scotland, in Ireland, in Wales and in England, for that, matter, look forward to a day when there will be no United Kingdom on the map.

These hopes do not necessarily be taken as indicating an intention to unleash a war of annihilation upon the areas of the planet under consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

When I am living in a town where everyone already hates rapists, Peace, I do not waste my time writing about how awful rapists are.

No one likes terrorists. At least, no one that I know or ever come in contact with likes them or anything they do. Criticizing them, therefore, is akin to saying that water is wet.

It is popular sacred cows that I go after, powerful hypocrites who hide behind a false mask, not dirty little criminals that everyone hates already.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM

The reason that oil is important is that oil sales bring wealth, wealth buys power, power destroys the enemy.

It is one of the great tragedies of alltime that oil money is used to buy weapons of great destruction rather than build hospitals or raise the standard of living in oil-rich nations.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM

You and Little Hawk are playing a game of semantics.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:32 PM

QUOTE
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:31 PM

American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to, and this assumption is implicitly woven into statements by the US media all the time...
UNQUOTE

... and US citizens WONDER why many in the rest of the world think the USA is a just a bunch of dumb stupid, selfish arseholes?

ROFL...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:34 PM

Couldn't agree more with that, pdq. This present society is squandering its future by using oil for the most foolish and wasteful of purposes.

But profit is profit in the corporate world...so who cares, right?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:37 PM

Getting back to my original question, what should we do about these "Rogue nations" that are trying to develop nuclear weapons? Do we just let them? Forget who said what, or who didn't say what, answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:42 PM

IMO most countries of the civilized world would breathe a sigh of relief if Iran's nuclear capability were to be eliminated, even though they might say otherwise publicly.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:02 PM

Most countries of the world would breathe a sigh of relief if everyone's nuclear capability were eliminated, and if pre-emptive wars were not launched by anyone. But that's not going to happen.

My definition of a "rogue country" is one that viciously attacks either some other country or countries....or large numbers of its own people.

There are by that definition a number of rogue countries out there right now, but Iran is not one of them.

Actions speak way louder than words. The USA, Iraq (under Saddam), the UK, and Israel HAVE attacked other countries in recent times, and Saddam attacked many of his own people as well when he was in power. The Khymer Rouge attacked their own people. Those are rogue countries.

Iran does not qualify as a rogue country at present. They qualify as a country that will not do what the USA wants it to, and simply surrender. That does not make them a rogue country, it makes them an independent country.

If I were the leader of Iran, I would eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, just to completely deprive the USA of any of its phony excuse for marketing another war. However, I doubt that the powers that be in Iran would let me do that...my career would end quickly, undertaking such an initiative. ;-) No country will willingly give up its nuclear power plants and its nuclear program once it has one. Would you? NO, you wouldn't. End of story.

Asking them to give up their nuclear programs unilaterally is like them asking you to give up yours unilaterally. Absolutely r
ridiculous. Only the terminally vain can ask such things of another nation and imagine that that nation will bow down and say "yes".

The Iranians have never claimed the right to build nuclear weapons, and no one has proved that they are doing so, they have claimed the right to have a nuclear power program...and they have that right.

This is a manufactured crisis, just like the manufactured Weapons of Mass Destruction gambit that was used to launch the Iraq War. That was a lie. This is the same lie again, the very same gambit, but in a different place. How many times are you going to swallow the same lie?

The real threats in this world are made by the people who carry OUT those threats. Those people, so far, have been Saddam, the USA, Israel, and the UK, but not Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:07 PM

I would also include North Korea in my previous comment.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

What about a rogue nation that is planning to put in place a whole new generation of nuclear weapons?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:24 PM

Of course the world would be a safer place if no one had nuclear weapons but as this seems to be unrealistic for at least the near future I somehow feel safer with them in the hands of countries like the US, GB, Russia, China etc. rather than countries like North Korea and Iran. I don't know why, it's just a gut feeling.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:43 PM

Hey, Little Fascist Johnny wants Australia to get Nuclear Power -

Holy Shit, now I'm worried...

{:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:50 PM

Nothing to see here. Move along . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:57 PM

Countries like the US and the UK which never ever attack any other country.

After all Iran (Persia at the time) has quite a record. We should never forget Darius (549–486/485 BC) and his attempt to invade Greece...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:09 PM

... which led to the downfall of Turkey...

the breakup of china,

and the overthrow of grease...

























when the waiter slipped...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:15 PM

Crank the volume. Grease NEVER fell.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: pdq
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:04 PM

All Gall is divided into three parts: Charles D', bladder and stones.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: kendall
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:12 PM

The USA is catching a lot of hell these days, and some of it is justified. However,let's not forget all the good we have done in this world, like saving Australia from the Japanese, England from Hitler, and Canada certainly enjoys the protection of this country. Sane arguments accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:23 PM

And then again, I could be wrong. BUT I DON'T THINK SO! Haven't read the Gwynneth Paltrow link yet but I'm sure he must be the fount of all wisdom--- but I WILL reserve judgment until I have read it. No LH, the Iranians aren't mad and they aren't stupid. They aren't so stupid as to commit a naked act of war against the US. They do, however, have a vast cadre of TERRORISTS and a certain amount of plausible deniability, to carry out their aims---As they are doing right now in Lebanon. They are actively involved in their expressed goal (regardless of what Mr. Gwynne Dyer may have to say on the subject). Footnote: Appeal to authority is one of the informal fallacies.

Ever since the Grand Mukti (sp?) of Egypt (whose grandson? nephew? was Arafat) met and confered with Adolph Hitler in regards to the "Final Solution" the Jews have been hard up against it. And the Koran makes provision for and encourages lying with the infidel dogs if it suits their ends. Infidel dogs, that would be you and me and all the other swine eaters. Less then human, you and I.

Don't you understand that these people are praising their god and strapping high explosives onto their CHILDREN. They ARE blowing up innocents. Their targets ARE innocents. It's to provoke TERROR. Get it????? Israel is their focal point and first consideration but they have a soft spot in their hearts (sic) for YOU TOO! They won't forget to take care of you if they can---by what ever means they can. You know, the Communists preached the inevitability of the dialectic and that the ends justified the means but if they had one tenth the dedication and commitment that the Islamic Fascists have we'd all be living in a Marxist Utopia right now or perhaps in some Gulag near the Arctic Circle. Wise up people. There is real evil out there and they are proving it every day.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:41 AM

Yes, kendall, the USA has done a number of good things also in its past history...as have many other nations...and those other nations have also done some bad things in the past. And none of it should be forgotten. I haven't forgotten either the good things or the bad things that the USA has done, I assure you.

However, it's the present situation that mainly concerns me.

Slag - Regarding Iran's support for terrorist groups that are fighting Israel...well, yeah! What do you expect? Look, there is a very complicated situation going on in the Middle East and everybody around there is involved in it heavily and all kinds of clandestine stuff is going on, and everyone has people they like to send support to, people they like to see suffer a hit, people they pay off, people they spy on, people they counterspy on...it's endless. Iran assists Hezbollah, for instance. And why would they not? The USA is assisting Israel. The UK is assisting whoever it wants to. Hezbollah has a legitimate cause from the point of view of Iran, so of course they are assisting them. That's just reality. It isn't any more despicable or praiseworthy than the USA's support to various shadowy fighting groups, such as their support, for instance, the to forerunners of the Taliban, the Mujahedin in the past or their support to Christian Lebanese factions who are against Hezbollah. Everyone secretly funnels money and arms to any paramilitary force out there that is fighting a common enemy. That's a fact of life. The fact that the Iranians are doing it doesn't make them any worse than anyone else who is doing it. Blood is on everyone's hands. Don't think it's not.

You say: "Ever since the Grand Mukti (sp?) of Egypt (whose grandson? nephew? was Arafat) met and confered with Adolph Hitler in regards to the "Final Solution" the Jews have been hard up against it. And the Koran makes provision for and encourages lying with the infidel dogs if it suits their ends. Infidel dogs, that would be you and me and all the other swine eaters. Less then human, you and I."

I'd go a lot farther than that, Slag. I'd say that the Jews have been hard up against it for at least a couple of thousand years! Maybe longer than that. The Egptians enslaved them. The Babylonians enslaved them. The Romans pulverized them, destroyed Jerusalem, and scattered them to the 4 winds. In the Christian era which followed they were persecuted and killed in numberless pogroms all over Europe. They suffered again and again merely because they were Jews. They have faced not just one Holocaust, but a long series of them. Hitler's effort in WWII looms largest in people's minds because it happened recently, and on a very large and organized scale...but it was not the first time by any means. No one has to convince me that the Jews have suffered!

The Muslims, on the other hand, have not exactly been having a wonderful time either in the last hundred years or so (aside from oil revenues which benefit a tiny elite), and you must realize that they also have a massive persecution complex at this point in history, and that is what is driving their militancy, just as the Jew's sense of past sufferings is driving theirs. Those who are militarily weak send suicide bombers at easy targets, those who are militarily mighty send jets and tanks to brazenly blow up any damn thing they want to in broad daylight...the basic intention is the same in either case...to kill people and to cow and terrorize the other guy into submission.

This is a case of 2 sets of people with the same basic psychological problem: they both think that everyone hates them and is out to get them! It would be funny if it weren't so completely awful. They even follow the same old holy books, the same ancient prophets, and the same 10 commandments! (so they say) They BOTH feel that eating pork is absolutely filthy and they won't do it. Why is it that one of these sets of people is seen by you as a noble "victim" and the other is seen as a despicable "terrorist"? Seems to me they've got a whole lot in common, and what we are seeing is a very big extended family quarrel playing itself out on the stage of history. ;-)

And that's why they can't get along with each other. Pretty sad situation.

You clearly fear that militant Muslims see you as "less than human". Well, that is just what they fear about you. Exactly the same fear.

I've personally known quite a few Muslims, and I know that they don't see me as "less than human". Therefore, I don't particularly carry that fear. I do not judge an entire group by the behaviour of a few fanatics here and there, and I think you'd find that that is true with the majority of Muslims as well.

The most fanatical Muslim society in the world at present is Saudi Arabia, where the Wahabi sect is predominant. Do you not think it ironical that the Saudis are considered USA allies while Iran is considered an enemy? I do. It was mostly Saudis who were on the 911 airplanes. It was not Iranians.

Does that not give you pause?

Yes, there is real evil out there. Real evil is the complete inability to relate to other human beings as being similar to yourself. I think your fear that the Muslims are like that is causing you to be like that toward them. If so, it's kind of tragic going in both directions, wouldn't you say?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: dianavan
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:18 AM

"The most fanatical Muslim society in the world at present is Saudi Arabia, where the Wahabi sect is predominant. Do you not think it ironical that the Saudis are considered USA allies while Iran is considered an enemy? I do. It was mostly Saudis who were on the 911 airplanes. It was not Iranians."

Thanks, Littlehawk, that says it all.

Oh, and you forgot that it was an Iranian (Persian) that freed the Jews from Babylon. Jews aren't the problem. Its the State of Israel (backed by the U.S.) that is a problem for many in the Middle East.

If you fear Iran, you are falling for the same line of reasoning that led the U.S. into Iraq. Fear of someone's weapons. With that reasoning, the U.S. is the biggest threat of all and we should all attack at once.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:52 AM

Of course, of course. The limitations of blog-city are daunting. Do we have to re-cap historoy on every thread on every site? I don't have that much time available. The cause and effect time streams of 6 billion living people and the histories of some 24 billion others is a Gordian Knot that only the Divine can unravel. So we hit the highlights. It reminds me of the Leonard Cohen song "That's the Way It Goes". To run it back to the thread topic- The right to attack-what gall!- Well, that's the point I was responding to. And my point is that anyone born onto this clinker we call Earth has as much right to be here as anyone else and has the right to place. Anyone who feels he has a divine edict that allows him to deprive his fellow man said rights because of his ethnicity, religion, opinion and so on, without due and rational process is just flat wrong! We have a fundamental, inalienable right to defend our lives, our family's lives, the lives of our community and our country. Through representative democracy we have found a way to deal with grievences without going to war and blood letting at every step of the way. We call this civilization. Its not perfect but its better than any alternative to date.

If a Theocracy is going to be established, it will have to be done by Theus! not mortal men. Until then, we need to go with the most just system we can manage, one that seeks equal treatment under the law. We need to talk about the disparities, not kill each other. Patience, forgivence, tolerance should be our most distinguishing characteristics. By the same token, we should not hesitate to defend ourselves and our civilizations' peaceful aspects. Yes, its much more complicated than that but its not "gall", its common sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:15 AM

Kendall, Call me simplistic, but I tend to think that if if everybody has nukes, no one will use them, even the rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, for fear of being nuked immediately in return.
And given the nature of alliances and treaties, it would happen.
No country's leader wants his nation - in Barry Goldwater's words - "bombed back to the stone age."
So, let 'em all have nuclear power for electricity and bombs and God knows what else, but have no doubt that the first nation to use a nuke would be nuked right back.


Except the U.S.


Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:21 AM

You only have to be wrong once.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:09 AM

12 January 2006 - Nuclear Iran? - By Gwynne Dyer

When the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed last
Tuesday that Iran had broken the seals on its nuclear research facility at Natanz, many people reacted as if the very next step was the testing of an Iranian nuclear weapon. In the ensuing media panic, we were repeatedly reminded that Iran's radical new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared just months ago that Israel should be "wiped off the map." How could such a lethally dangerous regime be allowed to proceed with its nuclear plans?

But talk is cheap, and not to be confused with actions or even
intentions (1). Ahmadinejad was quoting directly from the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, but neither during Khomeini's life nor in the sixteen years since his death has Iran made any effort to wipe Israel off the map (2), because to do so could mean the virtual extermination of the Iranian people (3). Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born, and now possesses enough of them to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000
people simultaneously (4).

Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as
meaningless (5), as Ronald Reagan's famous remark into a microphone that he didn't know was open: "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil empire" to be wiped from the face of the earth (6), but nobody seriously believed that he intended to attack it. Russia had nuclear weapons too, and the US would have been destroyed by its retaliation.

Ahmedinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he
was expressing a wish, not an intention (7), because Iran has been thoroughly deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds of Israeli nuclear warheads (8). And Iran would still be deterred if it had a few nuclear weapons of its own, just as Mr Reagan was deterred from striking the Soviet Union even though the United States had thousands of the things. So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride, plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours (9).

(1) - "But talk is cheap, and not to be confused with actions or even intentions" - Whatever the elected "Leader" of any nation says, particularly at a "World Conference on Anti-Zionism" must be listened to and analysed (I put "Leader" in inverted comas because the world and it's dog knows that Iran is actually run by 12 Religious Fanatics, normally known as the 12 Old Gits, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's slavish subservience to them extends to him not allowing official portaits of the "elected" President of Iran to be displayed, instead he has issued orders that portraits of the senior Old Git be displayed). What Gwynne Dyer is expressing here is an opinion based on the premise that from the outset regardless of context or circumstance the most optimistic and harmless interpretation must be placed on any statement. When charged with looking after the interests and security of any nation that is not a prudent point of view to take.

(2) - "but neither during Khomeini's life nor in the sixteen years since his death has Iran made any effort to wipe Israel off the map." Really? Obviously Gwynne Dyer hasn't read much of what Khomeini preached while in exile in France, Gwynne Dyer does not count unstinting support for International Terrorist Groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, etc, etc, as being, in any way shape or form, an attack upon a sovereign state recognised by the United Nations. Those terrorist attacks having but one single purpose, to provoke and goad Israel into over-reaction. To separate Israel from international support in order that Groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas can carry-out their well documented aim - To wipe Israel from the face of the earth - Ensure the total destruction of the state of Israel - To drive the jews into the sea. To Gwynne Dyer I would suggest that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not the only Eedjit listening to that poisonous Old Git Khomeini.

(3) - "because to do so (wiping Israel off the map) could mean the virtual extermination of the Iranian people." Now let's be very clear about this - Unlike MGOH's rather cosy interpretation of what Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said - Dyer is in no doubt about what Khomeini/Ahmadinejad meant, even then Dyer tempers this bit of opinionated drivel with the word "could". By the way the 12 Old Gits who rule Iran do not care two hoots for the "Iranian People", that they have more than adequately demonstrated in the past.

(4) - "Israel has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East since shortly after Ahmadinejad was born, and now possesses enough of them to strike every Iranian AND every Arab city of over 100,000 people simultaneously." - With regard to this I would simply ask Gwynne Dyer to prove it. I also doubt very much if Gwynne Dyer could actually list the cities referred to. In other analysis with regard to Israeli reaction to a nuclear armed Iran, it has been stated that the IDF does not have the capability to take on the number of targets required to eliminate Iran's nuclear programme, hence no pre-emptive strike such as the one carried out against Saddam's nuclear plant. So how come, all of a sudden. Israel has enough weaponry and delivery systems to take on the number of targets suggested by Gwynne Dyer - utterly ridiculous.

(5) - "Ahmadinejad's comment was as foolish, but also ultimately as
meaningless," - Example of Dyer's maxim that "regardless of context or circumstance the most optimistic and harmless interpretation must be placed on any statement". Given the past history of the Jews over the last 100 years, it could not under any circumstance be considered unreasonable of THEM to take such statements as those stated, or quoted, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as being anything other than literal and deadly serious, they were after all stated at a "World Anti-Zionist Conference".

(6) - "Nobody doubted that Reagan wanted the "evil empire" to be wiped from the face of the earth" Please note unlike Khomeini or Ahmadinejad, Reagan at no time whatsoever stated that he wanted anywhere "wiped from the face of the earth". Here Gwynne Dyer is putting words into the mouth of the late President Reagan.

(7) - "Ahmedinejad was not joking about wanting Israel to vanish, but he was expressing a wish, not an intention," Now apart from the rose-tinted glasses school of interpretation and evaluation. Exactly what grounds has the redoubtable Gwynne Dyer got for expressing this OPINION? - An assumption

(8) - "because Iran has been thoroughly deterred for all of his adult life by the knowledge of those hundreds of Israeli nuclear warheads" Anyone, including the IAEA has yet to prove, proof positive that Israel has any nuclear weapons. Most intelligence evaluations by agencies outwith the state of Israel believe that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. But hang on that's an intelligence evaluation right? and all the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair supporters don't put a great deal of credibility in intelligence evaluations do they? Or do they only believe the ones they want to believe - Gwynne Dyer certainly does.

(9) - "So why would Iran want nuclear weapons at all? Mostly national pride, plus a desire to keep up with the neighbours." Classic Gwynne Dyer rose-tinted glasses stuff. OK play devil's advocate and argue it from the other side, a far darker scenario could be envisaged.

Oh and as for Little Hawk's over reaction and highly spun version of what an American political spokesman said goes referring to Robert Gates answers to specific questions put to him by Senator Bird:

"American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to"

Utter rubbish specific hypothetical answers to a specific hypothetical questions do not reflect official government policy, nor have they ever done so.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:30 AM

Oh F************** Teribus!

Your link maker broken again?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:39 AM

Bobad's link to the Al Jazeera (not really a pro USA/Israel medium) article makes it more than clear that the guy Little Hawk was linking to has not really read what he comments about. The benevolent interpretations I read from time to time here are so farfetched that they are either pure propaganda of people who know better or (no that wouldn't be nice to write).

Ahmadinejad's audience knows better when they scream "Death to Israel" "Death to the USA" during the pauses in his speech.

BTW, from acknowledging that does not follow that a US attack on Iran would be the best move.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:08 AM

QUOTE
"American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to"

Utter rubbish specific hypothetical answers to a specific hypothetical questions do not reflect official government policy, nor have they ever done so.
UNQUOTE

But the practicalities of the the USA (read CIA) having stuck its dick in almost every country around the world for the last 100 years gives the lie to your claim Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:19 AM

Seamus Kennedy - 06 Dec 06 - 02:15 AM

If Kendall doesn't call you simplistic, I certainly will.

Your contention that - "if everybody has nukes, no one will use them, even the rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, for fear of being nuked immediately in return." - is based on what? Experience from the "Cold War"? The situation that you believe would be the case was not established during the long period of the "Cold War" until the "Mutually Assured Destruction" theory became reality through the developement of second and third strike capability, prior to that the theory was he who struck first won.

By all means let's take a look at "the nature of alliances and treaties", in today's world - adequately summed in the words Rwanda and Darfur, that is how far the world's alliances and treaties will allow a situation to slide, so please Seamus don't go holding your breath on concerted action being taken with regard to the odd bomb being tossed about, particularly if they are tossed in one given direction first.

"So, let 'em all have nuclear power for electricity and bombs and God knows what else, but have no doubt that the first nation to use a nuke would be nuked right back." By who Seamus?

Now think what would happen if Iranian nuclear devices were smuggled into Israel and placed in Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Hezbollah or Hamas terrorists. The devices go off, massive loss of life, sufficient to paralyse the State of Israel. Outright condemnation throughout the world, who's to blame? Who gets "nuked right back" Seamus? What would be the reaction of the Major powers if anybody even suggested "nuking Iran right back"? As to the consequences for those living in the area, perhaps you could tell me how concerned the bordering Arab states, Iraq and Iran have been for the well being and prosperity of the Israeli and Palestinian people over the last fifty years. Hell those governing Iran could not give two hoots for the Iranian people, let alone a bunch of strangers 1000 kilometers away. If you find this too far fetched Seamus, take a look at the recent (Post WW II) history of the only two locations hit by the weapons you are talking about. Now tell me that some bunch of religious nuts aren't capable of drawing their own conclusions and buying into the idea that this would be a price to pay in order to wipe the stain of shame that is the existance of the State of Israel from the face of the Arab world.

What I believe (My opinion only) the reaction to the initial attack would be is as follows:

USA & UK - would opt for action to be taken against Iran.

France, Russia & China - would oppose such action being taken irrespective of what proof of Iran's involvement exists, in order to de-escalate the situation as further confrontation over the issue would wipe out the middle-east as an oil producing region - Not important to the UK or to the USA, vitally important to the Chinese and to the French and Russians with regard to investment.

The Rest - would learn to live with and readily accept a world community without a place called Israel (shrug of the shoulders, "Ah well, too bad, never mind eh?) and get on with things. Once the radiation levels had subsided sufficiently, the arabs could scratch around find some "displaced Palestinians" (those not displaced by the explosions that is) and park them on the now glowing site that once was theirs so many decades ago. World money derived from guilt would flow into the newly created country of Palestine and all would be sweetness and light - Or would it?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:41 AM

Actually teribus, I'm pretty much with you on that one of 06 Dec 06 - 07:19 AM ...

Except that - as with Hitler, 'some would get away', and their descendants would want 'to come back to THEIR "homeland"'... which IS the current problem there in the Middle East, right now....

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:44 AM

Foolestroupe - 06 Dec 06 - 07:08 AM

I can't quite believe that anybody is quite as naive as this:

"But the practicalities of the the USA (read CIA) having stuck its dick in almost every country around the world for the last 100 years gives the lie to your claim Teribus."

Actual fact Foolestroupe the following is a damnsight nearer the mark:

"But the practicalities of the .......... (Name whatever major power that has ever existed at anytime in history) having stuck its dick in almost every country around the world for the last .........(Stipulate whatever period happens to be convenient for your purpose) years gives the lie to your claim Teribus."

And even that does not refute the claim that hypothetical answers to specific hypothetical questions do not, nor ever have, been regarded as foreign policy statements by, or on behalf of any country.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:48 AM

Congratulations on having hijacked a thread about the US Empirical ambitions to your favourite topic Mr T...

Hows the weather in the Uk, btw...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:37 AM

McGrath of Harlow - 05 Dec 06 - 08:16 PM

Now another example of those reading something into something that isn't actually there.

MGOH asks - "What about a rogue nation that is planning to put in place a whole new generation of nuclear weapons?"

It's about the UK of course, but it is about the UK replacing the submarines that currently carry Britain's Trident Mk II Missiles, it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any new generation of nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:33 AM

Fooles,

"Oh F************** Teribus!

Your link maker broken again? "

As usual, you ignore the points brought up, and attack the person.


A LIKELY scenario in the case of WMD attack on Israel will be lots of talk, then a complete nuclear destruction of the middle east oil fields, leving China, and Europe without significant oil rersources. From there, it will be GTW ( global thermonuclear warfare) REGARDLESS of WHO set the original WMD off.


And I am being OPTIMISTIC.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:52 AM

And before anyone tells me the UN will keep that from happening, PLEASE tell me why Israel whould trust ANYTHING the UN says, or has said, as far as Israel's survival is concerned?

Lebenon- UN ceasefire-
Israel withdraws, and stops combat on the conditions DECIDED BY THE UN that

1. Hezbollah be disarmed.

Ain't happening. Ain't gonna happen.

2. A UN force be placed between Israel and the Lebonese.

Well, a few ( lots less than stated by the UN as would be there ) have gone in- with the instructions NOT to interfere in any Hezbollah attacks


3. ALL countries were enjoined to stop the military resupply of Hezbollah.

Let me see... Hezbollah starts with 12,000 rockets. Shoots 4,000 or so at Israeli civilians. Now has HOW MANY, according to their OWN statements?

4. The kidnapped Israeli soldiers were to be released.

Still waiting, oh faithful believers in UN action.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:59 AM

Saturday September 23, 1:04 AM
Hezbollah won't disarm, has 20,000 rockets: Nasrallah


BEIRUT (AFP) - Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has made his first public appearance since the war with Israel at a huge "victory" rally, rejecting calls to disarm and saying his guerrilla group still had 20,000 rockets.

Nasrallah, 46, emerged Friday from more than two months in hiding to address a rapturous crowd in Beirut's shattered southern suburbs which his Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia said numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

"We are celebrating a great divine, historic and strategic victory," the charismatic, bearded cleric told the sea of supporters waving thousands of yellow flags, the color of Hezbollah.

"The resistance is stronger today than on July 12," Nasrallah said, when Hezbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers along the Israeli-Lebanese border, triggering a month of fierce clashes.

"The resistance today has more than 20,000 rockets," he added, rejecting Israeli claims to have inflicted heavy damage on the guerrilla group.

One of Israel's stated aims in the offensive which ended in mid-August was to eliminate Hezbollah's capacity to fire rockets, thousands of which were launched at the Jewish state during the conflict, killing dozens of civilians.

UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which halted the war, demands the disarmament of all militias in Lebanon."

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:32 PM

Oh just before it slips off the page:

A question for Little Hawk about his statement about De Gaulle being, "a pretty good battlefield commander", I'd love to hear about some examples of his leadership in battlefield conditions.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Shields Folk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:36 PM

Imagine someone ignoring a UN Security Council Resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:47 PM

With regard to the UN brokered ceasefire for Lebanon the Israeli's certainly complied with the agreed requirements - nobody else did - that seem an OK situation for you Shields Folk?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:05 PM

the UK replacing the submarines that currently carry Britain's Trident Mk II Missiles, it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any new generation of nuclear weapons.

That is what "a new generation of nuclear weapons" means. The old generation is seen as obsolescent; its replacement is a new generation.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 01:38 PM

Oh boy! My favorite 2 political pals, Teribus and BB have shown up, as I expected they would. ;-)

Yes, guys, I think Gwynne Dyer's reasoning on the matter is better thought out than yours. And I haven't got time for more comment than that at the moment. Duty calls.

By all means, keep discussing it, though. I knew this would be a lively thread.

And thanks for posting Dyer's entire article, Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:01 PM

"Yes, guys, I think Gwynne Dyer's reasoning on the matter is better thought out than yours."


I think that BUSH's reasoning on the matter is better thought out than Gwynne Dyer's. But I suppose that is not a permitted viewpoint here...


Given the support provided by the UN to Israel, and the threats to Israel.Mandate Palestine over the last 100 years, give me one reason why Israel should NOT take out the Middle East oil fields if it is attacked again?

I think that the idea that Iran has a right to threaten another country with destruction, violate the treaty terms by which it was given nuclear technology, and provide military support to people targeting civilian populations, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, while Israel should just let its own population be attacked without response to be a somewhat bigoted attitude.


NEVER AGAIN.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:21 PM

Sure. I'll give you one reason why Israel should not "take out" the Middle East oilfields. That oil is a vital resource which is needed by the entire world, and to destroy it would be a crime against the entire world.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM

"One good reason" Well, it would be a bit ungrateful to the Yanks wouldn't it? I mean they really need that oil.
....................................
"I think that the idea that xxxxxxxxx has a right to threaten another country with destruction...and provide military support to people targeting civilian populations, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, while xxxxxxxxx should just let its own population be attacked without response to be a somewhat bigoted attitude."

Does it make any difference to the argument here if the two sets of XXX here are filled in as "the USA" and "the Palestinians" or "Iran" and "Israel"?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:29 PM

The crime against the whole world is bastard oil companies reaping profits to assuage no one but their bloody share holders. There is such a thing as justice--it's not retributive; it's not about getting even. It IS about all people of the Earth having basic rights that extend to food, shelter and safety from harm. Politics is bullshit disguised as horseshit. Most political arguments are much the same.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:32 PM

"BUSH's reasoning".......

Well, theres 2 words none of us ever expected to see together....

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:42 PM

"to destroy it would be a crime against the entire world. "


While to destroy an entire nation, and people, is ok as long as they are Jews???

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:45 PM

"While to destroy an entire nation, and people, is ok as long as they are Jews???"

That's what it seems, too often, to come down to.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 02:46 PM

McGrath,

"has a right to threaten another country with destruction...and provide military support to people targeting civilian populations, IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, while xxxxxxxxx should just let its own population be attacked without response to be a somewhat bigoted attitude."

Regardless of what you seem to think, ISRAEL has NEVER threatened the Palestinian people. Israel has responded to attacks from individuals in Palestinian territory, and has targetted those who were attacking Israel-

Or are you stating that Jews have to stand still and be killed while others can fight back?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:08 PM

Bruce, I think it a good deal more likely that you have misunderstood McGrath than "stating that Jews have to stand still and be killed while others can fight back".

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:11 PM

oops...that should have read:

Bruce, I think it a good deal more likely that you have misunderstood McGrath than he was "stating that Jews have to stand still and be killed while others can fight back".

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:32 PM

Paul

Read carefully:::::

MY STATEMENT:

"Israel has responded to attacks from individuals in Palestinian territory, and has targetted those who were attacking Israel-

Or are you stating that Jews have to stand still and be killed while others can fight back? "

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:02 PM

"While to destroy an entire nation, and people, is ok as long as they are Jews???

Huh???? When you post something like that, BB, it's a total non-sequitor. I think you should seek treatment for your paranioa.

Where and when have I recommended destroying the nation of Israel? Or killing Jews? And if I have not, why are you bringing it up as a supposed refutation of my statement about the oil?

Don't you see that you are being just as irrational in your paranoid sense of persecution as the Arabs are who are sending their relatives to blow up bombs in Israeli marketplaces? It's the same problem on both sides of the equation.

People who disagree with you, BB, do not equate to people who want to see the nation of Israel destroyed. I do not want to see any nation of people destroyed.

Consider this: The Palestinians and other Muslims who are fighting most fanatically against Israel have the very same credo you do:

"NEVER AGAIN!"

And they are equally out to lunch. They cannot forgive, they cannot move on, they cannot accomodate, and that is their mental illness.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:19 PM

" Hezbollah has a legitimate cause from the point of view of Iran, so of course they are assisting them. That's just reality."

The CAUSE that Hezbollah espouses is the destruction of the state of Israel. Iran has stated that they want to destroy Israel. WHAT DOES IT TAKE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND that these are THREATS TO ISRAEL??????


A SINGLE nuclear device, set off nearTelAviv would destroy 85% of the industry and about 60% of the population of Israel. Israel cannot afford to risk having tht occur- Regardless of the retribution upon the perpetrators, it would destroy the nation.

Do you really think that a country that would put civilians in front of tanks to set off mines ( IRAN) and an organization that,against all the laws of war,launches offensive weapons from schools, mosques, and civilian housing would have any problem with say a 50% death rate, if they can effectively destroy their enemy?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:26 PM

"Don't you see that you are being just as irrational in your paranoid sense of persecution "


When people are telling me they want to kill me, and launching rockets at me, and blowing up our children, to feel persecuted is far from paranoia.

YOU would want us to sing songs and dance as we are sent into the gas chambers?

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM

The right of self defense is understood by all. The right to kill/attack someone who is attacking someone other than yourself is hazy and predicated by different laws. International law is NOT local but the problem of extending self defense to another person or country, in this case Isreal, is not the issue we ever gave for attacking Iraq. We always said Iraq was going to Nuke the USA any minute. Yes it was a lie as big as the Kuwait baby incubator lie as told in the Congress of the United States.

Premptive attack was viewed as the supream USSR evil we were on guard against through out the cold war. Pre emptive attack was the psychosis we battled against in the movie Dr. Strangelove. With out a cold war the defense industry was in need of conflict. That is why we prosecuted a war instead of justice against individual acts of terrorism.
Premptive attack is now the US calling card. It is still psychotic and evil.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:02 PM

You are getting completely carried away with your own hyperbole, BB.

All I meant by saying, "Hezbollah has a legitimate cause from the point of view of Iran, so of course they are assisting them. That's just reality." was this....

There is a regional confrontation going on in the Middle East, as we all know. It's an old one. It has a long history. It involves the USA, the UK, and Israel on one side...with a great many groups of Muslim people, Muslim paramilitary organizations, and several Muslim nations on the other side...and a few other Muslim nations pretending to sit on the fence (although they are really anything but neutral).

It is inevitable that Iran would openly or clandestinely assist anyone who opposes the USA, the UK, and Israel in that conflict. It is equally inevitable that the USA, the UK, and Israel will openly or clandestinely assist anyone who opposes theirenemies in the conflict. And they do.

And that's reality. For one to accuse the other of being heinous for doing it is nothing more than pompous posturing for the sake of propaganda.

For you to extrapolate what I said into the most extreme position possible ("the destruction of Israel") does not contribute any light whatsoever to the discussion, but merely a lot of heat, and it makes me think you are incapable of thinking in shades of gray when it comes to this conflict, and probably incapable of recognizing that Muslims have some legitimate concerns in regards to Israel and the occupied lands.

I already KNOW Israel has legitimate concerns too, and a right to defend itself. That is totally obvious. No one needs to convince me.

I do not object to anyone defending themselves, I object to full-scale aggression by nations and terrorism by paramilitary forces.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:09 PM

Bruce, I have re-read your statement. I don't believe I missed its point the 1st time though.

I still find it necessary to question why you thought McGrath was saying that Jews should stand still & be attacked?

I would also ask why you think Little Hawk is saying you should, or he would ant you to - "sing songs and dance as we are sent into the gas chambers?".

WHAT gas chambers are there now? Nobody can deny the unspeakable tragedy of the Holocaust, but I don't understand why you should bring it up in this context, or in connection with anything L.H. has said, nor any question of singing.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:14 PM

Parenthetically, and it seems that much here IS parenthetical, I fail to see why Israel is even mentioned on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:16 PM

Basically the demand of Hamas and Hezbollah in respect of Israel is that it should allow a right of return for Palestinians who were forced to leave in 1948, and their families. Whether the resulting state would still choose to call itself Israel would be a matter for the population to decide for themselves. Defining this as "the destruction of the state of Israel" is rhetoric. I suppose the tearing down of the Berlin Wall was "the destruction of the GDR".

Anyway, this isn't an outcome that is too likely to come about. But it is not an unreasonable negotiating position. A negotiating position is something you bring to the negotiating table, not something you give ground on before negotiations are allowed to begin. Insisting on a demand like that is just a way of avoiding negotiations. To demand that Israel granted a right of return before any negotiations could begin would be a similar blocking manoeuvre.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:26 PM

Oh, I just love pyrotechniques! Teribus comes up with an analysis and intelligent refutation of Dyer's statements and the wonderboy (so aptly self-named, foolestroupe) says, um--"F********" and "Utter rubbish". Boy, it's hard to argue against logic like that. The left trots out talking points and slogans and feels that should pass for logic. And all the conditioned little parrots (and assorted other birds) begin the same old squawk.   

On a friendlier note, I'm a little pressed for time but I WILL be back soon with another tupence or two. You were right about one thing LH, this looks like a hot thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:30 PM

Definitely, Slag. ;-) It's the old faithful dispute, once again, and all the old veteran warriors advance to the fray!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:38 PM

"Imagine someone ignoring a UN Security Council Resolution. "

What. someone powerful like the USA?

Hahahahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Donuel
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:40 PM

Iraq ignored a UN resolution

"Enough was enough" or so says Dennis Miller.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:42 PM

QUOTE
"Oh F************** Teribus!

Your link maker broken again? "

As usual, you ignore the points brought up, and attack the person.
UNQUOTE

Teribus is legebdary for large quotes here, including material found elswhere, swamping the threads.... he's been asked before not to do that...

As usual, many ignore the points brought up, and attack the person.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM

Iran hasn't actually done anything illegal in relation to the nuclear issue. As for help to Hezbollah, this is on a small scale compared to, for example, the backing which was given by the USA to the contras

It's a deeply flawed regime, but it's in power as a result of a democratic vote, carrying out the policies on which it was elected.

A lot of the responsibility for getting Ahmadinejad elected was down to Bush and his "Axis of Evil" talk and so forth. And, of course, to the fact that countries on either side of Iran had been invaded. Those are the kind of things that get extreme nationalists propelled to power.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

"Regardless of what you seem to think, ISRAEL has NEVER threatened the Palestinian people. Israel has responded to attacks from individuals in Palestinian territory, and has targetted those who were attacking Israel- "

... after sending Israeli settlers back into a land they vacated (willingly or not!) for generations...

Dunno WHY the poor bastards already LIVING there would consider these armed actions to be a threat against them?

wibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibble...

Lalalalalalala!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:43 AM

Everybody has the right to self-defense, nobody has the right to invade.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 02:08 AM

Dianavan has said it. It's that simple. That is the dividing line, and when you cross it and you invade another country that has not already attacked you in a similar fashion and on a similar scale (meaning all-out war), you have committed aggression. That's a very major illegality, in fact it's the biggest illegality possible, short of deliberate genocide.

Who has been guilty of that in the Middle East in recent times? Israel (invaded Lebanon), Iraq (invaded Iran), Iraq again (invaded Kuwait), the USA and the UK (invaded Afghanistan), the USA and the UK (invaded Iraq), and Israel (invaded Lebanon again).

That's 7 clear cases of aggression. All illegal. None committed by Iran. 7 of them committed by members of the USA/UK/Israel coalition or by an ally of the USA. (Saddam was an ally of the USA at the time he assaulted Iran and at the time he assaulted Kuwait. He ceased to be an ally of the USA immediately after his assault began on Kuwait.)

4 of those cases of aggression occured right next to Iran, right by its borders, and one of them occured on Iran's territory, killing a great many Iranians. Just who is the injured party supposed to be here? And who should feel a need to protect themselves strenuously?

Iran, that's who. They have suffered a good deal more from outside attack than Israel has, if you want to go by body count or any other yardstick you could care to mention.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 03:42 AM

Here is another example of a person reading something into something that did not exist, or at best "cherry-picking" what was said, then using that piece of information and spinning to present a case that never existed.

Donuel - 06 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM

"The right of self defense is understood by all. The right to kill/attack someone who is attacking someone other than yourself is hazy and predicated by different laws. International law is NOT local but the problem of extending self defense to another person or country, in this case Isreal, is not the issue we ever gave for attacking Iraq. We always said Iraq was going to Nuke the USA any minute."

Now take a look at what Donuel is saying:

First sentence is completely correct and that right is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.

Second sentence is incorrect, the situation described here is not "hazy" in the least, it is covered very comprehensively by mutual defence pacts and treaties and by the Charter of the United Nations.

His third sentence is also incorrect. The following quote is taken from the State of the Union Address delivered on 29th January 2002:

"Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening AMERICA OR OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES with weapons of mass destruction.

Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September 11, but we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens, leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could ATTACK OUR ALLIES or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

Five paragraphs Donuel in which two very clear references are made to America's allies. At the United Nations and elsewhere the US position has always been clearly stated. That was to react to any threat to the United States of America, to the interests of the United States of America, to allies of the United States of America and to the interests of allies of the United States of America. A matter of record Donuel, cherry-pick all you want, but that will not alter what was said or the context in which it was said.

Donuel's fourth sentence is completely incorrect, I do not believe that anybody at anytime stated that Iraq could "Nuke" the US at any moment. That the possibility of "rogue regimes" passing technical information and material or even a weapon to an international terrorist group could not be overlooked, could not be discounted, was mentioned in the 2002 and 2003 State of the Union Addresses. This was evaluated as being the greatest direct threat to the United States of America, not by GWB and his Administration but by the House Internal Security Committee and the Security Services of the USA. Anybody here that would state categorically that such a thing could never happen?

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Dec 06 - 01:05 PM

"the UK replacing the submarines that currently carry Britain's Trident Mk II Missiles, it has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any new generation of nuclear weapons - Teribus".

That is what "a new generation of nuclear weapons" means. The old generation is seen as obsolescent; its replacement is a new generation.

Eh? Kevin the Trident Mk II missiles are the nuclear weapons, they are not being replaced, there is no new generation of nuclear weapons on the drawingboard for the UK. New submarines will be build to carry Britain's EXISTING Trident MkII Missiles - No new generation of nuclear weapons are planned or being procured - In fact the article that you linked to even refers to a further possible reduction in Britain's nuclear strike capability. Best not mention that too loudly Kevin as it does not suit your arguement.

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Dec 06 - 02:28 PM

"One good reason" Well, it would be a bit ungrateful to the Yanks wouldn't it? I mean they really need that oil."

Not really MGOH as has been pointed out many times and substantiated by US crude oil import statistics and figures. The US gets very little oil from the Middle-East.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:13 AM

Kevin, I am absolutely amazed, in writing what I quote below I must ask the question - Do you actually believe this???

McGrath of Harlow - 06 Dec 06 - 06:52 PM

"Iran hasn't actually done anything illegal in relation to the nuclear issue. As for help to Hezbollah, this is on a small scale compared to, for example, the backing which was given by the USA to the contras

It's a deeply flawed regime, but it's in power as a result of a democratic vote, carrying out the policies on which it was elected.

A lot of the responsibility for getting Ahmadinejad elected was down to Bush and his "Axis of Evil" talk and so forth. And, of course, to the fact that countries on either side of Iran had been invaded. Those are the kind of things that get extreme nationalists propelled to power."

As to Iran having done nothing illegal in relation to the nuclear issue, I believe that Dr. Mohamed El Baredei and the IAEA would dispute that, primarily because Iran has been proved to have been less than honest with this International body over the past few years - The start of their programme pre-dating 911, the fall of the Taleban in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq.

As for helping Hezbollah, Kevin here contends that this is on a minor scale. The reality is that without Iran's help Hezbollah would have ceased to exist years ago, without Iran's help and assistance for Hezbollah the Middle-East peace process would have moved on years ago. Kevin give me the names of any front-line Arab State that calls for the total destruction of the State of Israel - NONE. Two states that were not front-line states but who heavily backed such terrorist groups in order that they could claim to be part of the struggle were Iran and Iraq - The latter is now no longer sponsoring international terrorists - guess what Kevin numbers of dead Israeli citizens has dropped dramatically since March 2003. If Iran stopped meddling and peddling violence by proxy in the region the number of innocent civilians dying in the region would likewise dramatically decrease.

You are correct in stating that the current regime in Iran is deeply flawed. As to that regime being in place because of a democratic vote is a bit of a joke considering that the 12 Old Gits who actually dictate government policy barred, what was it, over 6000 candidates from standing in those elections - oh yes, Kevin very democratic.

The responsibility for getting the latest puppet-in-power in Iran elected rested entirely with the 12 Old Gits - No one else Kevin, they'd got tired of stone-walling reforming Presidents and prime ministers and therefore simply removed those candidates from the ballot, with no alternative choice the opposition vote stayed at home - That is what got Mohammed Ahmadinejad elected Kevin, nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:45 AM

"the USA and the UK (invaded Afghanistan), "

I thought this was a trick question - hmmmm, wasn't that one 'approved' by the UN? - the only 'approved' one?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:56 AM

"we know their true nature"

They - like Iraq, have WMDS - all we need to do is invade, then we will find 'the smoking gun'!!!

"The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade."

SEE!!!

"As to Iran having done nothing illegal in relation to the nuclear issue, I believe that Dr. Mohamed El Baredei and the IAEA would dispute that, primarily because Iran has been proved to have been less than honest with this International body over the past few years - The start of their programme pre-dating 911, the fall of the Taleban in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq."

See! See! See!

"without Iran's help and assistance for Hezbollah the Middle-East peace process would have moved on years ago"

The tanks would have rolled over all the dead bodies in Palestine, with no one to fight back...

"You are correct in stating that the current regime in Iran is deeply flawed. As to that regime being in place because of a democratic vote is a bit of a joke considering that the 12 Old Gits who actually dictate government policy barred, what was it, over 6000 candidates from standing in those elections - oh yes, Kevin very democratic."

Hmmm... and in the 'US Democracy' - how many were barred from voting, and those damn flaky Diebold machines....

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 05:42 AM

Number of points Foolstroupe:

1 The US and UK did not invade Afghanistan. UN forces were invited into Afghanistan at the request of the interim government of Afghanistan. If you dispute this please provide us all with details relating to dates and forces employed in the so-called-invasion - how did they get there? - where did they land?

2. Please tell us the date when the Iranian nuclear programme started Foolestroupe. Give you a hint - way back in the 1950's - halted at the time of the revolution in 1979 - then restarted in 1983 - Proof surfaces of existence of two completed secret and undeclared sites in 2002 (which means that they were constructed long before that date) - A comprehensive list of Iran's specific violations of the NPT can be found in the November 2004 report of the IAEA on Iran's nuclear program.

3. Without suicide bombers and rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, the number of Palestinians killed by Israel tanks would have been Zero, Zip, Nada.

4. In the US Democracy I do not believe any candidates were barred from what became the official ballot paper. Now just to get it right in my mind Foolestroupe, I take it that you are implying that the elections in the US in 2000, 2002 & 2004 were all phoney and all rigged (because the Republicans won). Yet the 2006 mid-term elections were a triumph for democracy because the Democrats won. Very odd that the same equipment was used for both the 2004 and 2006 elections, sort of tempts the question, why those terrible republicans didn't fix the 2006 election as well, perhaps you can enlighten us.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:24 AM

BEATITUDE

If Jesus hates fags
If Jesus hates Jews
If Jesus hates Arabs
Could Jesus hate you?

We all fall down
We all fall down
We all fall down
And it will come back around

If Jesus loves nigger haters
If Jesus loves Jew baiters
If Jesus loves Crusaders
Could Jesus love me, too?

We all fall down
We all fall down
We all fall down
And it will come back around

He died trying to explain it to y'all
He died trying to explain it to y'all
He died trying to explain it to y'all
And it's killing me.

Blessed are the poor,
for theirs is heaven
Blessed are the merciful
for they shall have mercy
Blessed are the meek
for they shall inherit the earth
Blessed are the peacemakers.
The peacemakers are the children of God

But she opens the Book of George
She turns to chapter W
She seeks to justify a stupid, stupid, stupid war
My Jesus wept! Oh, doesn't that trouble you?

But some of the people some of the time
And some of the people some of the time.
And some of the people some of the time
And 59 million people all of the time.

We all fall down
We all fall down
We all fall down
We all fall down
And the meek shall inherit the earth

"I'm gonna try and break it down
into a language he can understand:
this is to the son of a president
from the son of a preacher man."

14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

But perfect would be too good for you

Hatred is not a moral value.
Lying is not a moral value.
Torture is not a moral value.
War is not a moral value.

from

bryanthomas.com/writing/lyrics.html


PS I still don't know how Israel ended up on this thread, but it is reassuring to see the same folks saying the same putrid racist shit disguised as politics.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:07 PM

"dianavan
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:43 AM

Everybody has the right to self-defense, nobody has the right to invade. "

So, Israel has the right to checkpoints and barriers, and not allowing Palestinian access to Israel, and the Palestinians do NOT have the right to suicide bombers and rockets???

Better revise all your past postings...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 12:54 PM

"Iran funds terrorism"?? Well, it depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? They don't think it's terrorism, but you do. From their point of view the biggest terrorists out there are the USA and Israel, who have killed far more people and funded far more effective death-dealing than the Iranians have.

It's a regional conflict. Everyone funds the people who are fighting their enemies in that conflict, including Iran. Everyone ends up killing innocent civilians, including Israel and the USA, but Israel and the USA do it much more effectively, because they have greater firepower.

Everyone in this conflict ends up funding terrorism...only against whom...that is the question?

If you don't think it's terrorism, then you obviously haven't been at the receiving end and seen YOUR country wrecked by these wars of aggression.

Regarding Afghanistan: yes, I am aware that the U.N. sanctioned that invasion, making it technically legal at the time. However, I consider the U.N. to have been hoodwinked and easily manipulated in the wake of 911 when there was a tremendous wave of sympathy for the United States and outrage against Al Queda, and I consider the invasion of Afghanistan to have been another case of unprovoked and illegal aggression against a sovereign country which did NOT commit the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and which was not involved in planning those attacks either.

The 911 attacks were not the action of a sovereign country at all. They were the action of a clandestine terrorist group, based in a number of different countries, Saudi Arabia probably being foremost among those. As such, they were not actions which should have been responded to with a war at all...they should have been responded to with international police action to track down and arrest or destroy the individuals of the organization(s) responsible. To launch a war against the nation of Afghanistan was completely beside the point.   Al Queda is not Afghanistan. Al Queda is a secret organization which acts in hiding, and from many different places. You don't fight a secret organization by invading a sovereign country, because that organization will simply relocate elsewhere and the country you invaded will then be a fertile ground for Al Queda to continue recruiting angry people who hate you for a very long time to come.

Besides, the invasion of Afghanistan was being planned by the US administration some time BEFORE 911 ever happened! Why? Because of a desired USA-controlled route for oil pipelines to go from the Caspian region to the Indian Ocean through Afghanistan...which route the Taliban had not agreed to. They were told by the USA in the summer of 2001, before 911, that they were being offered 2 choices: "A carpet of gold" (if they agreed), "A carpet of bombs" (if they did not). They said "no". Well, they got their carpet of bombs. The American public was not informed about that little bit of diplomacy at the time, but it happened. It's on record. The war against Afghanistan was inevitable from the moment the Taliban refused to cooperate with American oil interests...but a very powerful excuse was needed to go ahead WITH it.

911 was that excuse.

Now one can only wonder to what extent the interests of Al Queda and of the USA coincided at that moment, and one might wonder too just who Osama Bin Laden was really working for?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:04 PM

Relative to the scale of the numbers killed by the Contras when they were backed by the USA, yes. The number killed by Hezbollah in conflicts with Israel is far smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,Gza
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:31 PM

And why is "terrorism" only called "terrorism" when someone else does it? All efforts to intimidate any population into surrenduring to the will of an attacker ARE terrorism. Nation-states practive terrorism when they attack other nations.

So why is "terrorism" only called "terrorism" when someone else does it? Propaganda, that's why. Bullshit. Buzz-words. Lies, evasions, and misrepresentations of reality. Orwellian use of language to manipulate human response.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:02 PM

foolestroupe


"... after sending Israeli settlers back into a land they vacated (willingly or not!) for generations..."


So, Palestinians have no right to resettle the land they vacated (willingly) for generations? I guess they should stop all the violent actions against Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:50 PM

Oh, come on, it's Christmas!

Let's everybody start killing everybody else in worship and celebration of the Christians Death God who overcame death!

I spent 30 years trying to argue with people like Teribus, who were managers in charge of my career. It was, I found, a total waste of effort trying to argue about splitting hairs with wankers, who, as it turned out, were psychotic anyway, and thus I wasted endless time writing letters in response, rather than picking up a more effective weapon.

Teribus is not in any way 'in charge' of my life - all of his 'political and historical' points have been taken up by others.

He is also in the constant habit of not actually reading what those debating have said, singly and as a group, and as such, has still not apologised for misrepresenting me that I would not condemn one particular bunch of imaginary friend supporters over other bunches of imaginary friend supporters for killing people, when I previously stated that NOBODY should be killing ANYBODY!

For instance - the UN HAS no troops - US and UK forces invaded Afghanistan, that's a fact, but oh no, the nutter wants to split hairs that US & UK 'did not invade' - wants bloody dates, times, unit names, f**king photographs etc!

From now on, he is on my 'Ridicule List' - mostly ignored unless he is speaking sense, other than 'to point at the nutter'.


"Those who are bald are most obsessed with splitting hairs."

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 06:57 PM

I am now delaring 'my right to attack Teribus"!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:04 PM

"foolestroupe
QUOTE
... after sending Israeli settlers back into a land they vacated (willingly or not!) for generations..."


So, Palestinians have no right to resettle the land they vacated (willingly) for generations? I guess they should stop all the violent actions against Israel.
UNQUOTE

Your bias is amazing...

...unless, as is common, sarcasm and cynicism doesn't come across easily on the internet...

One in, all in, I say, let's kill 'em ALL for Christmas!

As I said...
"misrepresenting me that I would not condemn one particular bunch of imaginary friend supporters over other bunches of imaginary friend supporters for killing people, when I previously stated that NOBODY should be killing ANYBODY!"

You wanna be 'on the List' with Teribus too?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:05 PM

" . . . bald-faced hairsplitting."   I look forward to using that one. Thanks, F.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:07 PM

QUOTE
American political spokesmen seem to just assume that the USA has a God-given right to attack any country it wishes to any time it wishes to, and this assumption is implicitly woven into statements by the US media all the time....

UNQUOTE


So piss off you malicious nutters, get back to what THIS thread was about. Take that obsession off to OTHER THREADS!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:22 PM

Thank you. That was indeed the subject and the point of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:48 PM

" why those terrible republicans didn't fix the 2006 election as well, perhaps you can enlighten us. "

1) There's been too much public attention.

2) You can only 'bend things so far' without getting noticed, except in a totalitarian state with total media censorship - the USA is not THAT for gone yet!

3) The fact that the electronic machines can produce no physical tape of figures is now well known (as is the facts that some machines produced nonsense figures compared with the number of real voters, as well as the easily publicly demonstrated fact that the machines could be easily hacked over the internet...) - if you ARE trying any sort of 'conspiracy' - you will certainly tiptoe away from anything that may get found out. A certain CEO who boasted that "he would deliver the votes" - his company made the machines - has now had to go public and say that he was a damn fool for making such a stupid statement with so much potential political fallout.

4) Piss off enough people that you had hoodwinked, and they WILL change their votes - this is the most persuasive argument of all....

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:53 PM

Oops - forgot the best one of all

5) Many people like me did not SAY that the previous elections WERE rigged - but

"Not only must Justice be done - it must be SEEN to have been done"

- something which many US "loyal repubs" holding public official positions of electoral officers did NOT go far enough to demonstrate beyond doubt...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:54 PM

Focus gentle people, FOCUS! There are enough differing directions for a dozen other threads. Peace, I'd love to discuss the Jesus you present and the Jesus I know. How about " ...a strong man armed keepeth his palace." and "I came not to bring peace but a sword." and "If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife and children, and brethern, and sisters, yea his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Stuff for a separate thread. Dianavan, how do you feel about the Mexican invasion of the US's southern border? Do we have the right to defend our country? Will Rogers liked to say that "the right to swing your fist ends just short of my nose"   but our laws regarding assault say that if you cock back your fist while facing me, you've already committed the crime of assualt. If you have a neighbor who makes credible threats against you and gives evidence that he has the means to carry out those threats, the authorities have the right to enter his premises, disarm and arrest him. I repeat: The US has the right, the duty, the obligation to protect it's citizens from belligerent nations which make credible threats against us. In fact, ALL civilized nations all have that same burden, to stand against outlaw nations and nations that create safe harbor for active enemies of peaceful nations. I would contend that it is YOU who does not either know what peace is or, knowing, does not want peace. If Iran espoused a "live and let live" policy toward Israel and the US, sought friendly relations, the nuclear powers would help her with her real energy needs and while they might try to discourage her from nuclear energy (especially in light of her abundant oil reserves) they would have helped her in her peaceful goals. But you and I know that's not what is going on here. The threats have been made, jihad declared. Hated Israel must go. What is YOUR agenda? What do you really want? I submit that it is your own hatred of law and order that leads you to your political and social opinions. I could be wrong on that last point but I'm interested in what really motivates you.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 07:57 PM

I didn't present my view of Jesus, Slag. It's a quotation from the www done by a songwriter. Also, who are you addressing with your post?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:05 PM

Slag - I'm with you part of the way, until...

If the USA "espoused a 'live and let live' policy toward" other nations.... but the historical evidence has often showed that the USA has provoked revolutions, etc in many foreign countries, so those external to the US ALSO feel "The threats have been made", and indeed proven, and even admitted in the USA official places 'the dreadful deeds done'...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:25 PM

Rogue nations developing nuclear weapons? The first was the USA (though Germany, Britaina nd lately it has been discovered, Japan, were well on the way). The only country to actually use them so far has been the USA. Hmmm. Yes, I've heard too that that was done to save American lives and end WW2 quickly. Maybe that was part of it, but I can think of at least two other reasons: the first is fairly generally accepted I believe, that the USA wanted to send a clear signal to Russia (which was overrunning Europe faster than the 'other allies') not to get too big for its boots. the second reason might be a bit less palatable to all you folks out there, but I feel it has to be seriously considered however inhumane it sounds. Werll, it's this: the scientests who dveloped the first A-bomb had a pretty good idea of what it woould do to a bunch of rusted old trucks and shacks in the desert.... but to a real city with real live people? Where would they find such a laboratory? And lo! just at that time they were presented with a once-in a lifetime opportunity to have that question answered immediately, an opportunity which was unlikely to come again for many years and for which certainly no volunteers would be found. The Japanese were the perfect guinea pigs. And if terrorism is the deliberate targetting of civilians, the USA must rank as one of the greatest terrorists of all time for those two bombs alone. (Don't worry, I am well able to distinguish between peace loving US folk and the neo-con regimes that infest the body politic from time to time).

That ushered in an era of tense standoff. Other countries got nuclear weapons. The situation looked more unstable. So some time later, with tens of thousands of bombs apiece, the two big nuclear superpowers thought it would be a good idea if no more countries joined the nuclear club and so they dreamed up the SALT and non-proliferation treaties. They agreed to get rid of some of their immense stockpiles of WMD (while still keeping a couple of thousand) and in exchange dozens of countries agreed for some reason not to try and acquire nuclear weapons. Today, the main threat of terorists getting their hands on nuclear material comes from the stockpiles of WMD developed during the cold war.

Since nuclear weapons seem to be the main deterrent to being wantonly attacked these days, it makes sense for everyone to try and get them and as fast as they can. US foreign policy in the last few years has had a direct bearing on the sudden new desireability of nuclear bombs among all the other nations.

And since we're talking about rogue states in the region, you could hardly find a more rogue or maverick state than Israel, who will neither confirm nor deny it has nuclear wepaons, though it took Mordechai Vanneu's whistleblowing on their nuclear programme seriously enough to jail him for 18 years and threaten him with further jail if he talks to anyone (i.e media). It's estimated Israel has about 100+ warheads (its secret services had to steal uranium as part of this programme).

We have two choices: get rid of all these nuclear wepaons (a daunting task) or admit that otherwise every vulnerable nation will try and acquire them as their only form of security. And who can blame them?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:31 PM

Slag, you made an interesting comment: "The US has the right, the duty, the obligation to protect it's citizens from belligerent nations which make credible threats against us. In fact, ALL civilized nations all have that same burden, to stand against outlaw nations and nations that create safe harbor for active enemies of peaceful nation"

Then you must agree that right extends also to Iran, against which threats have been made by the USA, long before the Iranian president said anything about Israel. As for nations creating safe harbours of enemies of peaceful nations, you might consider doing something so about the US' harbouring of Luis Carillos Posada, the terorist who blew up a cUban airliner killing its passengers, currently wanted by Venezulea for terrorist acts and whom the United States refuses to extradite and continues to shelter from justice.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:39 PM

>>Now, any country in the world can invade any other country and say, "America did it, why can't we"?<<

Cuz they'll end up shit's creek where we are right now.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:39 PM

Well, yeah. That is what usually happens to nations which commit aggression...eventually. That's why Bush was a fool to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:42 PM

Of course we have the right to a tack! Furthermore, we have the right to a staple, a paperclip, and a friggin' Post-It Note! So there!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:57 PM

GUEST,Gza - 07 Dec 06 - 12:54 PM

"Iran funds terrorism"?? - True Gza, even Iran does not deny this. They provide training, weapons and financial backing to groups whose sole purpose is to destabilse the region. They are not interested in peace or in the suffering of the Palestinian people. Peace is an anathema to these people, any peace deal would completely and utterly end their influence in the situation and relegate them to the sidelines, that they cannot accept as they then could not use the Palestinian/Israel conflict to divert the attention of their own population away from their own internal repressive measures.

"From their point of view the biggest terrorists out there are the USA and Israel, who have killed far more people and funded far more effective death-dealing than the Iranians have."

Pretty broad statement there Gza. Have you any facts to back that up. I see that you are very selective when it comes to looking at the period of this conflict. Here however are some of the facts:

- Under the League of Nations Mandate a Jewish Homeland was to be established. Note Gza a Jewish Homeland, not a Jewish Nation, not a Jewish State. As agreed the area in which this was to take place the Jews were allocated 25% of the area the Arabs 75%. While the Arabs could buy and settle within the areas allocated to the Jews, the Jews could not purchase land in the 75% of the area allocated to the Arabs.

- In 1920 the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Tosser Arafat's Uncle) instigated an Arab uprising against the Jews in Palestine based on the lie that Jews had attacked and killed Arabs - That was a lie deliberately told and entirely without foundation. Truth was that not a single Arab had even had his hair ruffled let alone killed. No matter to Tosser Arafat's Uncle who was a lying, thiefing conniving bastard at the best of times, all of these sterling qualities in a self-appointed "national" leader he passed on the Tosser Arafat himself, which goes a long way to explain the current state of the Palestinian people who entrusted their leadership in this charlatan and crook.

- In 1929 the same Grand Mufti pulled the same stunt again, this time he was arrested for it but escaped and fled - Another lie told by a so-called Arab spiritual leader that caused innocent blood to be spilled - How we going so far Gza? Ever read about any of this?

- 1936 comes "The Arab Revolt" for the third time the Grand Mufti (Tosser Arafat's Uncle) tries it on, but by this time the Jews have organised, because they now know that they cannot rely on the British for protection against the lies of this complete and utter arsehole and the activities of his "followers" although "sheep" would be a far better description. This time the Grand Mufti has to flee, because the Brits are now onto his game. Where does he go - directly to a certain A. Hitler, resident of the by now slightly enlarged German Reich. Tosser Arafat's Uncle remains in Berlin as A. Hitler's honoured guest throughout the war, with the odd excursion to form Muslim SS units in the Balkans in oder to hunt down Jews who might have escaped the German dragnet for the "Final Solution".

- 1945, whoops, massive dissappointment for Tosser Arafat's Uncle because A. Hitler fails to deliver on his promise of world domination, that world being entirely Jew free. Consequence, Tosser Arafat's Uncle, the self-styled grand Mufti of Jerusalem has to run and hide for a while. He eventually turns up in Egypt where he bounces the infant Tosser Arafat on his knees and fills his head with tales of the "good-old-days" and educates Tosser Arafat in the ways of scamming the "Palestinian People" (Tosser Arafat proves to be very good at this, amassing a personal fortune at the expense of the people he is supposed to be leading, who in reality he could give a toss for).

- 1945 to 1948 dying phase of the British Mandate under the terms of the League of Nations. The Brits who have been between a rock and a hard place, and who have been trying with everything at their disposal to limit immigration of Jews into Palestine to agreed levels, tell the newly formed UN that they will no longer stand guard over this area.

1948 - The Arab League attack Jewish settlements. The Jewish Settlers although vastly outnumbered and outgunned fight back and win. The UN recognises the State of Israel as does the United States of America, who further declares that they will guarantee the security of the State of Israel. Over 500,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries, their land and property confiscated. During the conflict a far lesser number of Arabs advised by the Arab League to vacate their land in order that unrestricted attacks can be made upon the Jewish civilians and armed forces. Unfortunately for the Arab League the Jews win through, and the Arab League has to sue for peace and a ceasefire is brokered by the UN. Arabs however not happy - they have gambled and they have lost - in terms of conflicts throughout history such events have consequences clearly not accepted by the Arabs of the region - Still with us Gza?

1956 - Gamal Abul Nasser, the great pan-Arabist decides that he will put matters to right and wipe Israel off the face of the world. Main grievance is Palestinian right of return. In the meantime the Jews have made their displaced bretheren from Arab lands welcome in the newly formed State of Israel, while the neighbouring Arab States have done absolutely damn all for the Palestinian refugees, denied them any rights of citizenship and filled their heads with false hopes of Right of Return - Note Gza the Arabs do not even consider offering such right of return to the Jewish refugees that they kicked out at 24 hours notice - That seem fair to you Gza? Unfortunately Gamal Abul Nasser and the rest of the Arab world who decide to attack Israel in order to put the matter to rights get their collective butts kicked and Israel wins again. Another peace deal is brokered by the UN. However the Arabs are still not happy, they want to return to the status quo of 1948 - sorry not possible- Once again they have gambled and they have lost - in terms of conflicts throughout history such events have consequences clearly not accepted by the Arabs of the region .

1966 - Gamal Abul Nasser again decides to try his hand, forms a coalition of the willing, hoodwinks Jordan into supporting him, and starts parking various large armies along the borders of Israel. The pre-emptive strike to beat all pre-emptive stikes is launched by the Israeli airforce. The Israeli's achieve total air superiority in the region and total defeat of the Arab armies ensues. Another UN brokered ceasefire, Arabs not happy, having threatened Israel with total destruction and lost, they want to return to the status quo of 1956 ceasefire agreement - sorry not possible - they have gambled and they have lost - in terms of conflicts throughout history such events have consequences clearly not accepted by the Arabs of the region.

1973 - Yom Kippur War Arabs try it on again and suffer another defeat (They should be getting used to this by now, but they are obviously on a very slow learning curve). Another UN brokered ceasefire with the Arabs wishing to return to 1966 borders, sorry not possible - they have gambled and they have lost - in terms of conflicts throughout history such events have consequences clearly not accepted by the Arabs of the region.

Bi-Lateral peace agreements struck between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan - Land for peace. Tosser Arafat's PLO attempt a coup to displace the Hashemite rulers of Jordan the only Arab country to offer the Palestinians a secure refuge. This results in the Palestinians being displaced from Jordan and Jordan cedes the West Bank to the Palestinians.

Various Intifada's where Tosser Arafat encourages the youth of the Palestinian refugee camps to do what he and other Arab leaders have singularly failed to do - i.e. take on Israel. Israel quite rightly takes the view, you attack us, we will attack you. Major point of difference is however that the Israeli's concentrate on attacking the militants, the PLO employ a deliberate policy of indiscriminate attacks on Jewish civilians. As Israeli attacks prove to be successful the PLO militants surround themselves with Palestinian human shields.

What ensues is an never-ending series of Arab indiscriminate attack followed by Israeli targeted assassination, as in previous conflicts the Israeli's prove to be the more successful.

No Palestinian attacks results in no Israeli reprisals - Hezbollah and Hamas have yet to hoist this fact in, they are still on that extremely slow Arab learning curve. They still cling to this avowed goal of eliminating the State of Israel and driving the Jews into the sea. They still hold dear to their belief that the existance of the State of Israel is a stain on the face of the Arab World that must at all costs be erradicated. Gza, as long as that mind set prevails in the hearts of the Arabs, people will die, because as clearly stated in this thread every nation has right of self defence - That includes the internationally recognised State of Israel, and in the past fifty years, she's made a damn good job of it against some pretty incredible odds, long may she continue to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM

McGrath of Harlow - 07 Dec 06 - 01:04 PM

"Relative to the scale of the numbers killed by the Contras when they were backed by the USA, yes. The number killed by Hezbollah in conflicts with Israel is far smaller."

With regard to the number of Israeli's killed by Hezbollah, I would venture to add MGOH not for the want of trying - True??

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:05 PM

Foolestroupe - 07 Dec 06 - 06:57 PM

"I am now delaring 'my right to attack Teribus"!"

For Christsake Foolestroupe who on earth would want you to change your MO now. You have never once debated a single point put up in arguement to your idiotic assertions, as pointed out by others in this forum on numerous occasions you have always resorted immediately to personal attack, leaving not one single point of discussion refuted. You are a complete and utter lightweight mate.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 10:54 PM

"as in previous conflicts the Israelis prove to be the more successful"

Agreed. They are far better at killing people than their Muslim opponents are. They're even better at it than the Americans are, and that's saying something.

Heinz Guderian would be very impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:05 PM

Little Hawk - 07 Dec 06 - 10:54 PM

Agreed Little Hawk the Israeli's are far better at killing their opponents than the Arab Muslim's terrorist organisations are. The main points of difference being that the Israeli's target those responsible for the violence launched against them. Attacks are made in retaliation for indiscrimate attacks on Israeli civilians on the part of the Arab terrorist organisations funded and backed by Syria and Iran (A certain GWB ended a long standing agreement between those terrorist organisations and Iraqi Authorities about three years ago) - True?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 11:54 PM

And ever since then there have been no terrorists in Iraq. Ain't it wonderful.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 01:50 AM

FTroop, You misquoted me. I said If IRAN were to adopt a live and let live attitude. Nickhere, the US made threats against Iran??? I remember training Iranian airmen at the base where I was stationed. Our good relations with the Iranian GOVERNMENT went away with the Islamic revolution and the advent of the Ayatolla Khomeini. And the blatant act of war against the US Embassy may have had something to do with a change in the flavor of our official rhetoric (after the inept and cowardly "Jimmy Carter" failed to do anything about it). I believe many people in Iran and those who escaped the "revolution" still think very favorably of America. I've known several wonderful Iranians and they have no use for the Islamic revolution. As to your side note about Vensuelean justice, talk about an oxymoron!!! I don't off-hand recall the details of Posada's case so I can't really comment on the particulars of that situation but generally speaking Hugo Chavez is not someone I would turn to for justice.

Gee Peace! I was feelin' all warm and fuzzy! I thought YOU had written that little ballad. But that's OK. I just was wondering what point you were trying to make by inserting it into this thread, brother!. Peace be with you.

Good factually accurate re-cap, Teribus, on the history of the Palestinians, the infatada, Arafat and the shared goals of A. Hitler.

The bedrock values I hold to are those that permit dialog, peaceful resolution of differences and conflicts, justice, respect and diginity to those who show respect and dignity, a democratic voice, the rights of the individual. I don't, however, believe that those very bedrock values are up for discussion as this is our foundation and without it, it ALL falls down. You can't sacrifice democracy to gain democracy. You can't eneter slavery to gain freedom. You can't have a nation without borders and you can't declare "peace" when someone is trying to blow you up or wipe you from the face of the map.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:11 AM

"Peace be with you." And also with you, Slag.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Barry Finn
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:39 AM

Jimmy Carter's hands were tied so that Regean would take the office. Still Jimmy didn't end up with 55 gallon drums of blood on his hands either & having to ship home coffins. I quess this still sounds more like Viet Nam after all. It's not a war (tell me it's a police action,please) & were probably gonna get out the same way, off the roof by helo. Iraq may also stay in one piece after the end too, I would hope so but we've seemed to take care that, that's not gonna happen, wonder why. I'm sure it'll take another 30 years before this releationship will be mended. 600,00 or 6,000 I can't believe there's nit-picking about the loss of life. The loss of any innocent is unexceptable but why must we except otherwise. Shit happens is not a decent answer either.

"Hugo Chavez is not someone I would turn to for justice". His people don't hold your opinion, he just won in a landslide. But then we tend to see things from our veiw point & not there's. Same everywhere else that we seem to want to stir up a honet's nest. That's why we are where we are now.

The posts above where he say, she say is the argument. It looks as if one could take out the names used & replace them with the a whole list of offending nations. So those arguments IMHO suck. I'd have to agree with the invader getting sancitioned by the rest. You invade another country first, the rest of the world turns their back on you, until you alone repair ALL. And we had the balls to ask the UN & others to clean upour shit & to help pay the tab too. What should've happened when the US invaded the last 2 nations when it saw fit to terrorize other nations is that the rest of the world should've abandoned us. But the US weilds to much power & influence & the "coalition of the willing" either didn't have the morals or the balls to shun us. Isreal would never danced thru Lebonon or put up a divide inside another states borders if they'd thought that the world would turn their backs on them.
A war isn't needed to to stop an invasion, the world shunning the invader is enough & there's no blood involved. No nation can survive as an island unto themselves though I can think of a couple or three that think they can.
Ya, I know, in a perfect world........but we almost had the world shunning us there for a while, didn't we. Wonder what changed that?
Everybody wants to back somebody & sometimes they might have a good reason for it too but it's up to the people of the nations to supply the morals & give it some backbone. Something that's been in short supply form where I'm standing. We should be fighting for the enviorment, education, national health, equality, peace & so many other things that are far more important instead we stand divided & bloody all that we touch.


Barry
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:01 AM

Everybody in that Middle East dispute funds terrorist organizations, Teribus. It's just that you don't recognize it AS terrorism when the Israelis, the British, or the Americans are the ones doing the funding...and the terrorism.

Terrorism is this: a deliberate attempt to terrorize other people into doing what you want them to do by employing violence against them...and the threat of violence. Such violence and intimidation may be carried out by individuals, paramilitary groups, suicide bombers, assassins, spies, secret police or professional armies. It's all terrorism. And that is completely obvious to those who are on the receiving end of the violence.

But you'll never get that, will you? You think one side in this thing is "good" and the other is "bad". Ha! It's not nearly that simple. They are all using terrorism. Those with the greater firepower have far more effective methods of spreading terror.

You want to know real terror? Go back a couple of thousand years, and try not cooperating with the Roman Empire. Now those guys knew how to spread terror! Yessiree. And they were the superpower of their time, like America is now. Superpowers have abilities to spread havoc and terror that make other people look like rank amateurs, but they never admit that that's what it is. Oh no...they're too 'good' for that, right? It's only little ragged countries and little ragged people who can be deemed to commit "terrorism".

Bullshit. Orwellian Newspeak. Doubletalk. Lies.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:29 AM

That Teribus guy is corkscrewing into the ground, please lay off him before he explodes, quote he, quote he, forever, "If brevity be the Soul of wit" this guy wouldn`t want to meet the wind-bag,

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 05:03 AM

Funny thing is Little Hawk, I have NEVER yet heard any Israeli declare ANY INTENTION, OR AIM of wiping any country or race from the face of the earth, regardless of provocation. On the otherhand over the years, there have been numerous examples of such threats being uttered by Arab Nations and by Terrorist Organisations that they sponsor.

Now, while you and I can sit back fat-dumb-and-happy in our respective distant safe-havens, discussing the finer points of the arguement, the Israeli's have to deal with the realities of the situation, and given THEIR recent past history they are going to take a very serious view of such threats.

As someone in this thread has already pointed out, given that it is every country's right to defend itself, and given that it is reprehensible for any nation to attack another in order to defend itself. It follows that it is perfectly in order for Israel to build it's dividing wall (which has been extremely effective), to establish stringent check-points, to restrict access, etc, in order to defend itself. It also follows that it is reprehensible for the Palestinians to indiscriminately target and bomb Israeli citizens.

As to "borders" the following has been true throughout the entire period, that first the Jews, then post-1948 the Israeli's have always been open to negotiation and dialogue in order to solve the differences in the region. The Arabs of the region on the otherhand have always resorted to violence and the threat of violence as a first resort, the reasoning behind this is that they have no wish to live in peace alongside Israel, their ultimate goal is to destroy the state of Israel. As a result of numerous spectacular and catastrophic defeats, the Arabs of the region no longer face up as nations, they sponsor various groups of malcontents to continue the struggle by proxy on their behalf. Some day the general rank and file of the "Palestinian People" (An invention of Tosser Arafat's by the way) will wake up to the fact that those who have supposedly been "leading" them for the past fifty years and more, do not have their best interests at heart and that another way is required. At that point the militant groups and countries such as Syria and Iran will be told to bugger off.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:35 AM

"I have NEVER yet heard any Israeli declare ANY INTENTION, OR AIM of wiping any country or race from the face of the earth, regardless of provocation."

That's because it's a Secret Zionist Conspiracy, Mr T!

Oh, and I'm still waitng for my tack from you ...

"As to "borders" the following has been true throughout the entire period, that first the Jews, then post-1948 the Israeli's have always been open to negotiation and dialogue in order to solve the differences in the region."

Oh dear. I had to replace the keyboard there... coffee in the keys again...


Oh sorry, you meant, "as long as they get exactly want they want - just the way the USA taught them..."

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:48 AM

Hell's teeth Foolstroupe! Is that it? Is that the best you can come up with by way of a reasoned arguement? A Secret Zionist Conspiracy!! Awfully covenient don't you think? Totally implausible and completely ridiculous.

As to the willingness of the Jews and latterly the Israeli's to accept League of Nations and UN proposals for the area - That is a matter of record Foolstroupe, as is the rejection of those proposals by the Arabs. Now bring something to table that refutes that, don't worry about me, no personal attacks, just counter what I have stated with some facts.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:05 AM

"Hell's teeth Foolstroupe! Is that it? Is that the best you can come up with by way of a reasoned arguement? A Secret Zionist Conspiracy!! Awfully covenient don't you think? Totally implausible and completely ridiculous."

Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more! I'm with you mate!


"the rejection of those proposals by the Arabs"

I can well understand the unwillingness of people ejected from land where their grandfathers lie buried to accept the permanent loss of that land from their family...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:10 AM

You are 'off-topic' again, BTW Yeribus... back on yer hobby horse mate...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:14 AM

Fooles has little interest in the facts.


I do have to correct you in one statement- There is a "Palestinian People." THEY were given the ARAB HOMELAND of TRANSJORDAN, previously a part of Mandate Palestine.




"A British government memorandum in September 1922 ("The Churchill White Paper"), approved by the League of Nations Council, specifically excluded Jewish settlement from the Transjordan area of the Palestine Mandate. The whole process was aimed at satisfying wartime pledges made to the Arabs and at carrying out British responsibilities under the Mandate. Unfortunately for the Zionists and counter to the whole expressed purpose of the Mandate in the first place, by this action more than three-quarters of the territory of the British Mandate was taken away from the potential Jewish Homeland without any corresponding action favoring the Palestinian Jews. The squeeky Arab wheel was greased with concessions at the sole expense of the Jewish population."


AND
"In 1923 the British "chopped off" 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian Nation of "Trans-Jordan," meaning "across the Jordan River." The Palestinian Arabs now had THEIR homeland... the remaining 25% of the original Palestinian territory (west of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then or now and they were determined to get ALL of that remaining 25%. Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron slaughters of 1929 and later the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt."

http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp


EVERY time the Arabs have been given what they want, they take it and then demand it again. 3/4 of Mandate Palestine, then 3/4 of Palestine, then 3/4 of Israel, than 3/4 of whatever is left, then 3/4...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:16 AM

"I can well understand the unwillingness of people ejected from land where their grandfathers lie buried to accept the permanent loss of that land from their family... "

So, you agree with the RESETTLEMENT of the West bank by the Jews driven out from 1948 to 1967?


Or do you continue to exempt Jews from the human race?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM

"Or do you continue to exempt Jews from the human race? "

1) Ah! - the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" dilemma, eh? :-)

2) If and when THEY want to BE part of the normal human race like the rest of us, and not "YWH's chosen people", that'll be good progress in the Middle East... THEY are one the ones with the publicly endlessly expressed mantra that they ARE NOT just part of the human race, but something 'special' with overriding claims (that their special imaginary friend told them) on particular chunks of land, mate...

"the RESETTLEMENT of the West bank by the Jews driven out from 1948 to 1967?"

Everybody back to their own beds!

Thank you Nurse Ratchet...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:42 AM

Fooles,

So, you state that JEWS are NOT entitled to the same rights you are advocating to the Palestinians?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:45 AM

Still got nothing sensible to contribute then Foolstroupe?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:59 AM

"So, you state that JEWS are NOT entitled to the same rights you are advocating to the Palestinians? "

So let me explain for the naive, the old "Have you stopped beating your wife yet - answer just yes or no" dilemma.

If you answer yes, that means that you WERE beating your wife, and thus guilty.

If you answer no, then that means that you ARE STILL beating your wife, and thus guilty.

Ah, you say, but I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEATEN MY WIFE. Irrelevant, you see, because EVERYBODY already KNOWS that you are ALREADY guilty! "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up!"

You just can win against, nor should you ever be sucked into wasting time arguing with, such closed minded wankers, you see....

beardedbruce,

you have just played EXACTLY the same kind of manipulative mind game that Teribus tried when he claimed that I would not condemn one bunch of nutters and their imaginary friend for killing 'the other side', AFTER I had ALREADY stated that NOBODY ON EITHER SIDE should be killing ANYBODY!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:03 AM

"So, you state that JEWS are NOT entitled to the same rights you are advocating to the Palestinians? "

I repeat for those who were incapable before - perhaps repetition may help it sink in....

QUOTE
2) If and when THEY want to BE part of the normal human race like the rest of us, and not "YWH's chosen people", that'll be good progress in the Middle East... THEY are one the ones with the publicly endlessly expressed mantra that they ARE NOT just part of the human race, but something 'special' with overriding claims (that their special imaginary friend told them) on particular chunks of land, mate...
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:15 AM

Fooles,

" AFTER I had ALREADY stated that NOBODY ON EITHER SIDE should be killing ANYBODY! "

So, just STATE that the Palestinians DO NOT have the rights that you deny to Jews.

YOU seem to think that mentioning the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet - answer just yes or no" dilemma." exempts YOU from having to justify YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:05 AM

...........
"the rejection of those proposals by the Arabs"

I can well understand the unwillingness of people ejected from land where their grandfathers lie buried to accept the permanent loss of that land from their family...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:53 PM

........
... after sending Israeli settlers back into a land they vacated (willingly or not!) for generations...

Dunno WHY the poor bastards already LIVING there would consider these armed actions to be a threat against them?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



YOU imply that JEWS are not entitled to resettle lands unwillingly vacated, but that Palestinians are.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 08:28 AM

I IMPLY nothing - you INFER, and thus ASS-U-ME...

You just cannot accept (like many Americans) that anybody would want fairness, can you - YOU MUST have one 'side' victorious over another - MUST HAVE A WINNER!

Glad to see that we are now back on the ORIGINAL thread topic... and that you two have clearly demonstrated Little Hawk's

QUOTE
It's a kind of Orwellian media technique, this constant speaking of the readiness to attack this or that other country which has somehow failed to meet American requirements or demands in some way. By talking about it all the time, one normalizes the idea in the minds of the American public. They begin to think it is perfectly normal and acceptable to openly threaten other countries with attack, label them as "evil", identify them as "a foe of America", and speculate about when it would be most advantageous to invade them!
UNQUOTE

Glad to help you out any time you want to prove a point in future Little Hawk!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:12 AM

Fooles:"You just cannot accept (like many Americans) that anybody would want fairness, can you - YOU MUST have one 'side' victorious over another - MUST HAVE A WINNER!"

beardedbruce:"So, just STATE that the Palestinians DO NOT have the rights that you deny to Jews."


Just WHO is it that MUST HAVE A WINNER? Seems like My staatement is fair, and YOURS is demanding an unfair ( biased, bigoted or predjudiced) situation.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:34 AM

"You just can't win against, nor should you ever be sucked into wasting time arguing with, such closed minded wankers, you see...."



Now I understand- YOU have no facts to base your opinions on. Seems like I should not be wasting time arguing with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 12:59 PM

Possibly pedantic drift:

"our laws regarding assault say that if you cock back your fist while facing me, you've already committed the crime of assault."

Just one comment on that, and Dickens put it best: "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot."

A threat to commit an assault is a threat, not an assault. It may be justifiable to react to it as if it had been an actual assault, but that is a different matter.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:04 PM

Pedantically he is correct. Assault is the threat of battery, and is actionable. The impact of the fist is battery.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:13 PM

Knocking the teeth out is mayhem.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:25 PM

Teribus, Israel has been implicitly threatening the entire Muslim world in the Middle Eastern area with extermination, by means of at least 100 nuclear weapons, for some considerable time now. Of course they don't say so openly in public international dialogue, they don't even admit they have the nukes, but they have made it quite clear to the Muslims through quiet diplomatic channels that that is what will happen if, for example, they should lose a conventional war and find Arab armies crossing their borders into Israel. And everyone knows it.

Their message: "We will annihilate you. Depend upon it. Mecca, Medina, Cairo, Ryadh, Tehran, Damascus, all your cities...all will go POOF! And you will all die."

And the Muslims know it well. You are mistaken that the Israelis have not threatened to wipe out other countries. They have. They just threaten quietly...like when the Mafia sends a cold-eyed guy in a suit to let you know exactly what will happen if you cross the line.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:27 PM

Correct, Litlle Hawk. When Israel has NO option left, that is the one it will use. It is part of the reason they have not been exterminated by their 'neighbours'.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:29 PM

LH.

You miss the point- "find Arab armies crossing their borders into Israel."

Seems like defense to me, so what are you complaining about. Iran has stated it wants Israel's destruction WITHOUT Iran's borders being violated.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 02:59 PM

How DARE Canada maintain ATTACK aircraft!


AIRCOM Aircraft

Strike, Attack and Offensive Support Aircraft
98 McDonnell-Douglas CF-188 Hornet tactical fighter bombers

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:08 PM

I have never said that Israel should not defend itself, guys. It should and has every right to. What I am saying is that Israel's cold ferocity toward its Muslim foes is equal to their cold ferocity against Israel. They both have similarly deadly and ruthless intentions. There isn't a "good guy" on one side of this dispute and a "bad guy" on the other...there are two lots of people who have no respect or goodwill toward one another, and no hesitation to murder and destroy...at any moment they think they can get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:15 PM

LH,

"They both have similarly deadly and ruthless intentions."

THIS statement is one you have not shown as being justified.


Israel has nuclear weapons- and has not used them.
Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons, and claims it will use them to destroy Israel.

Has Israel attacked Iran?

Has Iran funded Hezbollah, which HAS attacked Israel?



"There isn't a "good guy" on one side of this dispute and a "bad guy" on the other..."

Just like there is no differnece between Canada and North Korea in their intentions. HOW much asbestos has Canada sent to Indonesia, in violation of international law? I guess we can blockade Canada, just like N. Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM

BTW, just WHICH of the UN terms for the Lebonese ceasefire have been actually implemented?


ONLY the one the require Israeli action. When Hezbollah meets the terms on the UN ceasefire, then you can talk to me about "similarly deadly and ruthless intentions"

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:08 PM

I do not for a moment believe that Iran has ever claimed it would use atomic weapons to attack Israel, BB. As a matter of fact, the Iranians claim is that they are do NOT have any plan to even make any atomic bombs....they claim they have a nuclear project to generate power. That is what they say. And no one has proven otherwise, though you would like it to be so, so you can prove they are the lunatics you would wish them to be, so you can justify attaking them.

How, therefore, can they be saying they are going to bomb Israel with atomic weapons? They cannot simultaneously be saying that and also saying that they have no nuclear weapons program, after all. ;-)

Israel's deady and ruthless intentions have been demonstrated already, over and over again, about as many times as those of their enemies. They kill whoever they want to and invade whoever they want to, simply because they can. They have the power to do it, and the backing of the USA as well, and that's enough to do it quite freely. Their Muslim enemies do not have that luxury, so they resort to more clandestine techniques, like suicide bombings and firing rockets and so on. The powerful launch military strikes in broad daylight...the weak practice guerrilla warfare from the shadows. Their intentions toward one another are much the same. They both wish to do deadly harm and defeat the other one.

As for Canada, I have never claimed my country is totally innocent in regards to the matters you keep bringing up about asbestos. ;-) It's not. The allmighty dollar rules here, just like it does everywhere else, and they who make it (coporations) care not whose lives they destroy in the process.

No, you are the one who apparently feels compelled to paint Israel as totally innocent...as the eternally guiltless victim. They are not totally innocent. They too are selfish and they too hurt other people for their own gain. That is my only point. There are no "good guys" in that dispute, other than the innocent civilians on both sides who suffer when the violence happens.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:12 PM

Then there is progress, because until now you have painted Israel as the bad guy from whence all the bad in the Middle East has sprung. Saying that they too are bad at least implies that the Muslim communities could use a little improvement in attitude and ways of doing things.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:23 PM

To the contrary, I have always asserted that ALL terrorist acts of attack by either Muslims on Israel or Israel on Muslims are bad.

The only reason I criticize Israel more often is that people act like Israel wears a halo or something...like they were beyond criticism, because any criticism of Israel must be anti-semitism!!!

Everyone in whole our western civilization already agrees that Muslim terrorism is bad. So do I. ;-) I see little point in saying for the 50,000th time that water is wet when I see everbody else doing it. What for? Who doesn't already know?

No, but if I see people customarily acting as if Israeli water is NOT wet and USA water is not wet and living in total denial about it....then I will speak up against that popular viewpoint most strongly, and that is what I am doing and why I am doing it.

They are not exempt from criticism. Not unless we have ceased to live in a free society at all.

They and the Muslims could equally well stand to make "a little improvement in attitude and ways of doing things". They are both equally to blame for each other's suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:25 PM

"No, you are the one who apparently feels compelled to paint Israel as totally innocent...as the eternally guiltless victim. They are not totally innocent."


Point one- find the statement that I have ever made that Israel was "totally innocent." My greatest regret is that the pressure of defence, of simple survial, has caused the Israeli government to harden it's heart against Arab suffering. But I hold the ARABS responsible for that.

Please give examples of Israel " kill(ing) whoever they want to and invade whoever they want to, simply because they can. "

When they targeted the launch sites of the missles attacking Israel's civilian population?

When they blow up the houses where the missles and bombs are being made?

When they collapse the tunnels where the bombs are brought into Gaza, or into Israel?

When they shoot people who are shooting at them?


All of the above are admitted, and far more "innocent" than Canada's killing 3 million civilians over the next 30 years just to keep 1000 miners employed.


Point two- Can you give ANY example of Israel attacking anywhere that a reasonable person would NOT consider to be self-defense?

I will give you the one artillary barrage that was at an erroneous target- offset by the Palesinian rockets that killed the family of 8 on a Gaza beach.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:26 PM

Thank you again, Little Hawk, because you have never put it so clearly before.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:34 PM

"They are both equally to blame for each other's suffering. "


THIS is a statement that I have seen no justification for.

Had the Palestinians not fled as per Arab League command, they would not be refugees.

Had the other Arab nations accepted the Palestinian refugees, as Israel accepted the Arab Jewish refugees, there would not be any Palestinian refugees.

Had Jordan ( the ARAB HOMELAND of Mandate Palestine) settled the Palestinian refugess in Jordan, as India settled the Hindu refugees from Pakistan, and Pakistan settled the Muslim refugees from India, and Israel settled the Jewish refugess from the Arab nations, THERE WOULD BE NO CONFLICT.


Yet, you hold Israel "EQUALLY" responsible to those whe deliberatly target it's civilian population. Since you will admit Canada is not perfect, as I admit Israel is not, will you accept EQUAL blame for Hitler's actions in WWII, since Canada took part in that conflict? If not, WHY should Israel accept the blame for what the other Arab countries did (or did not do)?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:37 PM

oh, to be fair...

If Israel had just accepted complete destruction, and let itself be destroyed, there would also have been no conflict. YOU have even admitted that that is not a suitable solution.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM

Foolishtroop, you could use the services of a pedagogue. The fallacy you were harping on is one of the informal fallacies, to wit the fallacy of the compound question. Were you to study the science of logic you might even learn what a "fact" is and how to present a "logical argument". Otherwise discussion with you is somewhat like a discussion with a fence post.

LH has some facts at hand but many of his conclusions are non-sequiturs, i.e., "...it does not follow..." or "hastily drawn conclusions". Case in point: there is NO clear evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons. Israel has never stated that it has nuclear weapons. It is, however, in Israel's interest to let it's hostile (that is, HOSTILE) neighbors assume whatever they will about their nuclear abilities. Israel's attitude and posture is DEFENSIVE. Implicit threat? You must be kidding. It's not a threat, its a warning very akin to "Don't tread on me!" The hate-spouting Islamic fascists ARE a threat. And not just a threat but a proven (fact) agressor that would deny Israel the right to exist. I get a little weary trying to explain simple truths to the wilfully blind. Israel IS. They exist. They have the RIGHT to exist. They have the RIGHT to defend their existence. Come on. Simple truths. To deny this is to place yourselves firmly in the camp of Israel's enemies or it is a manifestation that you are bereft of the power of reason. THERE is GALL!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:12 PM

Hey, what happened to the comment I posted here last night?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:24 PM

Do you mean the one at 8:31 PM, December 7?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM

It is quietly accepted by all nations, including the USA, that Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons, Slag, but Israel's policy has been to neither say "yes" or "no" as to whether that is so. And USA policy has been not to ask. There's a reason for that. The USA would be legally required by it's own rules to withhold military aid to Israel if Israel admitted to having nuclear weapons, because they are not allowed to by the non-proliferation treaties. The USA gives Israel about $2 billion a year in military aid, and wishes to continue doing so.

There was an article explaining all that in detail in the Toronto Star (a major Canadian newspaper) today. If I can find a link to it, I will post it.

This is a case of Israel not openly saying what everyone knows anyway, for technical legal reasons which are vital to Israel and the USA.

The Arabs resent it. They say it's a double standard. They're right about that.

If Israel did not make a practice of brazenly invading their neighbours from time to time, and brazenly settling lands outside the 1948 borders of Israel, Slag, then you would be right...their posture would be entirely defensive. Howevever, that has not been the case.

"The hate-spouting Islamic fascists ARE a threat."

Agreed! Yes, indeed. They certainly are.

There are clearly a good many hate-spouting Islamic warriors who fit the description you have given of them, and I agree with it. But they do not represent all Muslims by any means. They're the extremists. There are many moderate Muslims, and they have legitimate concerns and legitimate reasons to be upset with Israel.

The more extreme Israeli Zionists are also a threat. It cuts both way.

Individual extremists in paramilitary groups like Hezbollah or Hamas will generally make much more inflammatory statements than national governments will, because they can get away with it without suffering the same repercussions, and they're preaching to the choir (their warriors). That goes with the territory. You cannot dismiss all Muslims who are angry with Israel on the basis of a few loudmouth fanatics among their worst extremists.

BB - As far as I can see, you just are not emotionally capable of looking at an issue involving Jews in an impartial fashion, due to the terrible historical suffering they have already endured for the last 2,000 or more years, and your keen awareness of it. You want one rule of judgement to apply to them now (no accountability for wrongdoing), and a different rule of judgement upon all other people (normal accountability for wrongdoing). Well, I don't buy it. I still say that both sides are wrong in this Middle East dispute...insofar as they both engage in unjustified violence and hatred and they have no respect or goodwill toward each other.

Both need to swallow their pride, forgive what happened in the past, and listen with respect to the other's concerns, and make reasonable compromises toward living in peace together.

It's not a war anyone is going to win...but they sure could both lose it. And if so, we all lose.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 06:47 PM

I'm not sure - quite possibly. I din't check the time, but the time zones are different anyway. Did you see a post from me dated at that time?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Peace
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 07:58 PM

Nick,

Nickhere 07 Dec 06 - 08:25 PM
Nickhere 07 Dec 06 - 08:31 PM

They are still 'up' thread. They're the only ones I saw.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 09:59 PM

Here's your link:

Toronto Star article about Israel's nuclear weapons, etc...


Here's a quote from the opening paragraphs:

"Some Israelis were miffed to hear Robert Gates voice at his U.S. Senate confirmation hearing the open secret that Israel has the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.

Gates won plaudits in Washington this week for his candour on the Iraq war.

But the incoming secretary of defence also speculated at the Tuesday hearing on why Iran might be seeking the means to build an atomic bomb. "They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf," he said.

That statement led Israeli news bulletins, with some pundits suggesting former CIA chief Gates may have breached a U.S. "don't ask, don't tell" policy dating to the late 1960s.


Here's another quote:

According to recently declassified documents cited by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, under President Richard Nixon, the United States knew Israel had developed nuclear weapons but chose not to insist its Mideast ally come clean on the capability and accept international regulation.

Israel neither confirms nor denies having the bomb, as part of a "strategic ambiguity" policy that it says fends off numerically superior enemies while avoiding an arms race.

By not declaring itself, Israel also skirts a U.S. ban on funding states that proliferate weapons of mass destruction. It can thus enjoy more than $2 billion in annual military and other aid from Washington."

The Toronto Star is basically Canada's equivalent to one of the major New York or Washington newspapers.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:51 PM

QED. Or in the famed and learned words of the Great Bugs Bunny, "Ahhhh, could be!" Israel (I know I'm repeating myself from previous threads here, but...) with a population of 6.27 milllion, many of which are Arabian and others on a plot of ground smaller than San Bernardino Co., CA, Smaller than Kern Co., CA ( a quarter of Kern Co. is covered by Edwards AFB). TINY little Israel. Real bulllies there in the Middle East. Let's compare with the Islamic states (And by the way, LH, I NEVER said ALL Muslims. I said the Islamic fascists which omits the more peaceful and peace loving Muslims.):

Syria, 18.4 million, 71,498 sq.mi.
Jordan 5.8 million, 35,637 sq.mi.
Iraq 26 + million, 168,754 sq.mi.
Iran 68+ million, 636,296 sq. mi.
Egypt 77.5 million, 386,862 sq.mi.
Saudi Arabia 26.4 million, 756,985 sq.mi.

I think we can skip some of the smaller surrounding countries, Lebanon, Djibouti, Yemen etc. for space and time consideration. So with just those mentioned we have about 222 million + Muslims in the Middle East on about 2.56 million sq.mi. So, that's a ratio of 6/222 people and a land area ratio of <.0004, or 4000 to one against. Now the Radical Element in Islam seems to have a Bully pulpit and I do mean BULLY. They want to erase Israel from the face of the earth. They have launched several wars against him and somehow he survived, even triumphed. The radical Islamo-fascists are strapping bombs onto their children and blowing up the Israelis. They laucnch rockets against them. Man, I mean that has to be some provacation Israel is giving them to warrant such open hatred and agression. And note too, that it IS NOT Israel terrorizing the Muslims. They are NOT strapping bombs on their children, not even the Zionists. Their provocation? Well, the have built homes and settlements on open and unused land which borders are in dispute or upon land the Muslims LOST when the launched an unprovoke war against Israel. Israel's great sin? Reclaiming THEIR land, land that was theirs for well over a 1000 years before there ever was a Palestine. And I know you know that that was a fiat by the Roman Ceasar (Hadrian I believe) to "erase Israel from the map", the Great Diaspora when over a two million Jews were murdered and the survivors were driven from their ancient homeland. Give me a break! I hope Israel has Nukes by the bushels full. They desrve them so as to level the playing field a little. I'll say it again, "What GALL" to say they don't have the right to defend themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:12 AM

"I'll say it again, "What GALL" to say they don't have the right to defend themselves."

Tell that to Jimmy Carter.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 02:13 AM

I have said over and over again that they DO have the right to defend themselves. Print it out and stick it on your monitor, please, so you don't forget I said that.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves.

However, I do not regard a 2000-year-old claim on lands as sane or sensible in today's world...or in any era. I regard it as an exercise in religious and fanaticism and cultural megalomania.

Now that they ARE there, however, I accept it as an accomplished fact, and I support their right to exist as a Jewish state within the 1948 borders without interference. I support the right of Palestians to either peacefully share that land without interference...or to be given a decent amount of bordering land in the region where they can be self-supporting, without interference.

I do not support either side's vicious attacks on the other, specially when entire national armed forces are involved, because that does far more damage to people than scattered attacks by terrorist cells.

You make much over the fact that Israel is small, both in land and in population.

So? England is small, but they dominated the world during the glory days of the British Empire. Spain is small, but they were once THE military power in the world, with the biggest empire by far. Prussia is small, but they once cowed the rest of Europe. The same is true of Sweden, Holland, Poland, and a number of other small countries which had their day in the sun.

Size is no indication of strength when it comes to harnessing and using elite military power. Besides, the Israelis get $2 billion worth of military assistance a year from the USA, and they are the only nation on Earth that gets away with having about 100 or more nukes, and being questioned by no one about it, despite the fact that it's technically illegal for them to do that.

I don't see them as weak. I see them as mighty, and they see themselves that way too. They began to think they were simply invincible, and that's what got them into that last fiasco in Lebanon...the feeling that they were so militarily superior to any Muslin opponent that nothing could possibly go wrong. That's hubris. That's what eventually happens when you're used to being unstoppable on the field of battle...you get overconfident and you make mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:42 AM

OK LH, Gee, I wanted to argue! You're no fun. England was small in native land mass but HUGE in population and had a campaign of shipping off the surplus around the world, in effect claiming musch more land and enhancing their power. Likewise Spain acquired S. America and MADE a surplus population. The Inquisition was doing a nice job on the home front. Really, though, Spain's real power was in gold and loot from the New World. It was too vulnerable and it couldn't last. Those that you mention all had some aspect that enlarged their presence in the world and Israel has a big buddy in the US (and most likely in those nukes, too!). You might argue that Father Yahweh watches over them. I believe that. Some of Israel's saves have been no less than miraculous. I mean, if the terrorist can go running at you wearing his bomb belt shouting "Allah Akbar" I'm sure the Israelis who believe have a similar prayer on their lips to their God. But then, that may be a topic for another thread!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 05:21 AM

OK, let's see Little Hawk, on the one hand you applaud, and find commendable and extremely reasonable, Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons as a means of deterring an imaginary US attack - please note Little Hawk at no time has the US ever threatened to attack Iran. The next minute you are in print on this thread clearly stating your belief that the Iranians have no intention of developing nuclear weapons. Which one is it Little Hawk - can't be both.

Your post of 08 Dec 06 - 02:25 PM, is entirely supposition on your part, you cannot prove a single word of it to be true or factual. As such it cannot logically be used as a basis for discussion.

In your post of 08 Dec 06 - 03:08 PM you fervently state:

"There isn't a "good guy" on one side of this dispute and a "bad guy" on the other...there are two lots of people who have no respect or goodwill toward one another, and no hesitation to murder and destroy...at any moment they think they can get away with it."

On a number of occasions in the past when threatened with annihilation from its neighbours Israel has acted to defend itself. They have done so very successfully and on each occasion they have had ample opportunity to murder and completely destroy their enemies - OK, Little Hawk with all this pent up murderous fury at the Muslin world (which exists only as your rather ridiculous contention) can you explain to me why they never availed themselves of such opportunities and were always ready to accept UN intervention and mediation.

In a number of your posts in this thread I see that the goalposts have changed and that in your mind the Israeli's must now withdraw to their 1948 borders, the Arabs themselves would actually settle for the 1967 borders. Now being a keen student of history Little Hawk, you go and find out then come back and tell us who, at the time, was prepared to accept the borders defined by the UN in 1948 and who rejected the UN's proposal and opted for war instead.

Your post of 08 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM

"It is quietly accepted by all nations, including the USA, that Israel has a large number of nuclear weapons, Slag, but Israel's policy has been to neither say "yes" or "no" as to whether that is so. And USA policy has been not to ask."

It is quietly accepted is it Little Hawk? The evaluation that Israel has 100 to 200 nuclear weapons having been made by the same intelligence agencies that the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair camp so disparaged over their evaluation of intelligence information provided by the UNSCOM Inspectors regarding Iraq. What all of a sudden they are completely right about Israel just because it happens to suit your case? Let's have a bit of consistancy Little Hawk, again you cannot have it both ways.

You then go on to say:

"There's a reason for that. The USA would be legally required by it's own rules to withhold military aid to Israel if Israel admitted to having nuclear weapons, because they are not allowed to by the non-proliferation treaties."

As a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Israel is not bound by the terms of that Treaty. The US, a country that has signed the NPT is not required to withold aid military or otherwise, it is however not allowed to provide assistance in the field of nuclear technology or material.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:03 PM

Addenda to my last post with apologies. It was very late and I am fighting a virus which I hope does not become pneumonia. It's an argument I really don't want to lose. I knew there was something specious about LH's assertions but I was getting a little muddled. I'll read through all this later and see if any of it makes sense. Good nite all.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:12 PM

I'm not infallible, Teribus. ;-) If you want infallibility, become a Catholic and go talk to the Pope.

I would definitely be willing to consider the 1967 borders (rather than the 1948 borders) if I were the Muslims and I was negotiating with Israel for a settlement of this dispute. Perhaps I just made a typo or my memory failed me. Disabuse yourself of the notion that searching endlessly through an opponent's posts for some tiny technical error or oversight in what they just typed is a giant victory for you, akin to the Inchon Landing, and automatically discredits their entire position. LOL!!!

What must it be like to be you, Teribus? You have a mind that siezes upon minutiae like a starving dog. Gotta win! Gotta win! Comb through this post...see if there's a date that's wrong...or a name that isn't spelled right...hmmmm...there's got to be something...if I can just find one error in what he said, then he'll be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG...as I know he is! And I will be right. Hmmm....comb,comb, comb....AH-HAH! "1948 borders"! AH-HAH! Oh, I've got him now...

Now, let's see. Gotta look up all his past posts for the last 5 years....(click, click, click of the keys)...hmmmm...come on, I know it's here somewhere....hmmmm....

Really, man. Do you think anyone is going to care a month from now? I don't.

If you cannot see that Israel gets treated by the USA and the UK according to a doublestandard, and apparently you can't, I don't expect I can do anything about it, and I don't care, because it doesn't matter anyway.

Get this, Teribus. You and I are NOT important. Not at all important. What we say is not important either, though it may be entertaining. We're just two people who like spending time yakking on an internet forum.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 03:14 PM

Slag quote: " Nickhere, the US made threats against Iran??? I remember training Iranian airmen at the base where I was stationed. Our good relations with the Iranian GOVERNMENT went away with the Islamic revolution and the advent of the Ayatolla Khomeini"

Ahhh. We are going all the way back to the good ol days when Iran was pro-American? I too know Iranians who liked the good old days, several of my Iranian friends fled when the Shah was deposed. They have only good words for him. Yet I know others who couldn't stand him, and compare him to the corrupt House of Saud today - doesn't give a s**t about the country's poor or unemployed as long as it has good relations with the West and gets to do what it likes. If you look at the White's Houses foreign freinds and favoured regimes you'll find a similar pattern: Pinochet, Noreiga (until he went 'rogue' i.e - decided he'd go it alone) all those tin-pot South American dictators etc., etc., the Taliban as long as they were fighting Russians and not Yanks. My point is simply, just because you were training Iranian airmen at one time doesn't mean the US nver threatened or attacked Iran. In fact it did, though not openloy and directly. It was far more convenient to get Iraq to do it (the 80n -88 war cost 1 million lives) by simply supplying them with the weapons.

Iran attacked the US embassy? Yes. I'm always sorry to see people getting killed, even if it were old Pinochet. As a christian I believe the time of anyone's departure should be left up to God since He gives everyone the time they need to be saved and no-one should cut it short. But I think Iranian popular sentiment against the US was justified. As ever where the US sticks its nose in to help out with 'democracy' it generally translates into supporting a rich elite to supress the rest of a disenfranchised population that eventually rise up and assert themselves (known as 'terrorism' in the West). It's a cycle that's becoming almost as predictable as nature, as the falling of leaves in Autumn and the tides going in and out. You'd think the White House and its cheerleaders would by now have spotted this pattern and how they store up trouble for the future for themselves and everyone else, but no, they still go at it pig headed as ever locked into their own madness.

Just look at Afghanistan: see last week's Time (I think, or Newsweek) for instance. When the US invaded Afghanistan, they were so eager to beat the Taliban they enlisted the Northern Alliance without bothering much about what kind of gangsters they'd brought on-side. I remember thinking back in 2001, looking at the motley crew of thugs and assassins that make up the Northern Alliance, 'the yanks will regret that choice of ally'. And sure enough, having armed these gangsters, they now find the country controlled by a series of corrupt warlords with very very little concern for human rights (e.g remember how they let 3,000 taliban POWs die in sealed containers in the summer heat after the war?) and in control of an ever-increasing level of heroin production. It is only a matter of time before the long-suffering locals get sick of the situation, rise up in some new form of Taliban or whatever (which will be promptly labelled a 'terrorist organisation' as it will be 'against' rather than 'for' the US) and the cycle starts all over.

They made a similar mistake when they invaded Italy towards the end of WW2: landing in Sicily, they were so keen to push on and 'pacify' Sicily they even flew in convicted Mafiosi capo's from the US to take control of the local situation. They reasoned these'd be the best guiys for the job. Unsurprisingly before too long they found they'd put the mafia (who been almsot totally destroyed in Italy by that fascist Mussolini) back into power and most of the grants and aid given to rebuild Italy found its way into mafiosi pockets. The Yanks are so keen to win - 'to get the job done' - that they believe 'the end justifies the means' and so they never get it quite right. If they are serious about creating a better world through military intervention, as seems (though I believe this is self-defeating) then they have to be morally above reproach themselves to begin with. You can't 'fight dirty' and hope to create a better world.

The tragedy is, the US could go a long way to creating a better world, but it'd require a complete change of strategy, and one that wouldn't be popular with the big corporations whon pull the strings in the White House. If they stopped trying to control people and helped them instead, by helping them in an honest way, they'd be regarded as saviours instead of pariahs and there would be no terrorists trying to attack America. To do that they'd have to stop invading people, give up on this Hollywood idea that military intervention can make a better world, stop supporting governments that oppress their own people as long as that government is pro-US, start spending a lot less money on wepaons and a lot more on disaster relief (I wonder how much was spent on Katrina in the end?), champiuon the little guy instead of the already rich-and-powerful etc., etc., I wonder will I live to see the day?

About Posada: I have some stuff saved on file, and I'll dig it up for you asap.


Peace: yes, I see only those posts as well, maybe I logged off before hitting the send button. Old age catching up with me!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 08:06 PM

Little Hawk, read your post of 09 Dec 06 - 03:12 PM.

What you were asked was the following:

What do you believe? Is Iran pursuing nuclear power as a means of securing peaceful energy or nuclear weapons? You failed to answer.

On a number of occasions in the past when threatened with annihilation from its neighbours Israel has acted to defend itself. They have done so very successfully and on each occasion they have had ample opportunity to murder and completely destroy their enemies - OK, Little Hawk with all this pent up murderous fury at the Muslin world (which exists only as your rather ridiculous contention) can you explain to me why they never availed themselves of such opportunities and were always ready to accept UN intervention and mediation. This question you also failed to answer.

Now being a keen student of history Little Hawk, you go and find out then come back and tell us who, at the time, was prepared to accept the borders defined by the UN in 1948 and who rejected the UN's proposal and opted for war instead. Another question that you failed to answer.

Proof required from yourself regarding the existence of Israel's stockpile of nuclear weapons - Not addressed - another question you failed to answer.

Also required an admission that the only thing that the revelation that Israel has nuclear weapons would affect would be that the US would not be permitted to export nuclear technological transfer or nuclear materials.

Instead of addressing the questions put to Little Hawk, all of which came from some rather ridiculous contentions of Little Hawk's contained in the posts referred to, Little Hawk chooses to ignore the questions I have raised and has launched into a personal attack. In a number of things Little Hawk, what you say is perfectly correct:

- We do not matter

BUT

- If you are going to discuss things on an Internet Forum, if you make statements please be prepared to defend them.
- If asked questions related to your stated point of view it is good manners to respond.
- If you cannot respond it seriously weakens your credibility and tends to illustrate that your original contentions are best flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:05 PM

"What do you believe? Is Iran pursuing nuclear power as a means of securing peaceful energy or nuclear weapons?"

I'm quite honestly not sure, Teribus. I just don't know. They may be pursuing nuclear weapons or they may not be. I know they are using nuclear power as a means of producing peaceful energy, but I don't know whether or not they are pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. I would not be particularly surprised if they were doing so, but I would also not consider it justification for attacking them and starting another war if they were. And I think it is equally possible that the USA is falsely accusing them of developing nuclear weapons in order to prepare the ground for another pre-emptive war over "weapons of mass destruction" that don't exist.

But in either case, I don't know. And neither do you, I would assume. We are merely offering conjecture.

Sure, I can explain why the Israelis have not taken advantage of opportunities to " to murder and completely destroy their enemies ". They have gone as far at any particular point as they felt was feasible and manageable under the circumstances...and they are not totally and iredeemably insane. They would not do genocide on a scale so massive that it would turn them into pariahs in front of the whole world, including the USA. They are aware they have limits.

Your question, really, was damn silly in this particular case, I must say...

Next question: Who opted for war in '48? The Arabs did, as far as I know.

(Note: I have never claimed the Arabs were completely innocent. I have never claimed that they do not have Israeli blood on their hands. I have never claimed that only Israel is a malefactor in the Middle East wars. I have, to the contrary, claimed that both sides are equally at fault in those wars, and that is what I continue to claim. It is you who wants one side to be "the bad guys" and the other side to be "the good guys" no matter what happens.)

I cannot provide you with proof of the existence of Israeli atomic weapons, Teribus, because I do not have the wherewithal to fly you to Israel, hold all the Israelis at gunpoint, and make them reveal those weapons to my friend and colleague, Mr Teribus. When I say they do have them, I am only stating what has been common knowledge in the world community for a long, long time now, and what was directly alluded to by Robert Gates in front of the US Congress just the other day. Go ask him for proof. ;-)

The reason I ignore a lot of your questions, Teribus, is mainly that I think you're a man suffering from a severe obsessive-compulsive disorder in regards to political discussions and I'm afraid that by constantly responding to your every point, I would catch the same illness and it might become terminal.

God knows, I may already have... ;-)

One day I will probably look back with regret at the countless hours I wasted wrangling with you on this forum, and think, "I could have been bettering myself. I could have been playing my guitar. I could have been walking the dog. I could have been learning conversational French...or...or learning how to cook Chinese food."

It's sad, really.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:00 AM

Your biased outlook Little Hawk is clearly shown - The rose-tinted glasses are used and the most benign motives and aspirations are put forward when looking at the activities of parties excluding the USA, Israel and the UK. When you view the concerns of those countries only the most sinister and cynical of motives and intentions are worthy of consideration and deemed plausible. This from a man who says he prides himself in his ability to look at things dispassionately and objectively from both sides before venturing an opinion.

Little Hawk - PM
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 09:05 PM

Question: "Is Iran pursuing nuclear power as a means of securing peaceful energy or nuclear weapons?"

Go back and re-read your answer. By the bye LH, Iran is currently not generating a single Watt of electrical power using nuclear energy.

Little Hawk insists that the US has made false accusations with regard to Iran's nuclear programme, the reason for these false accusations is to prepare for "another pre-emptive war over weapons of mass destruction that do not exist". With regard to the illegal acquisition of nuclear weapons (a weapon of mass destruction) when would you think it best to act, before or after they have been acquired?

On review it can be clearly shown that at no time at all since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 has the United States of America EVER threatened Iran - That is a 27 year track record completely ignored by Little Hawk.

All the USA's questions relating to the Iranian nuclear programme have been addressed to the IAEA - go and read the 2004 IAEA's report on Iran's non-compliance with the terms of nuclear non-proliferation treaty - the best indicator of Iran's intentions you could get, which you choose to ignore. Further on the accusation thing Little Hawk, it has been the International Community that has accused Iran of running a clandestine nuclear weapons programme, as a signatory of the nuclear NPT the onus is on Iran to clearly and openly demonstrate to the World that it is not running such a programme and that fact has to be verified by the inspectors of the IAEA.

You mention nothing at all about the EU's concerns, remarkably similar to those of the US, or are they too also preparing for a pre-emptive strike against Iran? We all certainly know that France has already prepared itself for this attack - check it out with President Chirac, he was perfectly clear about it.

You mention nothing of the timeline and period over which this dispute between Iran and the International community has been running - hint Little Hawk it was going on long before GWB came to power.

On the subject of conjecture Little Hawk:
- Why would a supposedly "peaceful" nuclear energy programme require "secret" facilities for the enrichment of uranium?
- Why would a supposedly "peaceful" nuclear energy programme require P2 centrifuges which produce weapons grade enriched uranium, as opposed to P1 centrifuges which produce reactor fuel-rod grade enriched uranium?
- Why would a supposedly "peaceful" nuclear energy programme prohibit IAEA Inspection of facilities associated with that programme?

Question: Why, if as stated by Little Hawk, the Israeli's were full of murderous intent with regard to their Arab neighbours, the Israelis have not taken advantage of opportunities to " to murder and completely destroy their enemies ".

Little Hawk's response to this question is laughable:

"Sure, I can explain why the Israelis have not taken advantage of opportunities to " to murder and completely destroy their enemies ". They have gone as far at any particular point as they felt was feasible and manageable under the circumstances...and they are not totally and iredeemably insane. They would not do genocide on a scale so massive that it would turn them into pariahs in front of the whole world, including the USA. They are aware they have limits."

At no time at all does he consider that his point of view with regard the Israeli's murderous intentions could be wrong. After all:
- The Israeli's have NEVER expressed any desire to attack, murder, erradicate, eliminate or destroy any of their neighbours.
- Since its formation and recognition as an independent sovereign state by the UN in 1948, Israel's neighbours have on numerous occasions expressed their intentions to attack, murder, erradicate, eliminate and destroy Israel and its people. This is bourne out by the fact that those neighbours have attempted to fulfil those aims four times in wars the objective of which in each case was the utter destruction of the State of Israel and it's people. As an Independent sovereign state, and a fulltime member of the United nations, under such circumstances, the Charter of the United Nations calls for the United Nations to come to Israel's defence and to deter the aggressor nations. The United Nations in each instance did nothing, the USA and the UK stood up and did the right thing. Don't talk about double standards unless you actually do look at all sides.
- Today Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other Islamic Terrorist Groups similarly call openly for the destruction of Israel. Little Hawk explains that the rhetoric of such groups is alot less guarded than statements made by Heads of State or Governments - What about Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, Little Hawk? He like Hamas and Hezbollah has openly expressed his desire to wipe Israel off the map, that view expressed at a World Anti-Zionist Conference hosted by the nation that comes top of the league when it comes to sponsorship of international terrorist groups.

There was nothing in the least silly about my question Little Hawk. What is completely and utterly laughable is your depiction of the Israeli attitude considering the weight of evidence that runs counter to your so called objective and impartial assessment. I have often wondered why it is Little Hawk, being as impartial and objective as you claim to be, that when it comes to discussion related to the core mid-east problem that your posts are full of demands on what the Isaeli's should do, point out where the Israeli's are at fault, what the US should do, point out where the US is at fault - NEVER at any time do you mention where the terrorist groups are at fault, at no time do you state what the Palestinian Authority should do, or the states that sponsor those terrorist groups should do. Objective and impartial my arse, you talk about "good guys" and "bad guys" you seem to be the only person trying to assign those titles, and all this is based on assumptions and conjecture that are totally incorrect.

Question: Who opted for war in '48?

Your answer - The Arabs did, as far as I know.

OK then Little Hawk what is normally the consequence of losing a war that you have started? In this particular instance (1948) the Israeli's had accepted the UN proposal and the boundaries set in that proposal, the Arabs rejected them and went to war. The Arab League ordered Arabs living alongside the Israeli's to evacuate in order that they could indiscriminately target the Israeli population. Those evacuated were after all going to get everything and more once the State of Israel had been destroyed and the Jews had been driven into the sea. That didn't happen, but it was not for the want of trying on the part of the Arab League. The Israeli's took in the half million-odd Jewish refugees expelled without any of their possessions from Arab Countries, while their Arab neighbours turned their backs on the Palestinian refugees and then proceeded to ensure that they remained in poverty and discontentment for decades in order that they, and their situation, could be used as a political football whenever convenient. Now you tell me Little Hawk just exactly where are the Israeli's at fault in this?

Question: Proof that the Israeli's have nuclear weapons.

There is no such proof Little Hawk - that is the fact of the matter - TRUE??

Little Hawk statements such as, "I am only stating what has been common knowledge in the world community for a long, long time now, and what was directly alluded to by Robert Gates in front of the US Congress just the other day." can hardly be taken seriously, and in a way are rather ridiculous. After all if the existence of hundreds of Israeli nuclear weapons was indeed common knowledge in the world community, the prospective Secretary of Defense of the United States of America and a former Director of the CIA would not have to ALLUDE to anything, he could state it outright.

Let's take a look at Little Hawk's house of cards.
Ground Floor:
Israel's murderous intent with regard to it's Arab neighbours - Has no basis in fact, all evidence indicates the opposite.

First Floor:
Existence of Israel's stockpile of nuclear weapons - Not a single shred of evidence that this considerable stockpile of weapons exists. Israel, a non-signatory of the nuclear NPT, a country that does not have abundant oil and gas natural resources does have a nuclear power plant that generates electricity - Objective and impartial Little Hawk's assessment is that they must have nuclear weapons and have threatened to use them (Refer to Attic). Iran, a signed up member of the NPT, a country with abundant reserves of oil and gas, is building two nuclear reactors plus other until recently "secret" facilities associated with the country's nuclear programme - Object and impartial Little Hawk's assessment is that the Iranian programme is peaceful and that the US is levelling false accusations in order to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

Attic:
Israel, full of murderous intent toward it's Arab neighbours (refer to Ground Floor), has threatened all it's neighbours with nuclear annihilation should they invade Israel and appear to be gaining the upperhand - Again not a shred of proof to support this objective and impartially arrived at twaddle.

Little Hawk thinks - Teribus, I think you're a man suffering from a severe obsessive-compulsive disorder in regards to political discussions.

No Little Hawk, you are wrong, I am a man suffering from a complete and utter intolerance for the constant stream of inaccurate, false and ludicrous statements that are repeatedly streamed out in discussions on this forum, despite it being clearly shown that such statements are patently inaccurate, false and ludicrous.

A few examples:
- Iraq, the US only wanted to get in there and grab Iraq's oil. Fact US oil import figures do not support this contention three years after the invasion to "grab Iraq's oil".
- Saddam Hussein was put in power by the USA. Fact Saddam Hussein put himself in power via an internal Ba'athist coup in 1979, the USA had absolutely nothing to do with it.
- Saddam Hussein was America's ally. Fact nothing of the sort, during the Iran/Iraq War while the US supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence information, the US supplied Iran with arms.
- US and the West supplied Saddam Hussein with all his weapons. Fact the US and the West over a 17 year period supplied precisely 5.3% of the total amount of weapons sold to Iraq.
- Blair/Bush lied in order to engineer the war with Iraq. Fact, not a single lie has been established, in the UK we have had three enquiries that have looked into this in some way, shape and form. All have concluded that no lies were told.
- Bush/Blair invented intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD. Fact information regarding Iraq's WMD came from the UN's UNSCOM Inspectors, nothing was invented by either Bush or Blair.

This list goes on and on, when these inaccurate, false and ludicrous statements are challenged in detail and shown to be exactly what drivel they are, no discussion takes place, not a single point is debated, what we get then is personal insult and attack.

I only ever post to this forum as Teribus, or Guest Teribus. How many differnt names do you post to this forum as Little Hawk/Chongo Chimp/Blind drunk - Now that really is kinda sad.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: freda underhill
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:18 AM

LH, is multiple personality disorder a byproduct of multiple org..


oh, never mind. But after Dubya's "Axis of Evil" speech, I can understand that Iranians may feel a little nervous, vulnerable even. I believe their head of government cited that speech as his reason for developing nuclear weapons.

Given the shift in political power in the US, I am feeling a little more hopeful at the end of the year than I was at the beginning of the year.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:05 AM

freda underhill - 10 Dec 06 - 08:18 AM

"But after Dubya's "Axis of Evil" speech, I can understand that Iranians may feel a little nervous, vulnerable even. I believe their head of government cited that speech as his reason for developing nuclear weapons."

Now that can hardly be right freda, can it? Iran's nuclear programme was up and running long before GWB was elected to office. The "Axis of Evil" speach was delivered on 29th January, 2002, the existence of the two completed "secret" uranium enrichment facilities was exposed in 2002, now having been completed that would logically tend to suggest that they were planned and constructed long before Dubya's speech, wouldn't it? Oh and freda the centrifuges in those facilities are of the type used to enrich weapons grade material - secret facilities + weapons grade material producing equipment = NO PEACEFUL INTENT.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

Somebody along this thread voiced their disgust that Israel should come up in a discussion on 'the right to attack who we like' and pointed to it as evidence of racism – by which we can understand 'anti-semitism'. I would argue that it is almost inevitable that in any discussion involving US foreign policy and warmongering, Israel will pop up sooner or later. Why is this? Is it because, as claimed, the world is full of narrow-minded anti-semites?

The answer I believe is NO. It is because only the most blind among us will deny that the US and Israel are joined at the hip, to the point where Israel could be variously described as a US colony in the Middle East or as a 50+ state of America. The US grants some $ 5 billion in aid annually to Israel. Very generous, but presumably it puts Israel in the US pocket. Israel will almost automatically support all US foreign policy decisions. For example, in a recent UN vote to lift the ridiculous US embargo on Cuba, 187 UN nations voted to lift the embargo, and only 4 voted to maintain it. Which 4? The USA, Israel, the Marshall Islands, and some other god-forsaken rock in the middle of the Pacific in receipt of US tax dollars. In return, as well as giving Israel sacks of money, the US almost never criticises anything done by the Israeli state.

   When Israel invaded Lebanon last summer, Condolezza Rice refused to call for a ceasefire until the Israelis had had time to achieve their aim of impoverishing Lebanon as much as possible by flattening its infrastructure. So ridiculous did her stalling seem internationally that cartoons appeared here about it. They showed Lebanon being slowly reduced to rubble while Condi stood in the foreground saying 'not yet….not yet…not yet…" until the last building was flattened and then said 'NOW!' The US gets to have a kind of proxy presence in the Middle East (apart from their other outposts such as troops in Saudi Arabia, fleet in Bahrain, troops in Afghanistan and Iraq…even the most casual observer can see they are extremely interested in the region). Israel can be used as a kind of lever against Arab countries. In return Israel can be as aggressively expansionist as it likes (their invasion of Lebanon had as much to do with the Litani river as it did with Hezbollah, and note also the totally illegal occupation of Palestinian West Bank, which is being annexed to become a part of Israel) secure in the knowledge that they have a carte blanche from the world's most powerful country.

To sum up, Israel and the US are like that couple everyone knows who insist there is nothing going on between them but keep on pooping up in odd places together, coming out of the office, clothes rumpled etc., but acting as if nothing is happening. It is difficult to discuss one without the other.

"The state of Israel has a right to exist" (Slag mentioned this, I think, but I have heard it elsewhere before). This is a typical example of where a phrase is repeated so often it is taken to be axiomatic and we no longer stop to think about the true meaning. Any disagreement or dissension from this opinion is treated by a leap of logic, as being anti-Semitic. Does the state of Israel have 'a right to exist'? The question is does any state have a 'right to exist' regardless of the nature of that state?

The White House apparently thinks the answer is NO. For this reason they have forced many changes of regime, for example in Chile and lately in Iraq. They even have a euphemism for this violation of national sovereignty, and a state's assumed and automatic 'right to exist' – "regime change". But such an action is not to be even contemplated in relation to Israel. Thus we see there is a set of double standards at play.

To return to the question 'does any state have an automatic right to exist?' I would generally favour national sovereignty and be against any military invasion to change the regime – a condition that should also apply to Israel (in other words, I don't believe Israel should be invaded to effect 'regime change'). Such actions all too easily fall prey to less-than-altruistic motives, as we can see in Iraq. With all the places in the world groaning under oppressive governments, why, we should ask ourselves, does America take such a special interest in the Iraqi people? We find it all has to do with Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L). Not simply to import oil, as Teribus says, but to make sure that line of import is secure and that no-one lese gets their hands on it. The only form of 'democracy' Iraqis will be allowed to have will be one that fits in with US foreign policy and interests.

But a state is not an end in itself, and should exist only insofar as it secures the peace, liberty, equality and happiness of its people, for after all that is the purpose of any society, of which a state is but a formalised expression. Twenty years ago, the world took the view that the South African state did not meet these criteria and instituted a boycott that resulted in the end of the Apartheid regime. South Africa was a country where a small white majority lorded it over a black and coloured majority, abusing the system of democracy and law to ensure their domination. Something similar happened in Northern Ireland where a protestant majority lorded it over a catholic minority, with the backing of a vacillating outside government (Westminster). Again, this particular state had to be dismantled, and something more egalitarian put in its place.

In the case of Israel, in spite of its protestations to be a democratic, egalitarian pluralistic state, we only need to scratch the surface to see this is not so. There are three layers of society at least in Israel: Western-origin Jews, Arabic Jews and at the bottom, Israeli Arabs (Palestinian Israelis) – a substantial proportion of the population. The last category are barred from Israeli Army service. Many benefits such as preferential house allocation, social welfare etc., are connected to service in the Israeli Army, so you can see how that works. These are just some examples. Neither am I taking into account the fact that Israel is occupying and settling the West Bank (Palestinian territory) reducing the Palestinians to impoverished refugees in their own country. Their farms and houses are bulldozed or seized, their livelihoods destroyed and their economy and education stifled. Palestinians used to form a captive market and cheap pool of labour for Israel, but since the building of the Wall (which cuts deep into Palestinian territory as a form of land grab, and making the West Bank the biggest open-air prison / reservation in the world) Israel no longer permits even this source of employment to Palestinians and now imports cheap labour from India, Singapore etc., The ultimate aim is ethnic cleansing: Palestinians will be obliged - through tight military Israeli control of every aspect of their lives and denial of opportunities for a livelihood – to quit the West Bank, leaving it fully open to Israeli annexation and settlement.

Of course, another question is 'where will they go?' The Palestinians are caught between a rock and a hard place since the other countries around aren't too keen to take them either though this is of little concern to Israel. In many ways their situation is quite analogous to the Jews situation in Germany from about 1933 onwards (though whenever people have tried to point this out, they get shouted down in cries of 'disgusting! Fascist pig!" and all sorts of other red-herring nonsense). Long before any gas chambers there was a gradual squeeze on Jewish life, expulsions, attacks on their livelihood etc., All of this is happening in Palestine today, so there is a comparison to be made. Lately, a Palestinian contacted me to say that his wife (of Swiss birth, though resident some 20 years in West Bank and fully involved in life there) will no longer be permitted to travel to the West Bank by the Israeli authorities. Thus he is faced with a choice: be separated from his wife or leave his home for good. His case is not unique either.

Criticising all of this is not anti-Semitism as many have facetiously claimed, but anger at injustice backed by one of the most powerful countries in the world that preaches democracy and liberty. This kind of state has no more right to exist than an Apartheid South Africa or sectarian Northern Ireland. That is NOT the same as saying Jews are not entitled to a homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 02:01 PM

Teribus, I do think that you are suffering from an obsessive-compulsive disorder...and you take yourself way too seriously.

You yourself are guilty of everything you habitually accuse me of. Go take a nice walk or something or get a hobby that will relax your feaverish mind for a bit.

I simply cannot take you seriously. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

There, there, Nickhere. What part of "ALLY" dont' you understand? Joined at the hip? Yup, and at the heart and head and bank account. So? We all need friends. Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Infatada, etc. have hundreds of millions of friends, all co-joined at many, if not every point. And you want Israel to, uh, stand alone??

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 07:44 PM

200!!!!!!!!!!!

Bananas and drinks all around!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:37 AM

Nickhere - 10 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

"When Israel invaded Lebanon last summer", the reason for which was what exactly Nickhere? You seem to have omitted to mention the indiscrimate attacks on civilian targets within Israel (how many thousand unguided and indiscriminately targeted rockets were fired at Israeli towns were there Nickhere?) and the kidnapping of two Israeli Soldiers. Enshrined within the Charter of the United Nations is that every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself - Israel was doing no more, no less.

Now had that august body the United Nations done something about a Resolution that they had passed previously regarding Syria and Hezbollah, then maybe the reason for Israel's attacks on Southern Lebanon may have been eliminated. But what the hell Nickhere that august international body finds it eminently acceptable to sit around and do the square root of bugger all while hundreds of thousands of people are massacred and displaced, not once but twice while the current man in charge was "on watch", for christ's sake do not for one single moment think that that organisation has the power or will to do anything other than talk about anything, and even then only in the most apologetic and ineffectual manner that can be managed.

Israel and Lebanon, eh Nickhere, tell me Nick, you seem to have a problem about Israel getting concerned about what happens in Lebanon. Where were all your posts objecting to Syria's occupation of Lebanon? I can't believe that I ever read one single objection emanating from your unbiased and knowledgable take on the situation in the Levant about this outrage.

This War, this unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign state, resulted in UN mediation. Tell me Nickhere, did Israel abide by the conditions laid down by the UN? Tell me Nickhere did Hezbollah, the Lebanon or Syria abide the conditions laid down by the UN?

So Israel can be as expansionist as it likes can it Nickhere? Can you then explain how, whilst being as expansionist as it likes, the borders of Israel have actually shrunk?

On your "Right to Exist" babble you name two examples - Chile and Iraq. As far as I am aware the UN recognised sovereign states of both Chile and Iraq both still exist - True???

According to Nickhere there are countless places in the world, "groaning under oppressive governments" (overly dramatic little beggar isn't he) but America takes a special interest in the Iraqi people? Nickhere believes that it all has to do with Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L). Eh no Nickhere it had something to do with a security assessment made by the House and Senate Security Committee evaluation that Iraq posed the greatest threat to the USA. I have asked in the past for somebody to demonstrate to me how America has benefited from all that Iraqi Oil. Nickhere quite rightly points out that the USA hasn't "grabbed Iraqi Oil", although for some strange reason Nickhere believes that the US wishes to make the Iraqi line of import secure and make sure that no-one else gets their hands on it. Unfortunately Nickhere, myself and anyone who can think logically about this, cannot fathom what you are driving at, you see for as long as sanctions have been lifted against the export of Iraqi oil, the Iraqi's have been shipping oil out all over the place - very little of it going to the USA. So could you please explain how exactly the USA is making sure that nobody else (other than the USA I believe) gets their hands on it? I mean it's not like the Americans are forcing the Iraqi's to store their oil in some secret location for the US to pick up at a later date is it? The Iraqi's are actually selling this oil on the open market - and horror of horrors people other than the US are actually buying it - most odd, particularly given your fervent belief in US hegemony.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:20 AM

Ok Teribus, get ready... some one is about ready to breath the word "Halliburton!"

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 02:53 AM

It isn't the oil itself, teribus, its the control of the flow of the oil and that means control of the pipeline and its infrastructure. Tell me that U.S. business interests have no interest in that.

Why do you think the U.S. is interested in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 06:31 AM

OK dianavan, tell us all exactly how the US is going to control the flow of oil? No major US company, or unit of it's military have anything whatsoever to do with ownership or operation of pipelines in Iraq. No major US company has an Operators Licence for any oilfield in Iraq - here are the people who do and the names of the fields they operate:

West Qurna Phase 2 (Lukoil - Russian); Majnoon (Total - French); Bin Umar (Zarubezhneft - Russian); Nasiriya (Eni - Italian, Repsol - Spanish); Halfaya (BHP - Australian, South Korean consortium, CNPC - Chinese, Agip - Italian); Ratawi (Shell - Netherlands); Tuba (ONGC - Indian, Sonatrach - BVI); Suba-Luhais (Slavneft - Russian); Gharaf (TPAO - ?, Japex - Japan); Al-Ahdab (CNPC - Chinese); Amara (PetroVietnam); Western Desert (ONGC - Indian, Pertamina - Indonesia, Stroitransgaz - Russian, Tatneft - Russian); Tawke 1 (DNO ASA - Norwegian)

Why the US is interested in Iraq is exactly for the reasons given by the Joint House Security Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:24 PM

" because they are not allowed to by the non-proliferation treaties. "


Nope. UNLIKE Iran, Israel DID NOT sign the NNPT, and get the free technological hand up that Iran took advantage of. THAT is why Iran is in violation, and Israel is not- IRAN SIGNED A TREATY allowing the inspections and controls that it now refuses.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:30 PM

"You want one rule of judgement to apply to them now (no accountability for wrongdoing), and a different rule of judgement upon all other people (normal accountability for wrongdoing)."


I am still waiting for the PALESTINIAN trials of terrorists to match the ones of Israelis who violated the law.


I would be hapy if BOTH sides were held to the SAME accountability- as I have said, that would leave Israel in possession of the ENTIRE West bank, and the Palestinans residing in Jordan.


"Well, I don't buy it. I still say that both sides are wrong in this Middle East dispute...insofar as they both engage in unjustified violence and hatred and they have no respect or goodwill toward each other. "

So, you will agree that CANADA was EQUALLY quilty in WWII as Germany, since there were illegal actions by the Allies?

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:42 PM

"Next question: Who opted for war in '48? The Arabs did, as far as I know.

(Note: I have never claimed the Arabs were completely innocent. I have never claimed that they do not have Israeli blood on their hands. I have never claimed that only Israel is a malefactor in the Middle East wars. I have, to the contrary, claimed that both sides are equally at fault in those wars, and that is what I continue to claim."


So the fact that the Arabs STARTED the war in 1948 means Israel is EQUALLY at fault? This is the logic that I find objectionable.

So, Iraq is equally at fault for the US invasion, and Canada is equally at fault for WWII.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 02:40 PM

In a litany of complaints from both sides that's a few miles long, in the wake of land robbery, terror attacks, and mutual accusations... ;-) Yes. I say that both sides are equally at fault. Why? Because they're equally stubborn and equally unwilling to respect the other as an equally valuable human being.

Sorry you have to have an official "bad guy" and an official "good guy" in that dispute to feel righteous. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 03:33 PM

"Because they're equally stubborn and equally unwilling to respect the other as an equally valuable human beings"


Let me see....

Israel invited the Palestinians to stay, and many did,, and have their land and citizenship. Some chose to leave, and have little to nothing

Arabs drove out the Jews in their countries, and Israel accepted them as refugees.

The Arab countries refused to accept the Palestinians who left as refugees.


Yet you claim they are all the same. All EQUAL.

That makes You and the SS of WWII "Equally: guilty of the crimes of WWII. You do not respond to any of my comments, save to tell me how "Equal" the people who deliberatly target children and civilians are to those who target military targets and command personnel.


I have never complained about Palestinian attacks against MILITARY posts and headquarters- THERE IS A WAR ( since 1948) and THOSE are legitimate targets. But YOU have declared the children as equally valid targets- not by collateral damage, but for deliberate attack. THAT is what I find most objectionable about your "Equality"


That makes You and the SS of WWII "Equally" guilty of the crimes of WWII. You do not respond to any of my comments, save to tell me how "Equal" the people who deliberatly target children and civilians are to those who target military targets and command personnel.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:36 PM

Yeah, yeah...(*yawn*)

Why is it that I get the feeling you're just slightly biased in favor of Jewish/Israeli concerns when it comes to this issue? Could it have anything to do with your own family background?

I don't bother discussing alternative religious approaches with Jehovah's Witnesses either. It would be a waste of my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 04:45 PM

Why is it that I get the feeling you're just slightly biased against Jewish/Israeli concerns when it comes to this issue? Could it have anything to do with your own family background?


You continue to ignore my questions. You have stated an equivalance- Now either stand behind your statements, or admitt you have no basis in fact for them.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 05:22 PM

I am ignoring your questions because I don't really give a damn on this particular day. That may change. Or it may not. If I were you, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

My family background is atheist, middle-class, conventional, white. No particularly notable opinions about Jews one way or the other in my family...or Muslims either, for that matter. I was quite pro-Israel in the 1960's, used to collect their stamps, and thought they were really cool, but I gradually became disturbed about their land settlement policies and their military policies from about the mid-70's on. I do not agree with their land expansion or their military policies most of the time, insofar as I think they are overly aggressive, to put it mildly.

I do not agree with the policies of the Muslims who are attacking them either. I strenuously disgree with BOTH.

But I've made that plain over and over again. I don't care if you don't like my saying that they are both equally to blame. And I will not waste my time trying to justify it to a mind that is utterly incapable of being impartial on the matter.

I'm not a Muslim, BB. I'm not even a Christian. Are you a Jew? If so, I think that might be the crucial ingredient that causes us not to see things eye to eye when it comes to judging Israeli actions.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:35 PM

Slag: "here, there, Nickhere. What part of "ALLY" dont' you understand? Joined at the hip? Yup, and at the heart and head and bank account. So? We all need friends. Hamas, Al Qaeda, the Infatada, etc. have hundreds of millions of friends, all co-joined at many, if not every point. And you want Israel to, uh, stand alone??"

Slag, of course I understand the term ALLY quite well. So we agree that Israel and the US are joined 'at the hip, heart, head and bank account' – good, no difference of opinion there. Britain is also a US ally, though a much more self-sufficient one than Israel. My point was (and still is) that the reason why Israel keeps popping up in discussions on the Middle East, Iraq, US warmongering and so on and so on is precisely because the US are Israel are joined at the hip (and also because of Israel's deplorable human rights record, see:    Finkelstein    for example) and not because of 'anti-Semitism' as some have spuriously tried to claim. I think people who make this claim are confusing 'Israeli' and 'Zionist' with 'Jewish'. There is a lot of overlap, but the terms are not synonymous, despite 'the right of return'. I note this same point being made by Yakov M.Rabkin of the University of Montreal. He found himself turned back at the doors of the synagogue by officials who didn't like his book "A threat from Within: a century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism". He added that for people like these officials, their 'Zionism seems to have eclipsed their Judaism" (see Irish Times, Dec 13th 2006). Your second point about Israel 'standing alone' can also be interpreted as an 'OK' for Iran to fund Hizbullah, for instance.

I looked around for some stuff on Posada I had on file. Unfortunately I didn't bookmark any pages or if I did, I must have deleted them. I did find some saved pages from the New York Times and Washington Post dealing with Posada. I have copied and pasted short phrases below and the date of publication. You can probably find more if you access the NY Times and W.Post websites. I would have pasted more but I wouldn't like to contravene any rules on copyright, so I kept the extracts short as possible.

Here's one:

NY Times, May 9th 2005 (headline: Cuban Exile Could Test US Definition of Terrorist)

"Mr. Posada, a Cuban exile, has long been a symbol for the armed anti-Castro movement in the United States. He remains a prime suspect in the bombing of a Cuban commercial airliner that killed 73 people in 1976. He has admitted to plotting attacks that damaged tourist spots in Havana and killed an Italian visitor there in 1997. He was convicted in Panama in a 2000 bomb plot against Mr. Castro. He is no longer welcome in his old Latin America haunts"

May 17th Washington Post, explains how he had been arrested by US immigration officials and whisked off to a secret location. But as to what charges, if any, might be pressed, there was little indication. Part of the reason might be found in this paragraph:

"But Posada's penchant for slipping out of tough jams seemed to run its course Tuesday in Miami, where the aging militant and vehement opponent of Cuban leader Fidel Castro was arrested by U.S. immigration officers, setting off an international diplomatic controversy. The arrest creates a dilemma for the Bush administration, which has taken a strong stand against terrorism in all forms but has also been reluctant to cross the politically potent Cuban exile community in South Florida, many of whom support Posada"

And the key dilemma he creates for the Bush administration is nicely summed up (NY Times, May 18th 2005)

"But Steven Schwadron, the chief of staff for Representative Bill Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat who has lobbied the Bush administration to expel Mr. Posada, said there was no excuse to keep him here. "You can't pick and choose the ideology of a particular terrorist without undermining the fundamental integrity of the global war on terror," Mr. Schwadron said. "Mr. Posada does not belong in the United States."

To date, to the best of my knowledge he has neither been extradited nor charged with anything. Neither have most of Guantanamo's inmates, but that hasn't prevented them being locked up these past 5 years. My guess is that US authorities will just keep him out of the way until some other big story comes along and he's forgotten about. That way there need be no public 'conflict of interest' for the White House.

Teribus, Teribus…. I really seem to have hit a sensitive nerve with you! You've fired a lot of questions at me, I'll do my best to give the courtesy of answering them.

1) Israel – Lebanon: you accuse me of giving no context and you cite as the key reasons for Israel's invasion of Lebanon a) 'indiscriminate' rocket attacks and b) capture of 2 Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah. As to the first: Hizbullah rockets are 'indiscriminate' because they are comparatively primitive. Most of them did very little damage (I'm not saying they didn't kill anyone, btw). I'm sure if they had weaponry as up-to-date as their opponents, they'd be far more discriminate – it makes more sense to hit military targets. Don't forget many Israeli military installations are located amongst civilian areas also – Hizbullah (or any country) are not alone in this. Indeed, even in my city there is a major military barracks. For their part, the Israelis used cluster bombs extensively (as was discussed on another thread here) an equally indiscriminate weapon, both for the range they cover and the number that remain unexploded after dropping. Even today civilians in Lebanon are being killed and injured by these cluster bombs, not to mention all those hardshipped because their farms etc., are no longer workable. The number of rockets fired at Israel increased enormously after Israel's invasion got under way. You also forget to mention that Israel was launching minor military operations into Lebanon for quite some time before the invasion and so there was already a de-facto state of belligerence, if not war, in existence. As to the second point, there is still some dispute as to whether the Israeli soldiers were captured inside Lebanon or Israel. Indeed there was an on-going tit-for-tat spate of kidnappings going on, of which the two Israeli soldiers were the final act in a long drama. I spoke to a member of the Israeli Army last summer who told me of how his unit had overrun Hizbullah positions in Southern Lebanon (near the Shaaba Farms / Golan Heights) and taken several prisoners – but this had happened before the invasion. Finally, if the purpose of the invasion was to get these two soldiers back, commonsense would tell you the blanket bombing of the region where they are probably being held is more of a danger than a help to them. They were simply an excuse to go into Lebanon, as even their angry families have claimed.

2) The UN – yes, it is a bit of a talk shop, stymied by many internal problems, not least of which is having a permanent 'security council' made up of the 5 of the biggest powers and arms traders in the world – conflict of interest or what? Moreover, Israel has ignored most of the UN resolutions regarding Palestine, so don't expect Syria to be in any hurry. Not that that is the correct state of affairs – I believe both sides should respect the UN Resolutions. Bad and all as the UN are, they are probably a better hope for peaceful resolutions. (As an aside, I DO concede that the NATO action helped end war in the Balkans, and did more good than harm. It may have been this success though that convinced US policy makers that instant results can be brought about by military action in every case). The UN has many internal problems that badly need sorting out, but the alternative is unilateralism and inevitable war.

3) Syria – You're right, I haven't criticized Syria, but for the record, I do so now. I don't agree at all with their meddling in Lebanon, as it seems to me an attempt to destabilize the state for nefarious ends. Though if Lebanon wobbles, Syria is unlikely to benefit as much as other Lebanese neighbours.

4) Israel's borders. Maybe I've been looking at the 'wrong' maps, but it seems even at a cursory glance that Israel has grown incrementally since 1948. Currently they are in occupation of Palestinian land – the West Bank, and exert tight control over Gaza. Along with the so-called security wall, it makes the West Bank the largest open-air prison in the world. For more, see:

West Bank Wall

Israeli troops would also be in Lebanon right up to their target – the Litani river, if Hizbullah had not pushed them out. It was relatively easy for Israel to observe the UN resolution calling on them to withdraw from southern Lebanon, as they did not have the walk-over victory they expected. Indeed, the Israeli army was shocked to find that Hizbullah was able to intercept and jam many of its communications. In the West Bank, where they are not up against such well-armed, well-trained and determined opponents, they are still present.

5) "The Right To Exist". Teribus quote: "On your "Right to Exist" babble you name two examples - Chile and Iraq. As far as I am aware the UN recognised sovereign states of both Chile and Iraq both still exist - True???"

The question is, what do you mean by the 'sovereign states' of Chile and Iraq? The Chile which was a dictatorship under Pinochet no longer exists, though geographically the boundaries have not changed. You are right about the UN-recognized Iraq, maybe more so than you realize. Since the UN did not sanction the war against Iraq, and it is illegal under international law, effectively the sovereign Baathist State under Saddam Hussein still exists officially. In fact that's the very defence Saddam tried to employ at his trial, for all the good it did him. He declared that since he was still the head of a sovereign state recognized under international law, his US-sponsored court had no right to try him. But for practical purposes, that state no longer exists. You also omitted to mention my example of South Africa: while its geographical boundaries and population have not changed, you surely would not argue that the State of South Africa is the same as that in existence thirty years ago?

On that note, people have commented on Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for 'Israel to be wiped off the map'. In the Irish Times of Dec13th (p.14) the headline was "Ahmadinejad says Israel's days (are) numbered". It seemed the doomsayers were right – was Iran calling for the destruction of Israel? Then I went on to read the article and it turned out not to be quite the case. What Ahmadinejad had actually said was "The trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is downwards…just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out". As we all know no-one invaded or bombed the USSR for it to change, but it was forced into change from world conditions and its own internal failures. Ahmadinejad seems to be hoping for and expecting similar change in the Zionist regime. If someone in the US were to say that the Republican regime's days are numbered, and the trend for its existence is in a downward spiral, I don't think anyone would accuse them of some massive war conspiracy (though it does sound far from friendly!)


6) Yes, there are many people groaning under oppressive governments (just read up on Amnesty International's reports for some grim reading). Again, why did the US take such special interest in Iraq? You say it was because of "it had something to do with a security assessment made by the House and Senate Security Committee evaluation that Iraq posed the greatest threat to the USA" I think that line has been discredited for quite some time. Most analysts and even US admin officials now admit Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. Ironically, they are also saying that the invasion of Iraq has just given a boost to Al Qaeda. Remember that G.Bush interview, where the interviewer kept pestering him to explain what connection there was between Iraq and 9/11? Eventually, G.Bush. despite his best efforts to ignore this pesky interviewer, gave his trademark foolish-schoolboy-caught-out grin and said "Nothing. Nothing" So without risking to bore by repeating all the old reasons, here's a fun link for anyone who wishes to read up a bit more you could see the story in LA Times about "It's still about Oil in Iraq" article of December 11th, 2006 (sorry, can't make a link for this one, saved page only)

And about reshaping the map of the Middle East to suit American long-term interests:

Re-shaping the Middle East

7) Speaking of nukes, Ehud Olmert seems to have gotten himself into hot water back home with his (unintentional?) slip up implying Israel has nuclear weapons. His comments were made while on a visit to Germany.


Beardedbruce: "I am still waiting for the PALESTINIAN trials of terrorists to match the ones of Israelis who violated the law"

We have been through that one before. The story is that, being an up-front democracy and civilised state, everytime Israeli soldiers break the law by killing the 'wrong' people or shooting innocnet bystanders or killing kids with live rounds and rubber bullets, they are hauled before the courts and made an example of so it can never happen again?
Yet they contniue to do it again and again and again. So either they have no respect for their own courts and law and they are out of control (odd, for a professional army) or the courts actually give them a light slap on the wrist / acquit them everytime so it's just a formality to go through the courts except that it now all looks legal and above board to the casual observer. Joe Sacco in his book 'Palestine' has given a fairly good description of how that works, and of how Shin Bet (Israeli 'security service') acn exploit legal loopholes to use various forms of inhumane treatment and torture on detained Palestinians. If the Palestinian trials were to match Israeli ones, we should expect Hamas gunmen to get off with a 'now, now, don't be naughty!' from the Palestinian courts.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:02 AM

Thank you very much for your reply Nickhere:

1) Israel – Lebanon: (Indiscriminate Attacks carried out by Hezbollah)

I appreciate your candour, in agreeing that the attacks were indiscriminate and that they targeted Israeli civilians. Thousands of these "Katyusha" rockets were fired. They were originally designed as a mass-barrage weapon to be used as the prelude to a massed infantry assault, the German's nickname for them was "Stalin Organs".

Your comment that – "Most of them did very little damage (I'm not saying they didn't kill anyone, btw)" – beggars belief. To your comment I would only add – It wasn't for the want of trying.

Your contention that if better armed, Hezbollah would be more discriminate, cannot be taken seriously, their track record goes against that. Example – Suicide bomber sent into an Israeli city. Does the suicide bomber look round for the largest group of IDF soldiers and go up to them to detonate his/her bomb – NO. The bomber goes to market places, to bus stations, to restaurants, to nightclubs – all places packed with civilians. Remember that the sworn and avowed goal of both Hezbollah and Hamas is the destruction of Israel and her population. Their aim is terror, nothing else.

Nickhere, from your comments regarding military installations, I would venture my opinion that you don't know what you are talking about. For instance in the centre of London you have barracks, but no-one would ever fight from them, they exist solely to house ceremonial troops of the Household Brigade for duty in the capitol, they are not operational bases, generally barracks are not operational bases because they are static and tend to be easy targets. The likes of Hezbollah and Hamas however ensure that their operational bases are surrounded by houses, schools, hospitals and mosques. It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend.

Incursions along the Israel/Lebanon border have been a fact of life for decades, since the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon. Instances of Hezbollah attacks on Israel and incursions into Israel are matched by the IDF response that those attacks and incursions incur.

The Shaaba Farms area of south Lebanon, claimed by Christian Lebanese farmers who actually hold title deeds to the area, the same place that Syria claims to be theirs and the same place that Hezbollah is squatting on in order to launch missile attacks Israel. I can't really see any reason why Israel would be interested in a place like that, can you Nick?

As far as the two captured Israeli soldiers go Nick. It wouldn't matter a toss where they were when captured the track record in instances such as this has been that the IDF would want them back and would move heaven and earth to do that. Even Hezbollah admits now that it was a grave mistake considering the Israeli reaction.

On 27 August, Hassan Nasrallah apologised to the Lebanese people for the incident that sparked the war, saying "Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it."

But just for you Nick – this is how the incident unfolded:

ZAR'T-SHTULA INCIDENT
At around 9:00 AM local time (06:00 UTC), on 12 July 2006, Hezbollah initiated diversionary rocket attacks toward Israeli military positions near the coast and near the border village of Zar'it as well as on the Israeli town of Shlomi. At the same time, a ground contingent of Hezbollah crossed the border into Israeli territory and attacked two Israeli armoured Humvees patrolling on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, near Zar'it, killing three, injuring two, and capturing two Israeli soldiers. Five more Israeli soldiers were killed later on the Lebanese side of the border during an attempt to rescue the two kidnapped soldiers.

Hezbollah named the attack "Operation Truthful Promise" after leader Hassan Nasrallah's public pledges over the prior year and a half to capture Israeli soldiers and swap them for convicted murderer Samir Kuntar, convicted spy Nasim Nisr, alleged terrorist Yahya Skaf who Hezbollah claims was arrested in Israel (Israel denies this), and Ali Faratan, who is being held for reasons unknown, among any other Lebanese prisoners incarcerated in Israel.

Cluster bombs are area denial weapons, their use has to be sanctioned at Staff or Divisional level. The Israeli's have admitted that some of these weapons were targeted at inappropriate locations and are carrying out an investigation and inquiry into what went wrong. How much faith anyone has regarding such investigations is a matter of opinion, but note the difference, a transgression by Israel results in an admission and an investigation, a transgression by Hezbollah (deliberate targeting of civilians) results in re-supply of weapons from Iran and Syria.


2) The UN – (Lebanese/Syrian failure to comply with requirements of UN Security Council Resolution)

There were two of them that can be applied to this situation (Please note UN Resolutions relating to Israel and Palestine are irrelevant – two wrongs do not make a right – besides these resolutions had nothing to do with the Israel/Palestine situation):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on September 2, 2004. It called upon Lebanon to establish its sovereignty over all of its land and called upon "foreign forces" (generally interpreted as referring to Syria) to withdraw from Lebanon and to cease intervening in the internal politics of Lebanon. The resolution also called on all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias to disband and declared support for a "free and fair electoral process".

While the Syrians took their own sweet time in leaving, absolutely nothing was done to disband or disarm Hezbollah by either the Syrians or by the Lebanese Government.

On 11 August 2006, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved UN Resolution 1701 in an effort to end the hostilities. The resolution, which was approved by both Lebanese and Israeli governments the following days, called for the disarming of Hezbollah, for Israel to withdraw, and for the deployment of Lebanese soldiers and an enlarged United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) force in southern Lebanon.

Now Israel complied fully with the requirements stated above as applied to them. Hezbollah have yet to be disbanded and disarmed, the UN force is present at reduced strength with express orders NOT to interfere with Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army has been allowed into the southern part of Lebanon by Hezbollah on the premise that, like the UN troops, they do not interfere with Hezbollah operations.

There was a UN embargo placed on weapons shipments to the area but Hezbollah has managed to replenish and increase its stockpile of rockets – these weapons being supplied by Iran and Syria.

3) Syria
Again Nick I thank you for your candour on this point. I would however disagree that Lebanon's other neighbours would benefit should "Lebanon wobble". Should Lebanon Wobble, as you put it, Syria would just annex it.

4) Israel's borders.
Israel's borders were at their most extensive after the "Six Day War" in 1967. Since the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 Israel has traded land for peace, since those deals have been struck, the borders of Israel have been reduced. If anybody thinks that Israel is going to revert to the borders proposed by the UN in 1948 that the Arabs originally rejected, then they are living in a dreamland. On that occasion the Arab League opted for war and lost – the consequences of that they have to learn to live with as has every nation in history, the boundaries of every state in Europe have been defined by war and by treaty.

5) "The Right To Exist" and Sovereign States.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the present Government of Iraq, and its Head of State, have both been duly recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Iraq by the United Nations.

The back-tracking and spinning of Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for 'Israel to be wiped off the map', is nothing more than a rather desperate damage control exercise, considered necessary solely because of Iran's aspirations with regard to nuclear energy.


6)   Why did the US take such special interest in Iraq?
The US started taking special interest in Iraq during the first Clinton Administration when it became patently obvious that Saddam Hussein had absolutely no intention of complying with the terms of the Safwan ceasefire.

The US got even more interested in Iraq when in 1998, Iraqi interference with the activities of the UN's UNSCOM Inspectors was such that the Inspectors reported that they could no longer carry out their work. This resulted in the UNSCOM Inspectors being withdrawn and the prosecution of "Dessert Fox". The report delivered by the UNSCOM Inspectors to the UN Security Council in January 1999 formed the sole basis for the assumption that Iraq still possessed WMD. It was President Clinton who signed the Bill that called for Regime Change in Iraq in 1998.

After the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The House and Senate Security Committee and the combined Intelligence Agencies of the United States of America were tasked with identifying the greatest external threat to the United States.

Please note Nick – This evaluation has nothing whatsoever to with the attacks of 11th September, 2001. The USA having already been hit was looking to what could be viewed as worst case globally.

Findings identified worst possible case as being an a-symmetric attack by an international terrorist group using a weapon, or weapons, of mass destruction (Chemical; Biological or Nuclear), that weapon, material of support being supplied covertly by a rogue nation or regime.

Please note Nick – There are no specifics detailed in the above. That was what was seen as representing the greatest threat in general terms.

When evaluating potential rogue nations or regimes, who could possibly provide the technical support, material and possibly complete weapons. The committee came up with three prime candidates – North Korea; Iran and Iraq.

Please note Nick – This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001. While all this is going on action is already being taken against those responsible for those attacks.

Specific evaluation of those three countries that were named as the "Axis of Evil" in the Presidents State of the Union Address of 29th January, 2002, by the Committee arrived at the following order:

Iraq:
-        Already in defiance of UN resolutions calling on it to disarm and to relinquish WMD
-        Track record as regional aggressor
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        Saddam Hussein was the only world leader who openly applauded the events of 11th September, 2001

Iran:
-        Not in defiance of any UN Resolutions
-        Known sponsor of international terrorist groups
-        No known aggressive ambitions within the region
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

North Korea:
-        Already in defiance of UN Resolutions calling on it to relinquish WMD (Nuclear)
-        Already engaged in six-party negotiations with respect WMD issue
-        Track record as regional aggressor but abiding by ceasefire conditions
-        Known supplier of material, technology and equipment to other rogue regimes and terrorist groups
-        Publicly condemned the attacks of 11th September, 2001

It is little wonder that Iraq came out of the evaluation top of the list.

Please note Nick - This has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001.

Now with the Taleban routed in Afghanistan and Al-Queda very much on the run. The US addresses what has been identified as potentially its greatest threat. Does it launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq – No, the US goes to the United Nations. With the result that UN Security Council Resolution 1441 is passed, this gives Iraq one final chance to comply with undertakings it agreed to at Safwan in 1991. The US makes it abundantly clear to both the UN and to Iraq what the consequences of non-compliance will be.

Please note Nick - This still has nothing whatsoever to do with 11th September, 2001

7) On the subject of nukes and Israel:
Personally I'd be very surprised if they didn't have any, no reason why they shouldn't as they are not signatories of the Nuclear NPT. But there has never been any statement confirming that they possess such weapons. As such it is incorrect for anybody to state that they have. It is incorrect to state that Israel has threatened its neighbours with the use of such weapons.

As stated by yourself Nick, Ehud Olmert unintentionally(?) "implied" that Israel has nuclear weapons. That is not the same as the man openly stating that such weapons exist.

You never know, it could amount to being the greatest dissemination of false information ever.   If not Israel must have been hell of a close to using them over the past 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:13 AM

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:16 AM

The term Axis of Evil is now being softened with the explanation that it was just the hyperbole of a speech writer who was over reaching.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:22 AM

Facts always seem to put some people to sleep...

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 10:30 AM

"If the Palestinian trials were to match Israeli ones, we should expect Hamas gunmen to get off with a 'now, now, don't be naughty!' from the Palestinian courts. "

Instead, we get public celebrations and parades for the killers of women and children. MY point was that the Palestinians are NOT being told 'now, now, don't be naughty!', but that they are doing a wonderful thing to kill children.


As for the borders,
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/Graphics/Maps/PartitionforTransJordan.asp

It looks like the Arabs are the ones who have enlarged their borders.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:13 AM

Gee Nickhere. How tedious. You reveal a bias a mile wide with your opening salvo. I'm just gonna hit a few highlights (lowlights) to demonstrate what I mean. In so doing, you discourage me and other rational persons from read the BULK ( and I do mean BULK) of your text.

First ASSumption: US warmongers. Look the word up. The US does NOT warmonger.

Second ASSumption: Israel has a deplorable human rights record. That's YOUR opinion: Compared to the rocketeers, the Kamekazi, bombers, the kidnappers, the cold blooded murders that are their enemies against whom the seek to defend their citizenry, Jew and Arab alike, they are saints and the model of restraint. Buy a vowel, get a clue.

Posada is a minor blip on the screen of world affairs. Go get him. Bring him to justice and a thousand others like him too. I'll applaud you. It'll give you something to do, focus your energies.

Your sense of proportion is sadly lacking. You don't see the conserted and coordinated effort to committ genecide against the Jewish people. How sad. You don't recognize the right of self-defense, how sad, foolish and dangerous, you don't recognize the right of a people to exist, how inhuman. You open your cyber-mouth and tell the world who and what you are. I can't change you. I don't really want to. It's like the old cautionery jingle about snakes: "red touches black, friendly jack. Red touches yellow, kill a fellow. " I just want to isentify you. That's all.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Slag
Date: 15 Dec 06 - 04:24 AM

PS. I DID read your Posada listing. He sounds like a very rare bird. One who has adopted the tactics of his enemy and turned it against them. Listen to all the little "Sieg Heilers" shout "FOUL!" I guess in your book, turn about is not fair play.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 16 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM

Fair enough Slag, we'll agree to disagree. Sorry you find my posts tedious etc., etc., but if you had learned to read properly when you were in school, it wouldn't take you half as long. Don't like it when people make personal attacks? Then don't do it yourself: no need to, if you have a viable argument in the first place. You want to 'isentify' me? There doesn't appear to be any such word, but maybe it's your own private dialect and you are trying to say something like 'annoy'? If so, sorry to disappoint - I only get annoyed with myself when criticised by someone whose opinions I respect. You have plummted in this regard after your last post. I have no problem with someone saying I'm wrong and why, but it's a bit pathetic when they lose it and start making personal attacks - they've moved from hating the idea to hating the person that holds the idea, and that sums up your world view neatly. In this way it simply is not possible for you to be objective about any topic (and you accuse me of bias!!!) It's also as good as admitting you don't have a viable argument.

I was going to point out a few things about what your attitude to Posada / Israel / etc., says about you, but it'd just go straight over your head. So, like I said, we'll agree to disagree and end our dialogue here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 03:47 AM

Having read through the posts on this thread Nickhere can you please point out where Slag has made any personal attack on you.

The "isentify" is obviously a typo and that the word was "identify"

Now please, instead of pussy-footing around typo's and accusing people of doing things that they completely innocent of, why don't you respond to some of the points put to you that run counter to what we must suppose to be your sincerely held beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Dec 06 - 09:24 AM

OK Teribus, I'm certainly not the one pussyfooting round anything. As you know whenever people put questions to me or critique what I write, I do my best to reply in detail. I could juts fire off a one-or-two sentence answer along the lines of "No, you're wrong and I'm right" as I often see on these threads, but I prefer to give people the courtesy of a considered response. That means nothing to Slag, all she can do is mock my style by saying 'gee...how tedious' Calling someone 'tedious' is a personal attack, it has nothing to do with the validity of the argument. She then proceeds to call me 'irrational' by saying that "she and other rational people...." (i.e I'm not in that group). She repeats her 'tedious' remark by saying "the BULK (and I do mean the BULK) of your post" Again, this is not an argument, but a personal comment. She continues by trying to make me and my arguments look foolish with a kind of semantic trick "ASSumption" (i.e you make an ASS of yourself when you say these things). But it doesn't make my arguments or me look foolish, as it is not an argument in itself. It is simply trying to say "you are an ASShole if you believe this" Well, I think that speaks for itself. The only ASShole is the one who has to resort to insults in order to try and bolster a weak argument. Ok, maybe it's a typo and she hasn't yet learned to manage upper and lower case letters or has the SHIFT button on half the time.....I doubt it.

Perhaps you're right and 'itentify' a typo, and she wants to 'identify' me. If so, it's an interesting comment in itself. If she wants to identify me it means she likes labels and wants to try and fit me in some category where things can be tidied up into neater shapes in her mind. She finds her category soon enough when she adds "Listen to all the little Seig Heilers cry FOUL!" So she is saying in effect that those who believe Posada is a terrorist (myself included, and she already knows this) are little Nazis. This is a personal attack. Originally a Nazi was someone who followed the Nazi ideology or was a member of that party. (I don't need to state, I hope, that following the Nazi ideology entailed genocide, racism, warmongering etc., etc., ) It no longer simply means a member of the Nazi party (which strictly speaking is the actual meaning) Now it has come to be a general term of abuse with a wide range of meaning, including 'racist, supremacist, intolerant, authoritarian, fascist, inhumane, narrow minded etc., etc., None of which is intended as a compliment, not surprisingly of course. Well, I am none of these things. Calling someone a Nazi doesn't win you the argument either, it just means you've run out of argument. It means Slag hates my ideas, and now she hates me, and her post reveals a level of Redneck chauvanism. If she could she would probably fly over, drop a bomb on me so she wouldn't be obliged to interact with my ideas anymore. She would think she had won the argument because I would be dead and no longer answering, and without the least sense of irony she would convince herself that I"M the fascist!

There are other insults such as 'when you open your cyber-mouth'. What's that supposed to mean? It is intended as an insult, as it is gratuituous and pointless. She also compares me to a poisonous snake, as a way of suggesting that I am one. She is the stereotype of the person who can't cope with people thinking differently to her and would prefer they didn't exist so there wopuld be no one to challenge her comfortable assumptions. She doesn't even read my posts properly. She says that 'I deny a people the rigth to exist' What total bollox. She doesn't specify which people, but you can bet she doesn't mean the Palestinians who are being forced out of their own land this very day, ethnically cleansed, in fact. I'll go out on a limb here and say she probably means 'Jewish people'. Go back and see if you can find anywhere where I said 'Jewish people' don't have the right to exist.

In relation to Posada, she challenges me to go out and bring him to jusice. She adds a gratuitous insult "it'll give you something to do, focus your energikes" She doesn't even know me. I have plenty to do, but trying to make me look like the idle tosser she is doesn't win her the argument. No, I challenge HER to do so, for all her talk about patriotism and terrorism. It would be interesting to see just how far she'll get with that in the Land of the Brave and Free, where there are 'Good terrorists' and 'Bad terrorists'. She says it all when she says he is a 'minor blip'. As you woould say, Teribus, this comment beggars belief. Posada is wanted for blowing up a Cuban airliner, for killing civilians in bombing hotels and resorts etc., Now if he'd done all that in the USA on behalf of Al-Qaeda, far from calling him a 'minor blip' Slag would be screaming about yet another example of "The Free World's enemies" (my emphasis). She is wrong about Israel, out of whose ass she thinks the sun shines. It is NOT simply 'my opinion' that Israel has a deplorable human rights record, it is also the opinion of Amnesty International, and Israeli Human Rights Watch (a group operating inside Israel). And before you say it, I know Amnesty has criticsed Hizbullah for its rocket attacks, and I agree - targeting civilians has become a nasty effect of modern warfare (though they were never titally immune from involvement - since war started, it has almost always touched civilian life, but now we are supposed to have rules, which is some progress at least). I would add Saudi Arabia to the deplorable Human Rights statement. But Saudi is a US ally, so they don't come in from any criticism from the White House. Despite the fact that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Saudi money funds a lot of terrorism , there was no question of invading or bombing Saudi Arabia. This is right up Slag's street, as I said there are 'Good terrorists' and 'Bad terrorists'. As Nicole Kidman put it in the movie, "The Others" 'your daddy was fighting on the side of the English, and so on the side of the Goodies'. All black and white. Since this is principally a folk forum, I might add Slag might benefit from listening to Bob Dylan's "With God on our side"

So, no, Slag is not 'totally innocent' as you put it, her post was a half-hearted reply to my previous posts and answer to her, but also a personal attack where she attacked the writer and not the ideas. Not the end of the world, of course, but since you suggested otherwise... But I think there is no point in me discussing any of this further with Slag, and I stand by that. The real waste of time is that I have to spend half an hour explaining the obvious - that Slag resorts to personal attack when she doesn't like your opinion - instead of having time to deal with the actual issues. So I hope this will be the last time I have to do so.

As regard your own posts, I will get back to answering asap, but being Xmas season, it's very busy here.

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:13 PM

Beardedbruce: from your post I gather that you accept that the Israelis don't really apply any legal pressure to stop assassinations and extra-judicial killings of Palestinian citizens, but you feel the Palestinians are worse because they celebrate. Perhaps the Palestinians do celebrate when Israeli civilians are killed, and I certainly don't approve of this, it is heartbreaking to see any civilians killed (and sometimes soldiers, too, though Jesus did say 'those who live by the sword will die by the sword"). But it seems difficult to decide which is worse objectively - people honestly showing their feelings, however dreadful those feelings are, or a state and people who pretend they are dignified and civilised but find a raft of rhetoric and legal-mumbo jumbo to try and hide their murderous nature from the world. Myself, I reckon one is as bad as the other at least, though the latter is also dishonest.
You will probably be interested in this article (from

Israel's High Court of Justice affirmed today (14 December 2006) the
> legality of the extrajudicial executions of Palestinian activists
> suspected of being "unlawful combatants."
>
> The taking of life based on suspicions against a person, represents a
> gross violation of fundamental principles of law and morality. It is a
> grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, and further, is defined as a war
> crime by the International Criminal Court. These legal-moral principles
> are applicable to every country, organization and person, whether or not
> they are an official party to these instruments.

For the rest of the article, cut / copy and paste this url into an address bar (I tried to make a link, but alas, no joy)



Teribus, I will only give a few short responses here (I can hear the sighs of relief!) as time is pressing.

Regarding Hizbullah locating their military around civilians: As I have pointed out on another thread already, Hizbullah did not arrive from outer space into a previously untroubled Eden whose citizens liked nothing better than to lead simple, untroubled lives until Hizbullah arrived to upset them. Hizbullah originated back in the 1970s as a response to Israeli bombing raids into Lebanon. It draws its support from Lebanon's southern Shia Muslim population. As such, those citizens among whom it has (and with whose consent it has) its military bases, are the families, friends, cousins, neighbours etc., etc., of the Hizbullah fighters, apart from the obvious few who hail from outside Lebanon. Thus when you speak of "It is a deliberate tactic employed to ensure maximum outrage at "civilian" casualties should anyone have the temerity to strike back at them. Basically they hide behind the people they purport to defend" you should bear in mind who these civilians actually are. I have had this fact confirmed to me also by Dr.Ibrahim Mousawi, a director of Al-Manar TV (Hizbullah's TV station) who I had the opportunity to speak to at some length at a conference last Autumn. He added that many of these people were evacutaed by Hizbullah before Israeli airstrikes where possible (naturally, they would try and save their families) and found them accomodation in quieter areas. Currently they are paying many of the displaced people's rents while rebuiliding as much of Southern Lebanon as they can.
If Hizbullah had penetrated deep into Israel (as opposed to vice versa) then the Israeli army would be fighting from among its own civilian population, as Hizbullah were obliged to do last summer. Would we then say with the same nonchalance that the Israeli army hides behind its civilian population? In addition, the distinction between civilian and military in Israel is more blurred than in most countries (except perhaps Switrzerland, where they operate a similar system) as ALL Israeli adults, men and women, are expected to do a number of years military training and operations, and are then on reserve for much of the remainder of their adult life (except, as I mentioned previosuly, Palestinian Israelis, who are barred from military service).

Regarding Ehud Olmert, that was an aside, but evidently his own governement back home thought his remarks sufficently close to the bone to be incensed with his carelessness.

Regarding UN resolution 1441, you will recall that Hans Blix stated that Iraq was complying, grudgingly, but doing so. He said he and his team needed more time to finish the job, in accordance with the remit of resolution 1441. The US decided they weren't going to wait and just went ahead with the invasion anyway, so in the end, resolution 1441 was redundant and might as well not have been bothered with. Hans Blix expressed his frustration and sense of being undermined at the time quite publicly. In the end, no WMD were ever found, apart from a few rocket heads that might once have contained some nerve gas, but were long since rusted. The fact remains that 9/11 was the perfect opportunity for certain elements within the White House (no prizes for guessing who) to puruse an agenda they'd been planning for quite some time (as reveals). Then there was that dossier, based on an out-of-date Phd paper, 'sexed up' to make Iraq look like the biggest new threat on the planet. Sorry, but it was a sack of lies from the beginning. Saddam was quite antagonistic to Al-Qaeda. He was no Islamic fundamentalist, but a good-old-fashioned-Mesopotamian-tyrant. Now Iraq is wide open to Al-Qaeda, and the threat level has gone way up.

As regards the list of 'known sponsors of international terrorism' there is at least one glaring omission: the USA itself. But it doesn't define its own operations as terrorism so it doesn't appear on its own list.

Regarding Human rights in the Middle East. I have already pointed to Saudi Arabia as a country witha poor rights record, but you could add Egypt (also a US ally and a place to where many have been flown by the USA so they can be torture without upsetting the US public) and a number of other countries. I would also add Iran, though surprisingly, not the worst. Iran has been presented as an intolerant, anti-semitic country in the western media. But Iran's Jewish member of parliament had this to say about it:

"Mr Motamed represents Iran's 25,000-strong Jewish community, the largest such group in the Middle East outside Israel. Since 1906 Iran's constitution has guaranteed the Jewish community one seat in the Majlis. The Armenian, Assyrian and Zoroastrian minorities together hold a further four seats.

Although he took on Mr Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, Mr Motamed supports the president on other issues, including the standoff with the US, Europe and Israel over the country's nuclear programme. "I am an Iranian first and a Jew second," he said.

He acknowledged there were problems with being a Jew in Iran, as there were for the country's other minorities. But he said that Iran was relatively tolerant. "There is no pressure on the synagogues, no problems of desecration. I think the problem in Europe is worse than here. There is a lot of anti-semitism in other countries."
(Source: Guardian newspaper (UK), Wednesday June 8th 2006).

In case you think I don't pursue Human Rights in other middle eastern countries apart from Israel, you couldn't be more wrong. Currently I am lobbying the Iranian government to free a wrongly jailed trade union leader, an act which I consider a gross breach of human rights. If you wish to help out, you can do so at:

a href="http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=167">Petition to free jailed

It just so happens that Israel is one of the worse offenders in the region when it comes to ceratin categories of people (e.g Palestinians). Here is a letter that appeared in a newspaper in Ireland by a Jewish member of the Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign explaining why he had joined that campaign:

8 July 2006
Unfounded allegations were levelled against Ireland Palestine group
IT WAS with indignation and great concern that I read Dr Steven King's column (Irish Examiner, July 5) baseless accusations against the Ireland
Palestine Solidarity Campaign (ISPC), which in turn gives reason for great concern
over your newspaper's decision to publish the column.
I am a Jew who was born and raised in Israel and who served in its
military forces, just like Corporal Shalit for whose wellbeing we all pray.
It is my convictions as a Jew and as a human being that led me to join
the IPSC over a year ago.
Through IPSC activities, I have met Israelis who are constantly active
in trying to get the Israeli government to change its policies towards
Palestinians in Israel and towards the Palestinian Authority itself. Most notably, one of the bravest and most outspoken of these people isDr Pappe of Haifa University whom I met when he attended one of the IPSC's functions as a guest speaker. I fail to see how any of this might lead anyone to believe the IPSCharbours any anti-semitic sentiment. Dr King's unfounded and outrageous allegations against the IPSC are matched only by his patent ignorance regarding the state of Israel and its affairs. Having spent more than 25 years living there, I cannot imagine what would lead him to make his claim regarding Israel's "open-mindedness". A simple example to contradict this would be Israel's 'Law of Return' which grants automatic citizenship to Jews wishing to settle there, but does not make such allowance for Palestinians (Muslim and Christian) whose families hold keys to homes in that land. Racism is a dangerous card to play, particularly in relation to anti-semitism in Europe. Playing this card is tantamount to playing with matches in a highly flammable environment. Dr King would be wise to consider this before making further accusations.
Jonathan Sugarman
Dublin

I could paste far more material, but I am trying to keep this post short. The organisation to which Jonathan Sugarman refers can be found at:
Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign

You say you admire my candour in stating that Syria meddles in lebanon, and I thank you. Can you now show the same candour by stating Israel has a rotten record on human rights, especially in relation to Palestinians?

Regarding the 1948 war and the Palestinian refugees. It has often been said (on this forum as well) that the Arab nations decided to invade Israel the day after it was formed under UN mandate in 1948. They advised the Palestinians to flee on the basis that they'd come back once the Jews had been 'pushed into the sea' to use an oft-quoted phrase. It paints a picture of conniving, greedy and treacherous Palestinians, willing to see their Jewish neighbours sacrificed so they could get their lands and possessions. I think if you reflect on it, you might form a different opinion as to why some Palestinians left (some didn't, and many were expelled by Jews). You get a warning that several armies are about to invade. There will be trouble and slaughter. Would you hang around? Personally I would run for the hills, if I had hills to run to. Whether or not you like your Jewish neighbours will be immaterial if soldiers from both sides are concentrated in your town shooting anyone they think is a threat. On the same topic, here is an interesting letter from the Irish Independent:

Arabs had neither five nor six 'armies'
Irish Independent    15th Aug 2006

CONOR Cruise O'Brien (Irish Independent, August 12) repeats his fantastic story on the birth of Isreal. This time he alleges that Israel was "invaded by six Arab armies". Approximately one month ago the same claim was made in this column with just five armies. Next time will it be seven?
The truth of the matter is very different. The war between Israel and the Arabs did not begin with the founding of the state of Israel. A civil war between the Israeli forces (Irgun, Hagannah, Stern gang etc) and the local Arabs had been underway for eight months already.
This war was going Israel's way without any effective Arab resistance. By the time of the formal founding date Israel had already expanded her territory outside of the original areas granted to it by the UN. The neighbouring Arab countries were swollen with masses of refugees who had fled from the fighting or had been forced out in the brutal ethnic cleansing which accompanied the Israeli aggression.
It was in response to this that the neighbouring Arab countries were forced to send forces to contain Israel's expansion.
The term of "five (or six) Arab armies" sounds impressive indeed. The reality was very different. These were not well equipped, experienced, battle hardened warriors as you imply. They were exactly the opposite. Lebanon sent an "army" of all of 1,000 men. The Iraqis withdrew without firing a shot in anger and abandoned the field.
The truth is that the Arab countries adjoining Israel wanted to avoid a war they felt they would not win and they were correct.
There was no unified command, no co-ordination or even communication. They didn't even have the means to effectively resupply their forces. The Jordanians wanted the West Bank and the Holy City and were more worried that the Egyptians might grab it first than in helping their Arab brothers.
The only real set piece battle between Arab and Israeli forces took place when the Israelis failed to take Jerusalem which was defended by the British trained Arab legion.
Not one "invading" Arab soldier set one foot once inside the Israeli zones earmarked by the UN. In fact, by the end of the war the Israelis had an army in the field of approxiamtely 95,000 men. The Arabs had about half that number.

Seamus O'Ceallaigh,
Hamriyah, Dubai,


Two final points - I gather that it was the Israelis who rejected the last Roadmap to Peace, which had been endorsed by the Pan Arab League, consigning the region to further bloodshed.
I haven't had time to check it out for myself, but I accept anyway your statement that Iraq's new government is now recognised by the UN. But I don't think it invalidates my point, as I also mentioned South Africa, and Chile under Pinochet, both of which are radically different and better countries now than before. Plus, the invasion of Iraq was still illegal under international law.

Well, I'd better leave it at that for the moment, as I promised a short post, and well....!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:29 PM

It seems that some of the links I pasted didn't paste into the text properly. In addition, some phrases magically disappeared. Most weird. I'll try again. The link for the petition to the Iranian government to free the jailed trade union leader:

href="http://www.labourstart.org/cgi-bin/solidarityforever/show_campaign.cgi?c=167">Iranian trade union leader

another link I tried to make was to 'projectforanewamericancentury.org' but not only is the page notoriously difficult to load, the very words "project...." disappeared from the text of my post. Ah well. Gremlins again.

Teribus: here's one further intersting article by Jimmy Carter on Israel:

a href="http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commentary/hc-commentarycarter1210.artdec10,0,748744.story">Carter's article

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

Oh well! Cut n' paste.