BS: The right to attack - what gall!

Subject: RE: BS: The right to attack - what gall!
From: Nickhere
Date: 18 Dec 06 - 09:31 PM

Oh well! Cut n' paste.

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 - 09:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 07:13 AM

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 01:24 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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!