Lebanon

I am wondering why nobody has mentioned the situation in Lebanon on here.

This board was full of opinions on other conflict, most notably the ongoing trouble in Iraq.

People seem to shy away from discussion of the Middle East problem and I’ve never sure why this is.

Is it because the situation is very complicated and nobody really understands it?

Or is it because people feel unwilling to voice their opinions in case they find themselves at odds with everyone else?

Surely not many people can think of a logical argument to support the terrible campaign of murder that they are inflicting on Beirut at the moment. But in saying that, I’m criticising the Jews – right? Is that what people are afraid of?

Why?

If the UK had responded to Republican terrorism by bombing Ireland back into the Stone Age in the 1980s, there would have been an international outcry.

Why is it okay for Israel to do that to Beirut now?

Johnny Come Lately wrote: If the UK had responded to Republican terrorism by bombing Ireland back into the Stone Age in the 1980s, there would have been an international outcry.

Without offending anyone here,maybe they should have. Britain took a far too soft approach-they did fuck all and let the IRA walk all over them,then the ones they did catch they freed on a "as long as you promise not to do it again".

Im all for peace,who isnt? Unforunately quite a few people. But the only way you can stop them is by hitting them twice as hard when they hurt you. Sad,but true.

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote:

Without offending anyone here,maybe they should have. Britain took a far too soft approach-they did fuck all and let the IRA walk all over them

Hardly. The SAS brought the IRA to a standstill in the 90's, particularly in the boarder areas where their influence is most felt. pushing them to the talks.

LOL...you use the same argument as myself....seek mental help mate.

My line goes, that if the Brits dealt with the Lower Ormeau concerned reisdents chucking bricks, by unleashing attack helicopters there MIGHT just be a spot of outcry.

Don't think it's a Jewish thing, from what I hear there's a lot of suppression of the "wrong sort" of Jew in Isreal, tho I cannot vouch for the accuracy of my source on that. The Isrealis act against Arabs in a way that's awfully resonant with a way the Jews were treated not so long ago.....talk about abused kids becoming abusers themselves :(

Christopher Owens wrote:

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote:

Without offending anyone here,maybe they should have. Britain took a far too soft approach-they did fuck all and let the IRA walk all over them

Hardly. The SAS brought the IRA to a standstill in the 90's, particularly in the boarder areas where their influence is most felt. pushing them to the talks.

Yup, and sneaky and ilegal their tactics were too, BUT they didn't carpet bomb Andytown ;)

I'm not going to say anything on the subject, everyone knows my opinions on the middle east.

I do however look forward to when the usual suspects rear their ugly head and start spouting the usual anti american "the west is evil and all terrorists are great" bollocks.

Doctor? wrote:

Yup, and sneaky and ilegal their tactics were too, BUT they didn't carpet bomb Andytown ;)

No, the IRA did that themselves.

Uncle Liam wrote: ...everyone knows my opinions on the middle east.

I don't

Christopher Owens wrote:

Doctor? wrote:

Yup, and sneaky and ilegal their tactics were too, BUT they didn't carpet bomb Andytown ;)

No, the IRA did that themselves.

Thought it was just my lot that burned down their own corner shop to piss the other lot off.

By that token, the isrealis should really have bombed Tel Aviv airport I suppose.

Can anyone, who's paid more attention to the news than I have, explain to me what flatening the civillian airport was all about?

Johnny Come Lately wrote:

Uncle Liam wrote: ...everyone knows my opinions on the middle east.

I don't

i was thinking that! bizzare post by liam!

The Germans are being realistic - they know that Israel may have to be stopped at some point. But they're under intense pressure from their own Jewish lobby to walk away from it.

In a bizarre argument, they seem to be saying that a German soldier should never shoot at an Israeli soldier in case he causes offence?

BBC News Report

Johnny Come Lately wrote: But they're under intense pressure from their own Jewish lobby to walk away from it.

In a bizarre argument, they seem to be saying that a German soldier should never shoot at an Israeli soldier in case he causes offence?

All i will say is that Israelis are cunts when it comes to the cashpoint or bus queue .

Johnny Come Lately wrote: I am wondering why nobody has mentioned the situation in Lebanon on here.

This board was full of opinions on other conflict, most notably the ongoing trouble in Iraq.

People seem to shy away from discussion of the Middle East problem and I’ve never sure why this is.

Is it because the situation is very complicated and nobody really understands it?

Or is it because people feel unwilling to voice their opinions in case they find themselves at odds with everyone else?

Surely not many people can think of a logical argument to support the terrible campaign of murder that they are inflicting on Beirut at the moment. But in saying that, I’m criticising the Jews – right? Is that what people are afraid of?

Why?

If the UK had responded to Republican terrorism by bombing Ireland back into the Stone Age in the 1980s, there would have been an international outcry.

Why is it okay for Israel to do that to Beirut now?

I think part of it is that Israel is surrounded by enemies. Pretty much every country in the Middle East wants Israel destroyed. When surrounded & outnumbered, perhaps it's considered more acceptable to respond to each attack with overwhelming force?? Different situation in Britain. It's not like the Republicans are surrounding & outnumbering the UK. It's a bit like "pick on someone your own size". I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but to answer your question, but perhaps the international community cuts Israel more slack because their survival potentially depends upon their ability to bomb the shit out of their enemies, who are numerous. The United Kingdom's existence will certainly never be endangered by the IRA. Just a though.

This has been going on in one form or another for decades. Nobody there seems to be willing to learn anything from their past and there's no underlying commitment to resolve differences so people can get on with their lives, which is what most just want to do. History teaches us that we learn nothing from our history!

Beirut looks like its back to square one again - there was something about $500 odd million from the Saudis to rebuild a few bigwigs' houses but the tourists and meaningful investment are probably gone for years. It said on TV here that more civilians died in Iraq this week than did in Lebanon, that's not flavour of the month here anymore either.

Most Americans still think Africa is a country...I kid you not. Zimbabwe doesn't get a mention but you'd find it pretty offensive to your sensibilities if you knew some of what had been going on there. Its not Katushkas and laser guided bombs with cameras in the nose there though.

Christopher Owens wrote:

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote:

Without offending anyone here,maybe they should have. Britain took a far too soft approach-they did fuck all and let the IRA walk all over them

Hardly. The SAS brought the IRA to a standstill in the 90's, particularly in the boarder areas where their influence is most felt. pushing them to the talks.

So what did they do from 67-92?

The 22nd were only used on a handful of jobs when there was a high threat to national security on the english mainland.

Steve Lea wrote: This has been going on in one form or another for decades. Nobody there seems to be willing to learn anything from their past and there's no underlying commitment to resolve differences so people can get on with their lives, which is what most just want to do. History teaches us that we learn nothing from our history!

Beirut looks like its back to square one again - there was something about $500 odd million from the Saudis to rebuild a few bigwigs' houses but the tourists and meaningful investment are probably gone for years. It said on TV here that more civilians died in Iraq this week than did in Lebanon, that's not flavour of the month here anymore either.

Most Americans still think Africa is a country...I kid you not. Zimbabwe doesn't get a mention but you'd find it pretty offensive to your sensibilities if you knew some of what had been going on there. Its not Katushkas and laser guided bombs with cameras in the nose there though.

Yeah, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Burindi, and Rwanda, have all had tremendous atrocities within the last 10 years. Makes taking away all the white farmers' land in Zimbabwe seem tame by comparison.

A very complex situation. One which I've been following but am nowhere near qualified enough to give a valid viewpoint.

Anyone can spout what they've just read/saw on the news.

Having said that the Israelis do seem a right bunch of cnuts.

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote:

So what did they do from 67-92?

Realised their intelligence was shit. Slowly but surely built a solid database of information. Killed IRA members at Loughall and Gibralter. Thatcher refused to give into hunger strikers.

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote: The 22nd were only used on a handful of jobs when there was a high threat to national security on the english mainland.

They also trained RUC with their tactics, leading to further dead IRA and INLA.

Standstill in the 90's? Bollocks!

A brief history of Provisional IRA activity in the 1990's:

93- Shankhill Bomb 93- Warrington Bomb 96- Canary Wharf 96- Manchester Bomb

yep, the IRA were definitley at a standstill.

What actually happenned was the conflict had come to a stalemate, so Gerry and the boys decided to try and reach a compromise because they realised they were getting absolutely no where.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the IRA being brought to standstill. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of IRA history would know this. If the provos wanted the war to go on, they could still be going today.

C'mon peeps

to compare NI to Lebanon is a waste of time.

I appreciate NI guys may have empathy, but thats just an emotion.

Do you think current peace talks include comparisons to history?

Actually, given the fuckwit conducting them, they may do

Uncle Liam wrote:

It had absolutely nothing to do with the IRA being brought to standstill. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of IRA history would know this. If the provos wanted the war to go on, they could still be going today.

Really?

I thought 911 scuppered the strategy of the IRA.

Uncle Liam wrote: Standstill in the 90's? Bollocks!

A brief history of Provisional IRA activity in the 1990's:

93- Shankhill Bomb 93- Warrington Bomb 96- Canary Wharf 96- Manchester Bomb

yep, the IRA were definitley at a standstill.

Compared to the 70's, yes.

And it's Shankill.

Uncle Liam wrote: What actually happenned was the conflict had come to a stalemate, so Gerry and the boys decided to try and reach a compromise because they realised they were getting absolutely no where.

It had absolutely nothing to do with the IRA being brought to standstill. Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of IRA history would know this. If the provos wanted the war to go on, they could still be going today.

Standstill is another word for stalemate.

Anyone would also know that loyalists were starting to gather effective information on IRA/Sinn Fein members and killing them, and that was adding extra pressure. Senior IRA members from the period have said that with this pressure, coupled with the fact that they knew the British government wouldn't cave in, they resolved to talk.

Steve's original thought was that Britain weren't hard enough on the IRA. That was what my original post was about. I'm sure you're aware that the East Tyrone brigade was the most effective, and that after Loughall, they suffered really badly, which shows the effect that the SAS/British Army had on the unit.

your point is:

Hardly. The SAS brought the IRA to a standstill in the 90's, particularly in the boarder areas where their influence is most felt. pushing them to the talks.

Which is bollocks. The importance of Gibralter is vastly overplayed. And yes, the Loyalist paramilataries did start to up their killings of IRA men, but it was nothing that forced Sinn Feins hand. Throughout the 90's the IRA were as strong in areas such as South Armagh and Derry as they ever were. And its not as if the Republican population disapproved, seeing as Sinn Fein election results repeatedly improved from 92 onwards!

Fuck the IRA

I still have a pic from my last trip to Dublin where me & mates ripped off the Sinn Fein sign from their Dublin Head office. We didnt know we had until some Irish girls we were with translated the Gaelic. We thought it said 'Sinn Fein Library'. Irish rozzers kept phoning my mate that booked the apartment we stayed in next door for ages, coz we left the sign there. He just told them to fuck off.

ho hum, hope Gerry Adams isnt at Electric Picnic

how do you know?

If David Cameron can blag a ticket to V, then i'm sure Gerry could get in at Electric Picnic.

Plenty of posts about bloody Ireland then. I should have known it was a mistake to bring that up as an illustration of my own point!

Of course Israel are surrounded by enemies, but shy is that? Because they've quietly got on with living their own lives and let others get on with living theirs?

Uncle Liam wrote: your point is:

Hardly. The SAS brought the IRA to a standstill in the 90's, particularly in the boarder areas where their influence is most felt. pushing them to the talks.

Which is bollocks.

Oh really? Allright, they weren't the only reason for talks, but I was responding to Steve's theory about Britain. NOT about the endgame in general. I wasn't really expecting you to do you usual in jumping down my throat every time I make a post

Uncle Liam wrote: The importance of Gibralter is vastly overplayed.

Now this intrigues me. Please explain.

Uncle Liam wrote: And yes, the Loyalist paramilataries did start to up their killings of IRA men, but it was nothing that forced Sinn Feins hand.

I would believe that if your men are being killed by your enemies, and that you believe that the police are supplying the killers with the imformation, you and your supporters might start to feel pressure.

In 1992 and 1993, loyalists were killing more people than the IRA. 37 in 1992 and 46 in 1993. That was bound to create some pressure on the IRA, the so called 'defenders' of the Catholic population.

Uncle Liam wrote: Throughout the 90's the IRA were as strong in areas such as South Armagh and Derry as they ever were.

They're traditional holds. That's to be expected. And there wasn't really anywhere for disillusioned ones to go: the INLA, IPLO were dismissed as drug dealers, while it's debatable how much support the dissidents have. I wouldn't be suprised if a good lot of disillusioned ones still stayed on, because they had invested so much into the republican movement.

Uncle Liam wrote: And its not as if the Republican population disapproved, seeing as Sinn Fein election results repeatedly improved from 92 onwards!

I'm sure a few votes were 'stolen.' Definetly wouldn't suprise me, especially from about 92-94. I don't think the Catholic population fully got behind Sinn Fein until after the ceasefire.

Hey, I've got a great idea!

Why can't you two knobs start your own thread about Ireland and leave this one for a discussion about Lebanon?

Johnny Come Lately wrote: Hey, I've got a great idea!

Why can't you two knobs start your own thread about Ireland and leave this one for a discussion about Lebanon?

I'm more concerned by our government's acceptance that Israel can do this. The killing of 4 UN inspectors yesterday is pretty outrageous, despite repeated efforts to call the Israeli authorities whilst it was happening. I do feel that the US is allowing Israel to do what it wants almost as a pre-offensive to Iran. Hizbollah are essentially an Iranian organisation, part funded by Syria, who perhaps need softening up, pre US aggression.

On an even less cheerful note; Israel had ordered 100 500lb bombs to be delivered in August from US suppliers. In light of the circumstances, the suppliers have sped up the delivery and are completing and shipping the order as we speak.

Oh joy...

Johnny Come Lately wrote:

Of course Israel are surrounded by enemies, but shy is that? Because they've quietly got on with living their own lives and let others get on with living theirs?

Is that true though?

Israel have negotiated peace with some neighbours.

Eygyt?

how the fuck do you spell Eejipt? was that right?

EDIT: was it fuck, I forgot the 'P'. WHat an eejipt.

Barney Army wrote:

Johnny Come Lately wrote:

Of course Israel are surrounded by enemies, but shy is that? Because they've quietly got on with living their own lives and let others get on with living theirs?

Is that true though?

Israel have negotiated peace with some neighbours.

Eygyt?

how the fuck do you spell Eejipt? was that right?

LOL Egypt..

Aye but Egypt isnt a major aggressor these days. Its a bit of a fucker that they have just ceded territory in Palestine, and then to get Hamas voted in, who wont even recognise them.

Iran and Syria are tough neighbours to have too.

I'm sure a few votes were 'stolen.' Definetly wouldn't suprise me, especially from about 92-94. I don't think the Catholic population fully got behind Sinn Fein until after the ceasefire.

And your evidence is what exactly?

As for gibraltar: What exaclty did it do to change the IRA's viewpoint on things. Absolutely shit all. if anything changed, it just pissed the IRA off even more and put any form of progression back five years.

Yes, and Loyalists did kill more in 92 and 93, but I completely fail to see how this made the IRA change their strategy. If the IRA wanted to kill more Loyalists, they could've done so, easily. But of course, by this stage, as i have mentioned, the conflict had moved into stalemate, which was why Sinn Fein and the IRA moved towards a peaceful solution. Why did they do this? Well, not because of the increase in Loyalist paramilatrism, but becuase they realised that they could get a massive say in how northern ireland was run, as well as get all the perks of being a well respected politician. If there was pressure on the IRA fromt he Catholic population, then why did Gerry Adams win West Belfast with a whopping majority well known nice guy Dr. Joe Hendron in 1992? And then beat him again in 1997?

Of course, I could go into the international aspects of why the IRA gradually abadoned violence. But firstly i dont think you would understand, and secondly, I really cant be arsed. May do it tomorrow though.

whoah, a wider discussion there Burt. But relevant.

I'm still strugglin with spellin that twat of a country that Cairo is in.

Fuck, there it goes again, did I spell Kayrow right?

Nuke the middle east, it's a cunt of a place to spell.

And Wales too.

If you cant spell it, nuke it.

Can we do Cornwall as well then? And the Isle Of Man. And Scotland.

Johnny Come Lately wrote: Hey, I've got a great idea!

Why can't you two knobs start your own thread about Ireland and leave this one for a discussion about Lebanon?

Lebanon:

Population: 3.8 million (UN, 2005)

Capital: Beirut Area: 10,452 sq km (4,036 sq miles) Major language: Arabic Major religions: Islam, Christianity Life expectancy: 70 years (men), 74 years (women) (UN) Monetary unit: 1 Lebanese pound (or lira) = 100 piastres Main exports: Foodstuffs and tobacco GNI per capita: US $6,180 (World Bank, 2006) Internet domain: .lb International dialling code: +961 FIFA World Ranking: 122. Behind Tajikistan but ahead of Liechenstein. Current Status: FUCKED

Uncle Liam wrote: Can we do Cornwall as well then? And the Isle Of Man. And Scotland.

What about Altrincham?.. I always had trouble with that as a kid.

Uncle Liam wrote: Can we do Cornwall as well then? And the Isle Of Man. And Scotland.

why? Thats Celtic. If there is one thing I do know about its Barbarians. Celts were the most displaced of the euroopean barbarians, the shithouses you may say, thats why they ended up in Cornwall, Ireland & Scotland.

Nowhere left to 'displace' to. You cant run into the sea.

Goths, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns, even the fuckin 'Alans' from Turkey displaced Celts. Barbarians fucked over the Romans, without the Celts, they were long gone.

Of course, Gengis started it all.

Anyone wanna take me up on this?

The sad thing is, is the Lebanese are alright as people. They ain't fighting back, yet. Its just a bit of an arse having a major terrorist organisation in yer country, so i can see why basic mentions of the IRA are loosely relevant. Other parallels you could say are Clinton bombing parts of Syria in 1998, due to Al Qaeda cells there, and the same with Afghanistan.

Shame the Israeli stuff seems far less targeted; they justify it by saying they are dropping leaflets on Lebanese civilian areas, telling them to leave, but where the hell are these people supposed to go, and they have a good standard of living out there, which is tough to just uproot from.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

What about Altrincham?.. I always had trouble with that as a kid.

eh?

Altricham is a posh suburb of manc. why mention Alty?

I went to school in Alty, a quite unremarkable town. Fuck all happens there.

Barney Army wrote:

Burt Reynolds wrote:

What about Altrincham?.. I always had trouble with that as a kid.

eh?

Altricham is a posh suburb of manc. why mention Alty?

I went to school in Alty, a quite unremarkable town. Fuck all happens there.

I thought we was talking about bombing places we couldnt spell BA. Place is alright, I agree.

Hearing what you are saying Burt, but I dont get how there can be a precidence to any war, unless its a proper repeat of the same war. Which I dont beieve has ever happened since Benn v Eubank.

This war is fuelled by modern events.

It's a pre-cursor to the ambition of a coallition we dont appreciate.....

If the US want Iran. What better playground in which to stir up justification....

We are only seeing the start of a big one.

I fuckin hope I'm wrong. Fear not though, I am usually wrong.

Barney Army wrote:

If the US want Iran. What better playground in which to stir up justification....

I'm sure they do, but the prospect of war with Iran is a bit terrifying all round. And you are right, it could be the big spark. If US did pick on Iran, the Hizbollah would be back there doing some major damage, I'm sure, so Israel bashing them is a bonus.

Using the Lebanon as a playground is bloody cruel on the Lebanese though, as if they didnt go through hell 30 years ago.

Burt Reynolds wrote:

I thought we was talking about bombing places we couldnt spell BA. Place is alright, I agree.

Arf!

And I got on a high horse about it!!

yeh, it should have a fuckin 'G' in the middle. Since when did 'ch' sound like 'g'.

Anyway, Alty are cunts, I live in the town next door, Sale.

Rugby Prem Champs!!!

I remember the times my proper local nearest footy team where champs. :fuck:

:EDIT: BOMB ALTRINCHAM.

Aye..

can spell Sale.. especially in January..

Don't bomb Sale.

Were all up for Sale, in Sale.

Arent we all?

name yer price....

I cost a fuckin lot

only coz I have Max Clifford renting me out

errr EDIT: I aint a bufter...........as Begbie said

Barney Army wrote: Were all up for Sale, in Sale.

Arent we all?

name yer price....

I cost a fuckin lot

only coz I have Max Clifford renting me out

errr EDIT: I aint a bufter...........as Begbie said

Hehe.. I aint buying.

BA.. you are strangely sober and relaxed tonight. Everything ok?

Burt Reynolds wrote:

BA.. you are strangely sober and relaxed tonight. Everything ok?

Yeh its cool. Just chilling, manipulpating, a bit of positive PR, before I do something very uncool to another NOOL member in Oct.

Ouch! Late night BBC news feed goes to American news feed.

An article about Israeli kids being killed, then straight into business news.

Balanced view eh?

No wonder yanks are such fuckwits.

Good song,one of the Human Leagues best.

And who will have won When the soldiers have gone From the lebanon The lebanon

it's a proxy war: United States vs Iran. Check the weapons out.

Anybody who can tell me that the american gov't didn't know about the attacks beforehand is full of shite.

Well being an American, I am more than shameful of my country. How and why do we sit back and allow Israel to target aid workers, and innocent woman,children and men. I feel that it is truth that America has become one giant Israeley state. If this was any other 2 countries in the world, the violence would be stopped by the U.S. ,the U.N. and the E.U. Shame on us to sit back and not stop this ugly, shameful situation. I can not wait till Bush has left the White House and all his big dumb asses.

Oh yeah and one more thing, It is a bad thing to feel ashamed of ones own country, but I have to say America is no longer land of the free. It has become a dangerous place, where freedom is disappearing at an alarming rate.
If I was rich I would more to Canada or Europe or anyplace and come back after we have elected a new leader, one who will lead us into a promising future.

thank god for music to escape it all, and thank you New Order.

Ghost 13

One thing I'm noticing in most of the posts is the blaming of Isreal. Almost all countries, including Middle East countries have seen justification for Isreal's actions.

That, however, is declining as Isreal is really pounding Lebanon. The loose idea of the IRA is a good one, but was the IRA ever voted into high positions in English government? Hez has in Lebanon.

The threat is more than the 2 soldiers abducted. Hez has more missles pointing at Isreal than noted before, so they are a real threat that is growing. Also Isreal maybe killing innocents, but not on purpose. Hez, on the other hand is targeting innocents.

I've also seen a post stating that this is a perfect setup by the US to attack Iran. It's actually the opposite. Iran knows we're bogged down in Iraq, and Iran sees it as an opportune moment to crush Isreal. The attacks by Hez were convientantly the day before the Iran Nucelar program was to go before the UN council. So instead of talking about Iran as the main point, it became the Isreal/ Hez issue. Good smokescreen by the Iranians.

On an interesting note, and tangent, I saw a Rabbi on Fox news that stated Isreal should not be a country. That theOld Testamant states that the Isrealites and their generations were caste out of Canaan and not allowedback in by God. He'sblaming Isreal for it's existance, because it is against the will of God.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote: One thing I'm noticing in most of

I've also seen a post stating that this is a perfect setup by the US to attack Iran. It's actually the opposite. Iran knows we're bogged down in Iraq, and Iran sees it as an opportune moment to crush Isreal. The attacks by Hez was convientantly the day before the Iran Nucelar program was to go before the UN council. So instead of talking about Iran as the main point, it became the Isreal/ Hez issue. Good smokescreen by the Iranians.

another reason why the iraq war has made the middle east even more unstable. We attacked a country that posed no real danger to us and now we are the paying the price. Iran was and will always be a greater danger than iraq with saddam in power. Now iran is using our weakness to their advantage.

It's also too bad we don't have good ole saddam to keep iran in line.

Whatever side you're on or even if you're sitting on the fence giving yourself a wedgie, you got to admit that this is going to make it very difficult for the US to criticize any other country for its disregard of civilian lives in responding to rebel attacks such as the Russia-Chechnya situation. In fact, the US rushed a delivery of bombs to Israel over the weekend. What little credibility the US had in the region is quickly disappearing. Unfortunately, so is Canada's. I would hate to be an American soldier right about now.

Shellshocker wrote:

Steve Lea wrote:

Most Americans still think Africa is a country...I kid you not. Zimbabwe doesn't get a mention but you'd find it pretty offensive to your sensibilities if you knew some of what had been going on there. Its not Katushkas and laser guided bombs with cameras in the nose there though.

Yeah, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Burindi, and Rwanda, have all had tremendous atrocities within the last 10 years. Makes taking away all the white farmers' land in Zimbabwe seem tame by comparison.

O/T: The Zimbabwe 'issue' isn't the taking away of white farmers' land. It's that most of it was given to 'war veterans' and Zanu-PF cronies who don't know a plough from a potato so it's mostly standing fallow now. Many of the dispossessed farmers were invited by other African governments to start again elsewhere because the value of their skills was recognised.

Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa. Now its buggered - inflation is over 1200% p.a. so when people get paid they go and spend it all the same day because when the end of the next month comes the cash they have is worthless!

People gravitate to the cities because there aren't jobs in agriculture anymore so Mugabe launches 'Operation Murambatsvina' which translates as 'drive out the trash'. All the shanty towns are bulldozed and people are told to wait for the government to build them new bricks and mortar houses. But they don't have any money to do that! Close to a million of his own he's made homeless and people are starving.

The knock on is that there's a refugee crisis for the neighbouring countries to deal with, something they're not equipped to do. How many UN Resolutions are there on Zimbabwe? That's the issue there. Its happening right now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5231836.stm

Israel...

Uncle Liam wrote:

And your evidence is what exactly?

If you look carefully at the quote, you will notice that I am speculating.

Uncle Liam wrote: As for gibraltar: What exaclty did it do to change the IRA's viewpoint on things. Absolutely shit all. if anything changed, it just pissed the IRA off even more and put any form of progression back five years.

After Gibralter, Milltown and the attack on the soldiers in the car, all three parties - British, IRA and loyalists - had blood on their hands. Journalists such as Peter Taylor have identified this as the point where the peace process began.

Also, the savagery of the soldier's deaths attracted negative publicity for the IRA.

Uncle Liam wrote: Yes, and Loyalists did kill more in 92 and 93, but I completely fail to see how this made the IRA change their strategy. If the IRA wanted to kill more Loyalists, they could've done so, easily. But of course, by this stage, as i have mentioned, the conflict had moved into stalemate, which was why Sinn Fein and the IRA moved towards a peaceful solution. Why did they do this? Well, not because of the increase in Loyalist paramilatrism, but becuase they realised that they could get a massive say in how northern ireland was run, as well as get all the perks of being a well respected politician.

This is known as a strawman's argument, where you misrepresent my argument in order for you to win it. You are making it appear that I have isolated the escalation in loyalist violence and presented that as the main reason for the peace process. I have stated that it is one of many factors. Peter Taylor makes the point that '...lethal attacks on both wings of the Republican Movement by the SAS and Loyalist paramilitaries, as well as conventional attrition by the police and army through the courts, were no doubt an important contributory factor in the IRA's decision to call its ceasefire in 1994.'

Uncle Liam wrote: If there was pressure on the IRA fromt he Catholic population, then why did Gerry Adams win West Belfast with a whopping majority well known nice guy Dr. Joe Hendron in 1992? And then beat him again in 1997?

Hendron beat Adams in 1992. By 1997, Sinn Fein had began to be seen as a respectable party.

Uncle Liam wrote: Of course, I could go into the international aspects of why the IRA gradually abadoned violence. But firstly i dont think you would understand, and secondly, I really cant be arsed. May do it tomorrow though.

Whoope whoope whoo.

is the Israeli military stronger than Britains? someone told me it is.

J.A.K wrote: is the Israeli military stronger than Britains? someone told me it is.

I reckon we'd 'ave em. Maybe on away goals though.

Wouldnt fuck with their Air Force though. Reckoned to be the best.

not quite sure how I know that?

Hendron beat Adams in 1992. By 1997, Sinn Fein had began to be seen as a respectable party.

Quite. That'll teach me for arguing after a few beers.

Burt Reynolds wrote: The sad thing is, is the Lebanese are alright as people. They ain't fighting back, yet. Its just a bit of an arse having a major terrorist organisation in yer country, so i can see why basic mentions of the IRA are loosely relevant. Other parallels you could say are Clinton bombing parts of Syria in 1998, due to Al Qaeda cells there, and the same with Afghanistan.

Shame the Israeli stuff seems far less targeted; they justify it by saying they are dropping leaflets on Lebanese civilian areas, telling them to leave, but where the hell are these people supposed to go, and they have a good standard of living out there, which is tough to just uproot from.

True, it does suck the way Israel is doing it, but Hezbollah does have a habit of placing themselves very close to innocents in order to use them as shields, so they are partly to blame themselves.

68Pontiac wrote: On an interesting note, and tangent, I saw a Rabbi on Fox news that stated Isreal should not be a country. That theOld Testamant states that the Isrealites and their generations were caste out of Canaan and not allowedback in by God. He'sblaming Isreal for it's existance, because it is against the will of God.

JHC

How's this for tit for tat irony: my wife told me about an imam (in the US) who says that the Q'uran states that Israel belongs to the Jews, thus it is God's will. So, who is right here? Is God contradicting himself? Or are all these people fuckwits?

Barney Army wrote:

J.A.K wrote: is the Israeli military stronger than Britains? someone told me it is.

I reckon we'd 'ave em. Maybe on away goals though.

Wouldnt fuck with their Air Force though. Reckoned to be the best.

not quite sure how I know that?

Air Force-Israel Army-UK Navy-UK

UK win 2-1

Johnny Come Lately wrote: Of course Israel are surrounded by enemies, but shy is that? Because they've quietly got on with living their own lives and let others get on with living theirs?

They're surrounded by enemies largely because the Arabs think the land should belong to them, not the Jews. The Arab League rejected the UN's proposal to create Israel (which obviously happened anyway) and Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, attacked Israel moments after it was formed as a nation. What could Israel have done in 5 minutes to attract to many enemies? Nothing, except for merely existing.

Steve Lea wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

Steve Lea wrote:

Most Americans still think Africa is a country...I kid you not. Zimbabwe doesn't get a mention but you'd find it pretty offensive to your sensibilities if you knew some of what had been going on there. Its not Katushkas and laser guided bombs with cameras in the nose there though.

Yeah, Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Burindi, and Rwanda, have all had tremendous atrocities within the last 10 years. Makes taking away all the white farmers' land in Zimbabwe seem tame by comparison.

O/T: The Zimbabwe 'issue' isn't the taking away of white farmers' land. It's that most of it was given to 'war veterans' and Zanu-PF cronies who don't know a plough from a potato so it's mostly standing fallow now. Many of the dispossessed farmers were invited by other African governments to start again elsewhere because the value of their skills was recognised.

Zimbabwe used to be called the bread basket of Africa. Now its buggered - inflation is over 1200% p.a. so when people get paid they go and spend it all the same day because when the end of the next month comes the cash they have is worthless!

People gravitate to the cities because there aren't jobs in agriculture anymore so Mugabe launches 'Operation Murambatsvina' which translates as 'drive out the trash'. All the shanty towns are bulldozed and people are told to wait for the government to build them new bricks and mortar houses. But they don't have any money to do that! Close to a million of his own he's made homeless and people are starving.

The knock on is that there's a refugee crisis for the neighbouring countries to deal with, something they're not equipped to do. How many UN Resolutions are there on Zimbabwe? That's the issue there. Its happening right now.

It was painted here as Mugabe forcibly taking all the white farmers' land & giving it to the black farmers. I'd heard that some other countries had given the white farmers land gratns to take advantage of their expertise. Nigeria seems to come to mind as one but maybe I'm misremembering. Pretty sad what's happened to Zimbabwe. Africa gets very little attention by the international community because they have no money, no oil, not much in the way of natural resources, other than South Africa. So, nobody cares.

Barney Army wrote: Hearing what you are saying Burt, but I dont get how there can be a precidence to any war, unless its a proper repeat of the same war. Which I dont beieve has ever happened since Benn v Eubank.

This war is fuelled by modern events.

It's a pre-cursor to the ambition of a coallition we dont appreciate.....

If the US want Iran. What better playground in which to stir up justification....

We are only seeing the start of a big one.

I fuckin hope I'm wrong. Fear not though, I am usually wrong.

Some conservatives here are saying we're already in World War 3. Give me a break.

Lebanon's problem is that they have no oil. Otherwise Bush would have sent his mercenaries to their aid immediately...

It's not OK what Isreal does there, I think it's not a good response to an abducted soldier.

Bere wrote: Lebanon's problem is that they have no oil. Otherwise Bush would have sent his mercenaries to their aid immediately...

It's not OK what Isreal does there, I think it's not a good response to an abducted soldier.

I heard it has more to do with than one or two abducted soldiers. I've heard it as to do with Hezbollah having missiles pointed at Israel. But, I'm not an expert on the Middle East and I don'twant to be!

Shellshocker wrote:

It was painted here as Mugabe forcibly taking all the white farmers' land & giving it to the black farmers. I'd heard that some other countries had given the white farmers land gratns to take advantage of their expertise. Nigeria seems to come to mind as one but maybe I'm misremembering. Pretty sad what's happened to Zimbabwe. Africa gets very little attention by the international community because they have no money, no oil, not much in the way of natural resources, other than South Africa. So, nobody cares.

That was in the "manifesto" but the reality was a lot different - it was difficult for many to make the switch from farm labourer to farm manager, there was no capital for seed let alone equipment. The cash earners were the tobacco farms and that's not the easiest crop to grow or sell. A lot of them ended up in the hands of the connected but clueless.

Hmm, Africa produces about 10% of the world's oil....and that will increase with time as those nice Saudis' stuff runs out. (Also 20% of its gold and more than 50% of its diamonds and platinum too)

Steve Lea wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

It was painted here as Mugabe forcibly taking all the white farmers' land & giving it to the black farmers. I'd heard that some other countries had given the white farmers land gratns to take advantage of their expertise. Nigeria seems to come to mind as one but maybe I'm misremembering. Pretty sad what's happened to Zimbabwe. Africa gets very little attention by the international community because they have no money, no oil, not much in the way of natural resources, other than South Africa. So, nobody cares.

That was in the "manifesto" but the reality was a lot different - it was difficult for many to make the switch from farm labourer to farm manager, there was no capital for seed let alone equipment. The cash earners were the tobacco farms and that's not the easiest crop to grow or sell. A lot of them ended up in the hands of the connected but clueless.

Hmm, Africa produces about 10% of the world's oil....and that will increase with time as those nice Saudis' stuff runs out. (Also 20% of its gold and more than 50% of its diamonds and platinum too)

I'd rather we buy oil from Africa than from the Eiddle East.

Yeah, but isn't most of that gold & diamonds from South Africa?

Shellshocker wrote:

Steve Lea wrote:

Hmm, Africa produces about 10% of the world's oil....and that will increase with time as those nice Saudis' stuff runs out. (Also 20% of its gold and more than 50% of its diamonds and platinum too)

I'd rather we buy oil from Africa than from the Eiddle East.

Yeah, but isn't most of that gold & diamonds from South Africa?

About 50% of Africa's gold production is South African but the industry here is in decline whereas there are some big mines on the go in Mali, Ghana and Tanzania now.

SA produces only 20% of Africa's diamonds - most come from Botswana, Angola and DR Congo.

Steve Lea wrote:

About 50% of Africa's gold production is South African

Is it though? Is it not by american or brit companies?

I dunno.

But I did some work for Rio Tinto in Delhi once and was 'entertained' by the Director of Exploration for India. He had some stories...

Buy the land for peanuts, blow it up and rape the country of its riches.

His other stories were more interesting though, a friggin scouser too

Steve Lea wrote:

SA produces only 20% of Africa's diamonds - most come from Botswana, Angola and DR Congo.

But isn't most of it run by a South African company?

Barney Army wrote:

Steve Lea wrote:

About 50% of Africa's gold production is South African

Is it though? Is it not by american or brit companies?

I dunno.

But I did some work for Rio Tinto in Delhi once and was 'entertained' by the Director of Exploration for India. He had some stories...

Buy the land for peanuts, blow it up and rape the country of its riches.

His other stories were more interesting though, a friggin scouser too

The big companies are Anglogold (part of Anglo American), GoldFields, Western Areas, Harmony and DRD - they're all listed in Jo'burg as well as London but they're South African. Barrick (Canadian) own South Deep which is the biggest unmined gold deposit in the world they say. RioTinto own Phalaborwa (copper) and Richards Bay Minerals (titanium) but nothing in gold here last time I looked.

Well that's capitalism and entrepreneurship for you...anything to please those shareholders back home. Mining ain't for poofters you know?! You get some real numbnutz Lancastrians in this game...

Shellshocker wrote:

Steve Lea wrote:

SA produces only 20% of Africa's diamonds - most come from Botswana, Angola and DR Congo.

But isn't most of it run by a South African company?

Botswana's mines are run by Debswana - 50% De Beers 50% Botswana Government. De Beers was South African by birth but is listed on the LSE now, not here.

Angola's is government run with some Congolese and Brazilian involvement, maybe some Canadians now.

Congo - who knows! Its mostly guys with spades and pans and AK47s I think.

Thing about De Beers is they have a strong grip on the marketing of diamonds, some might say it's a cartel and get prosecuted..

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Can't we just find a more appropriate position for a Jewish Homeland?

Let's plop it smack dab in the middle of Germany!

Well they tried that already - and it was a deseaster some years ago .

El Jarvo wrote: The most sickening thing about the state of Israel is the way they paint themselves initially as a victim, so that they can carry out the most atrocious of crimes and call it self defence then expect some international sympathy.

Quite frankly though, they're just cunts.

Yup, and it's just Britain and the US who don't want a ceasefire at the moment...

Surely, if you're going after Hezballah, then why attack the civilian population? I know that Hezballah are obviously targeting the Israeli civilian population, but two wrongs don't make a right?

And they wonder why there's a lot of sympathy for Al-Qaeda in the Middle East...

I'll tell you something - I bet they couldn't have them in a fair fight. The Israelis are all boys - conscripts who will probably shitting themselves when the lead starts flying.

The other lot look like right hard bastards. About even numbers too. Might get interesting when it's time for the proper fighting.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Can't we just find a more appropriate position for a Jewish Homeland?

Let's plop it smack dab in the middle of Germany!

the second homeland is in brooklyn. We have room for more, as we're always building up.

Nick King wrote: Surely, if you're going after Hezballah, then why attack the civilian population? I know that Hezballah are obviously targeting the Israeli civilian population, but two wrongs don't make a right?

True. It would be nice if the US and Israel took the high road. We Americans tend to think of ourselves as the good guys but most of the world doesn't see it that way. Thank God for Japan and Ukraine!

I use a simple analogy, Someone japes about in my back garden or chucks bricks into it or harrasses my lass i will & have retaliate/d. I will do this until i feel that the feral fookers have been dealt with proportionately, or not. Either way the message is cemented in their brain. Fook accidently twatting the wrong person.

If Syria overlook/let Hezbollocks pile up weapons on the border for the last 6 six years since they (Jews) bailed out then they are useless twats. Yes innocents get a rough deal, but unless you really really look into this situation & the history i think it unwise to make a rash judgement. For fooks sake how can Israel make a truce with a bunch of muppets that insist on wiping the nation away.

I am not Jewish - committed Christian though, but i am very pro Jewish/Israel. When are you left leaning muslim apologists gonna wake up.

I noticed today that Al Qaeda have jumped on the bandwagon. Their No 2, Ayman Al-Zawahiri (sp??) just released a video tape message calling for an Islamic alliance to crush Jews.

Whoopee fucking doo.

Current US peace strategy..

Ronald Reagan tried it '83

and shit his pants.

Will the Yanks ever learn?

Andrew Sayer wrote: I use a simple analogy, Someone japes about in my back garden or chucks bricks into it or harrasses my lass i will & have retaliate/d. I will do this until i feel that the feral fookers have been dealt with proportionately, or not. Either way the message is cemented in their brain. Fook accidently twatting the wrong person.

If Syria overlook/let Hezbollocks pile up weapons on the border for the last 6 six years since they (Jews) bailed out then they are useless twats. Yes innocents get a rough deal, but unless you really really look into this situation & the history i think it unwise to make a rash judgement. For fooks sake how can Israel make a truce with a bunch of muppets that insist on wiping the nation away.

I am not Jewish - committed Christian though, but i am very pro Jewish/Israel. When are you left leaning muslim apologists gonna wake up.

Such is war. . .but too many people sitting in armchairs are making judgements on how to act in war.

JHC

Andrew Sayer wrote: I use a simple analogy, Someone japes about in my back garden or chucks bricks into it or harrasses my lass i will & have retaliate/d. I will do this until i feel that the feral fookers have been dealt with proportionately, or not. Either way the message is cemented in their brain. Fook accidently twatting the wrong person.

If Syria overlook/let Hezbollocks pile up weapons on the border for the last 6 six years since they (Jews) bailed out then they are useless twats. Yes innocents get a rough deal, but unless you really really look into this situation & the history i think it unwise to make a rash judgement. For fooks sake how can Israel make a truce with a bunch of muppets that insist on wiping the nation away.

I am not Jewish - committed Christian though, but i am very pro Jewish/Israel. When are you left leaning muslim apologists gonna wake up.

Why'd you talk about history then ignore it in your anology? For your anology to stand up it would have to run something like this... You live in a house that your big man in the sky (God) tells you to leave and to NEVER RETURN TOO, least he be MIGHTLY OFFENDED. Your neighbour moves in to this empty house for a few thousand years, but then somebody else kicks the shit out of you (some gezzer in a black or brown shirt), so you decide to forget what your God said to you and move back in. But first of all you,ve got to kick out the people who have now stayed there for the last few thousand years, so you kick them out, and while your at it you nick what was allways there back garden as well, then when they chuck a stone at you you retaliate with tanks and helicopter-gunships! Well fucked up! Complicated? Not at all. There have been people saying it since Spartacus: "Imagine... There's no heaven above us/no hell below us, No Countries, nothing to live or die for" "The uniform's a traitor, LOVE is international!" We are all homo-sapiens, the rest is air & shit!

That may be so, but I came here to talk about the current Lesbian crisis.

Or is this not the right place? :o

You can't talk about the current crisis anywhere in the Middle East without looking back to the end of WWII.

I`d drill UP from down under,nick the oil and let them all kill each other!

[orange]steve[/orange][black]one[/black] wrote: I`d drill UP from down under,nick the oil and let them all kill each other!

You think the Aussies haven't thought of that?!

Your drill bit would melt and all the oil would evaporate....unless they get those guys who made The Core involved...

Johnny Come Lately wrote: I'll tell you something - I bet they couldn't have them in a fair fight. The Israelis are all boys - conscripts who will probably shitting themselves when the lead starts flying.

The other lot look like right hard bastards. About even numbers too. Might get interesting when it's time for the proper fighting.

You mean like in 1967 when little 'ol Isreal kicked the crap out Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria? At the same time. Then by all means, let's rock. But that of course would mean that Islamic terrorist would have to stop hiding in mosques and homes and behind women and children. I won't hold my breath.

"Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place? (i.e CIA/USA).

MIMX wrote: "Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place? (i.e CIA/USA).

Actually, Egypt and Syria enjoyed front line Soviet equipment.

Well whoopie do! I seem to remember the Egyptian air force only "enjoyed" their MIG's till Israel launched a surprise attack on it (a la Pearl Harbour) and wiped it out in a day. Anyway the point I was trying to make was more to do with who armed whom. Personally I think the problems in the middle east are a stark reminder, if one were needed, of the dangers and idiocy of the twin evils of nationalism and religion. What's needed is more tolerance and love "love is the cure for every evil...It's called love and it's the only thing worth living for".

MIMX wrote: Well whoopie do! I seem to remember the Egyptian air force only "enjoyed" their MIG's till Israel launched a surprise attack on it (a la Pearl Harbour) and wiped it out in a day. Anyway the point I was trying to make was more to do with who armed whom. Personally I think the problems in the middle east are a stark reminder, if one were needed, of the dangers and idiocy of the twin evils of nationalism and religion. What's needed is more tolerance and love "love is the cure for every evil...It's called love and it's the only thing worth living for".

True, Egypt was caught with it's shorts around it's ankles. However, Syria's MiG 21's were blown out of the sky. They didn't much want to play after that.

As for nationalism and religion, they like anything else can be corrupted by evil people. These same evil people, by the way, who seem unaffected by tolerance and love. That being the case, what would you do?

Actually I'd put it the other way round, rather than "evil people" corrupting nationalism and religion I'd say these evils have corrupted people. In order to think you need something to think about ie the material world, I think nurture is more important than nature, that is the environment we are raised in affects/effects us more than malleable human nature.

MIMX wrote: "Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place? (i.e CIA/USA).

Though we did arm them (Al Queda and other such groups in ME) to some degree, almost all their arms are from the defunct USSR. Very little is US in origin.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

MIMX wrote: "Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place? (i.e CIA/USA).

Though we did arm them (Al Qaeda and other such groups in ME) to some degree, almost all their arms are from the defunct USSR. Very little is US in origin.

JHC

Squirm,squirm. The US originally armed Bin Laden et al to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan, with the express aim of drawing the then USSR into "it's own Vietnam". A policy which paid dividends in facilitating the fall of Soviet State Capitalism. Isn't it a little disingenuous of you to suggest that these groups were/are armed as a result of Russian Govt policy, rather than by the black market trade in arms which arose in that country after the fall of the Soviet Dictatorship. Some of their arms may well have been manufactured in Eastern Europe, but most were still purchased by the Yankee Dollar, right up until 7/11.

MIMX wrote:

68Pontiac wrote:

MIMX wrote: "Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place? (i.e CIA/USA).

Though we did arm them (Al Qaeda and other such groups in ME) to some degree, almost all their arms are from the defunct USSR. Very little is US in origin.

JHC

Squirm,squirm. The US originally armed Bin Laden et al to fight the Soviet's in Afghanistan, with the express aim of drawing the then USSR into "it's own Vietnam". A policy which paid dividends in facilitating the fall of Soviet State Capitalism. Isn't it a little disingenuous of you to suggest that these groups were/are armed as a result of Russian Govt policy, rather than by the black market trade in arms which arose in that country after the fall of the Soviet Dictatorship. Some of their arms may well have been manufactured in Eastern Europe, but most were still purchased by the Yankee Dollar, right up until 7/11.

I think you misread my post, or I wrote it poorly. I was not trying to insinuate that Russia gave them arms. Yes almost all the arms they have are from the black market, after the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of these weapons are from past funding by the US, but the majority of them is from the funding of oil-rich nations from the ME.

My other post was mentioning that all the weapons caches that have been found in the ME are 99.9% Soviet Union in origin.

JHC

When this damn mess got started, I guess I was still busy reading World Cup articles that now the exact events that triggered the war eluded me. I decided to go looking for news from July 12 to find out how this whole thing snowballed and discovered this rather interesting article. The facts and quotes appear to be accurate and unlike a lot of blogs and radio talk show hosts, the author is well versed and published on the subject. As always in an op-ed piece, opinion is subjective. Here's the link if anyone's curious:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10647

Thoroughly recommend reading the link posted above. Gives the lie to the notion that Israel are "only" defending themselves (wrote by an Israeli, not everyone in Israel agrees with the shit done by Govt in their name either). Not all Muslims are fundamentalists either. Just a shame that the entrenched fools on both sides are the ones with the power. PS as I was posting this I was listening to the news and heard that 37 children had just been killed by an Israeli bomb. A bomb supplied by the US, and likely routed through my local airport, Prestwick, without the permission or knowledge of the Scottish parliament, but what else can you expect from a guy/party that steals an election?

Andrew Sayer wrote: Fook accidently twatting the wrong person.

Until it's you, that is.

Right?

MIMX wrote: Well whoopie do! I seem to remember the Egyptian air force only "enjoyed" their MIG's till Israel launched a surprise attack on it (a la Pearl Harbour) and wiped it out in a day. Anyway the point I was trying to make was more to do with who armed whom. Personally I think the problems in the middle east are a stark reminder, if one were needed, of the dangers and idiocy of the twin evils of nationalism and religion. What's needed is more tolerance and love "love is the cure for every evil...It's called love and it's the only thing worth living for".

You're speaking out against "twin evils of nationalism and religion" and yet all of these Middle East countries you're sticking up for v Israel have Islamic governments, thereby essentially combining these two evils. However, I do agree with your point that these issues (especially religion) are responsible for most of the problems.

Plato wrote: When this damn mess got started, I guess I was still busy reading World Cup articles that now the exact events that triggered the war eluded me. I decided to go looking for news from July 12 to find out how this whole thing snowballed and discovered this rather interesting article. The facts and quotes appear to be accurate and unlike a lot of blogs and radio talk show hosts, the author is well versed and published on the subject. As always in an op-ed piece, opinion is subjective. Here's the link if anyone's curious:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10647

I think there are a few things missing from this article. Yes all of this that is stated is true, however, there is more to Isreal's attacks than simply the abductions.

1)There have been border disputes, but the Hez went far behind Isreal's borders to attack and abduct these soldiers. This is something that has not happened before. It isn't a simple "guys right next to the border abduction" as the article states. It was planned, and Isreal worries if this isn't dealt with harshly, then more of the same will happen in the future.

2. It was, at thesame time, found out that Hez had thousands of missles not known by Isreal or the world, pointed right at them. And these missles had a longer range than initially expected.

3. Hez was actually in a vunerable position, at that moment. They were not expecting an attack from Isreal to that extent. It was a perfect time to wipe out a growing threat on their border, which was much bigger than expected. Hez gave Isreal an ability to attack them.

4. Hez purposefully did this to throw a shadow over the talks at the UN over Iran's nucelar weapons, to which they did this successfully.

I think where Isreal made the mistake is that they bombed for too long, and didn't start a ground invasion fast enough, in effect loosing the forward momenteum of suprise that they had going for them.

JHC

68Pontiac wrote:

2. It was, at thesame time, found out that Hez had thousands of missles not known by Isreal or the world, pointed right at them. And these missles had a longer range than initially expected.

JHC

Yup, I mentioned that either in this thread or another one around here. You're probably right about Israel's strategic mistakes, too, though my military mind is as sharp as cream of wheat.

Definitely lost any hope of international support by bombing too long, anyway.

68Pontiac wrote:

Plato wrote: When this damn mess got started, I guess I was still busy reading World Cup articles that now the exact events that triggered the war eluded me. I decided to go looking for news from July 12 to find out how this whole thing snowballed and discovered this rather interesting article. The facts and quotes appear to be accurate and unlike a lot of blogs and radio talk show hosts, the author is well versed and published on the subject. As always in an op-ed piece, opinion is subjective. Here's the link if anyone's curious:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10647

I think there are a few things missing from this article. Yes all of this that is stated is true, however, there is more to Isreal's attacks than simply the abductions.

1)There have been border disputes, but the Hez went far behind Isreal's borders to attack and abduct these soldiers. This is something that has not happened before. It isn't a simple "guys right next to the border abduction" as the article states. It was planned, and Isreal worries if this isn't dealt with harshly, then more of the same will happen in the future.

2. It was, at thesame time, found out that Hez had thousands of missles not known by Isreal or the world, pointed right at them. And these missles had a longer range than initially expected.

3. Hez was actually in a vunerable position, at that moment. They were not expecting an attack from Isreal to that extent. It was a perfect time to wipe out a growing threat on their border, which was much bigger than expected. Hez gave Isreal an ability to attack them.

4. Hez purposefully did this to throw a shadow over the talks at the UN over Iran's nucelar weapons, to which they did this successfully.

I think where Isreal made the mistake is that they bombed for too long, and didn't start a ground invasion fast enough, in effect loosing the forward momenteum of suprise that they had going for them.

JHC

King of the Political Factoid, expert in military strategy.....is there anything this kid can't do?????

Oh, and I imagine one of the key 'mistakes' that Israel made/is making is unapologetically bombing the fuck out of Lebanon's civilian population. It's not the kind of thing that wins you too many friends, unless you're an embattled conservative. Two soldiers get abducted, now look at the (primarily civilian) death toll. It's totally fucked up, and both sides are frankly indefensible. Unless, of course, you're an embattled conservative....

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

It's totally fucked up, and both sides are frankly indefensible.

Bingo!!

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote: King of the Political Factoid, expert in military strategy.....is there anything this kid can't do?????

Oh, and I imagine one of the key 'mistakes' that Israel made/is making is unapologetically bombing the fuck out of Lebanon's civilian population. It's not the kind of thing that wins you too many friends, unless you're an embattled conservative. Two soldiers get abducted, now look at the (primarily civilian) death toll. It's totally fucked up, and both sides are frankly indefensible. Unless, of course, you're an embattled conservative....

I agree that this continious bombing is getting Isreal nowhere fast. Almost every nation was behind Isreal at the beginning of this. Now with this bombing, and constant civilian deaths it's becoming a "no win" situation. Wars aren't won by missles and bombs, by by troop, ground assualt. Isreal had the upper hand in the begining - element of suprise and most nations allowing Isreal to defend itself. Now that is gone, and it will be just abloody mess now.

The whole point of Isreal's attack was to show Hez their power. Instead, I think they bumbled it, and have shown the opposite. It now has become civilians dying on both sides and helps no one. It has become "totally fuckedd up" as you have mentioned.

JHC

You're speaking out against "twin evils of nationalism and religion" and yet all of these Middle East countries you're sticking up for v Israel have Islamic governments, thereby essentially combining these two evils. However, I do agree with your point that these issues (especially religion) are responsible for most of the problems. I thought "Just a shame that the entrenched fools on both sides are the ones with the power" was quite a clear statement! Do really think I'm gonna let some gezzer in a beard tell me how to think/behave because some big guy in the sky told him too?

MIMX wrote: I thought "Just a shame that the entrenched fools on both sides are the ones with the power" was quite a clear statement! Do really think I'm gonna let some gezzer in a beard tell me how to think/behave because some big guy in the sky told him too?

I'm not quite sure what your point is, unless you're trying to say that you're anti both sides, but your previous posts make it appear that you're anti Israel and pro Arab/Palestinian. See below. "Why'd you talk about history then ignore it in your anology? For your anology to stand up it would have to run something like this... You live in a house that your big man in the sky (God) tells you to leave and to NEVER RETURN TOO, least he be MIGHTLY OFFENDED. Your neighbour moves in to this empty house for a few thousand years, but then somebody else kicks the shit out of you (some gezzer in a black or brown shirt), so you decide to forget what your God said to you and move back in. But first of all you,ve got to kick out the people who have now stayed there for the last few thousand years, so you kick them out, and while your at it you nick what was allways there back garden as well, then when they chuck a stone at you you retaliate with tanks and helicopter-gunships! Well fucked up!

"Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place?

Well whoopie do! I seem to remember the Egyptian air force only "enjoyed" their MIG's till Israel launched a surprise attack on it (a la Pearl Harbour) and wiped it out in a day."

To your first quote, Israel was founded by the United Nations not by war or by Jews "kicking out" the people who lived there. Also, the main reason a lot of Jews headed back to the place "the big man in the sky kicked them out of" was because of persecution in Europe. Finally, the Jews didn't really kick anybody out (actually they primarily bought land from Arab landowners), as they're still there.

This is fucked up

MIMX wrote: I thought "Just a shame that the entrenched fools on both sides are the ones with the power" was quite a clear statement! Do really think I'm gonna let some gezzer in a beard tell me how to think/behave because some big guy in the sky told him too?

I'm not quite sure what your point is, unless you're trying to say that you're anti both sides, but your previous posts make it appear that you're anti Israel and pro Arab/Palestinian. See below. "Why'd you talk about history then ignore it in your anology? For your anology to stand up it would have to run something like this... You live in a house that your big man in the sky (God) tells you to leave and to NEVER RETURN TOO, least he be MIGHTLY OFFENDED. Your neighbour moves in to this empty house for a few thousand years, but then somebody else kicks the shit out of you (some gezzer in a black or brown shirt), so you decide to forget what your God said to you and move back in. But first of all you,ve got to kick out the people who have now stayed there for the last few thousand years, so you kick them out, and while your at it you nick what was allways there back garden as well, then when they chuck a stone at you you retaliate with tanks and helicopter-gunships! Well fucked up!

"Little ole Israel" armed to the teeth by Uncle Sam, against stone throwing children, and armies equipped with third hand Soviet weapons! When are the State terrorists gonna stop hiding behind the latest armaments supplied by by the very people who armed Al Qaeda in the first place?

Well whoopie do! I seem to remember the Egyptian air force only "enjoyed" their MIG's till Israel launched a surprise attack on it (a la Pearl Harbour) and wiped it out in a day."

To your first quote, Israel was founded by the United Nations not by war or by Jews "kicking out" the people who lived there. Also, the main reason a lot of Jews headed back to the place "the big man in the sky kicked them out of" was because of persecution in Europe. Finally, the Jews didn't really kick anybody out (actually they primarily bought land from Arab landowners), as they're still there.

Shellshocker wrote:

You're speaking out against "twin evils of nationalism and religion" and yet all of these Middle East countries you're sticking up for v Israel have Islamic governments, thereby essentially combining these two evils.

there are only a few states that consider themselves 'islamic republics': pakistan and iran, for example, and saudi arabia is a kingdom that is led by islamic law. many of the leaders in the islamic world are not particularly religious per se, but they use and distort islam to create a sense of hypernationalism within their countries. the least religious leader of them all was saddam hussein. this is why bin laden and saddam were enemies--bin laden felt that iraq was too secular and disapproved of saddam's secularist views. the ba'ath party is far from being an islamist party, despite some of its rhetoric.

in essence, there is a difference between a state run by muslims (which can be politically moderate or extremist) and a state which is controlled by shari'a law. ironically, the islamic republic of pakistan is one of the more moderate states in the islamic world even though it does follow shari'a law.

AgentWood wrote:

Shellshocker wrote:

You're speaking out against "twin evils of nationalism and religion" and yet all of these Middle East countries you're sticking up for v Israel have Islamic governments, thereby essentially combining these two evils.

there are only a few states that consider themselves 'islamic republics': pakistan and iran, for example, and saudi arabia is a kingdom that is led by islamic law. many of the leaders in the islamic world are not particularly religious per se, but they use and distort islam to create a sense of hypernationalism within their countries. the least religious leader of them all was saddam hussein. this is why bin laden and saddam were enemies--bin laden felt that iraq was too secular and disapproved of saddam's secularist views. the ba'ath party is far from being an islamist party, despite some of its rhetoric.

in essence, there is a difference between a state run by muslims (which can be politically moderate or extremist) and a state which is controlled by shari'a law. ironically, the islamic republic of pakistan is one of the more moderate states in the islamic world even though it does follow shari'a law.

Afghanistan is also an Islamic Republic. Yes, i'm aware of the difference between Islamic Law vs. a state run by Muslims. The states that are run by Islamic Law seem to be the ones creating the most problems (excepting Syria). My point was that it is not a good idea for any country to have a religious based government. Such a thing will almost certianly lead to discrimination against those who aren't followers of the state religion.

Yes I'm anti the lot of them! Bloody nutters, killing and maiming women and children on the flimsiest of excuses! You've got to be joking to suggest that the whole of Israel was bought from the Arabs, even if a few wealthy landowners flogged off parcels of it, that still left those that worked and lived on the land homeless. As for it being set up by the UN: at the end of WWII the UN was run at the behest of the USA/UK, and they supported an Israeli State as it would guard their (economic) interests in the area. Many prominent Jews at the time were totally opposed to Zionism and the idea of a "Jewish homeland" including Einstein.

MIMX wrote: Yes I'm anti the lot of them! Bloody nutters, killing and maiming women and children on the flimsiest of excuses! You've got to be joking to suggest that the whole of Israel was bought from the Arabs, even if a few wealthy landowners flogged off parcels of it, that still left those that worked and lived on the land homeless. As for it being set up by the UN: at the end of WWII the UN was run at the behest of the USA/UK, and they supported an Israeli State as it would guard their (economic) interests in the area. Many prominent Jews at the time were totally opposed to Zionism and the idea of a "Jewish homeland" including Einstein.

I said the Jews primarily bought land from Arab landowners, I did NOT say "the whole of Israel was bought from the Arabs". Please read more carefully. Yes, I was actually going to say in my last post that the UK was primarily responsible for the forming of Israel. I don't doubt you that it was done by the US & UK to promote their own self interests.

I've to "read more carefully"!

Johnny Come Lately wrote: I am wondering why nobody has mentioned the situation in Lebanon on here.

This board was full of opinions on other conflict, most notably the ongoing trouble in Iraq.

People seem to shy away from discussion of the Middle East problem and I’ve never sure why this is.

Is it because the situation is very complicated and nobody really understands it?

Or is it because people feel unwilling to voice their opinions in case they find themselves at odds with everyone else?

Surely not many people can think of a logical argument to support the terrible campaign of murder that they are inflicting on Beirut at the moment. But in saying that, I’m criticising the Jews – right? Is that what people are afraid of?

Why?

If the UK had responded to Republican terrorism by bombing Ireland back into the Stone Age in the 1980s, there would have been an international outcry.

Why is it okay for Israel to do that to Beirut now?

Personally I dislike discussing the topic because there are so many people I know/have known with a huge vested emotional/personal interest in the conflict (namely, Jews, Arabs and Muslims) and I often seem to end up thinking 'who am I to think I know what the answer is when I don't have anything like as much at stake'.

One depressing aspect of it all seems to be the lesson that suffering doesn't make people good, quite the opposite, it damages them (just one example: decades of Western backed oppression in Iran ultimately giving us a nation led by a Holocaust-denying nutcase).

I just don't understand what Israel think they are achieving by these actions. Their previous invasions of Lebanon acheived nothing constructive. Did they look at the horrible mess the US and UK are in in Iraq and think 'hmmm, looks good, we want some of that'? But I equally don't understand why Iran/Syria were so keen to provoke all this in the first place.

404 error wrote:

Johnny Come Lately wrote: I am wondering why nobody has mentioned the situation in Lebanon on here.

This board was full of opinions on other conflict, most notably the ongoing trouble in Iraq.

People seem to shy away from discussion of the Middle East problem and I’ve never sure why this is.

Is it because the situation is very complicated and nobody really understands it?

Or is it because people feel unwilling to voice their opinions in case they find themselves at odds with everyone else?

Surely not many people can think of a logical argument to support the terrible campaign of murder that they are inflicting on Beirut at the moment. But in saying that, I’m criticising the Jews – right? Is that what people are afraid of?

Why?

If the UK had responded to Republican terrorism by bombing Ireland back into the Stone Age in the 1980s, there would have been an international outcry.

Why is it okay for Israel to do that to Beirut now?

Personally I dislike discussing the topic because there are so many people I know/have known with a huge vested emotional/personal interest in the conflict (namely, Jews, Arabs and Muslims) and I often seem to end up thinking 'who am I to think I know what the answer is when I don't have anything like as much at stake'.

One depressing aspect of it all seems to be the lesson that suffering doesn't make people good, quite the opposite, it damages them (just one example: decades of Western backed oppression in Iran ultimately giving us a nation led by a Holocaust-denying nutcase).

I just don't understand what Israel think they are achieving by these actions. Their previous invasions of Lebanon acheived nothing constructive. Did they look at the horrible mess the US and UK are in in Iraq and think 'hmmm, looks good, we want some of that'? But I equally don't understand why Iran/Syria were so keen to provoke all this in the first place.

Perhaps we should ask Mel Gibson what he thinks, eh??!!

1/4 bottle of tequila is not really enough to explain that sort of behaviour.

Lightweight

Mel Gibson came along just in time to play the distractor, but even Mel isn't big enough to distract people from what happened in Qana. Mel is an asshole for what he said and driving drunk in the first place. Note to Mel: Get a chauffeur! You obviously can't afford not to have one.

One of the biggest weapons Israel has always had is accusing people of being anti-Jewish, sometimes the accusations are true, sometimes they're not. Mel probably is, Ghandi was not.

By the way, anti-Zionist does not equal anti-Jewish. Not all Jews are Zionist. Most Zionists are not even Jewish and they're usually poorly informed.

In all I've read I see not many people truly understand why Israel has responded the way they have. It's interesting to see how the media reports on what is going on - with a lack of understanding, or is it intentional...?

Hezbollah started this all off by kidnapping Isreali soldiers, all Israel wants is to have them back, dead or alive.

Hezbollah knows this and intentionally started the conflict to further the Muslim resolve to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. (It's interesting to note that Spain is on the list too!)

Anyway, now I'll be seen as a Muslim hater - it happens when you state what they really mean to non Muslims. (For the record I am not).

Two soldiers kidnapped and three killed is justification for the killing of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians? Sure Hezbollah has rockets but they were not used until after Israel started its indiscriminant bombing of Lebanon. Hezbollah clearly stated that the kidnappings were committed to engage in a prisoner exchange, not war. There is far more evidence indicating that Israel is using the kidnappings as an excuse to move back into Lebanon. Contrary to most news reports, Israel never did leave Lebanon altogether in the first place.

Moral superiority is maintained by behaving morally. Does anyone honestly believe that Israel is behaving morally?

Swirling Eddy wrote: In all I've read I see not many people truly understand why Israel has responded the way they have. It's interesting to see how the media reports on what is going on - with a lack of understanding, or is it intentional...?

Hezbollah started this all off by kidnapping Isreali soldiers, all Israel wants is to have them back, dead or alive.

Hezbollah knows this and intentionally started the conflict to further the Muslim resolve to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. (It's interesting to note that Spain is on the list too!)

Anyway, now I'll be seen as a Muslim hater - it happens when you state what they really mean to non Muslims. (For the record I am not).

See, that doesn't make any sense to me. Hezbollah kidnapped a number of Israeli soldiers in order to try and get a prisoner exchange (and this is in the context of an ongoing border dispute). The Israeli response just seems ridiculously disproportionate, and was clearly planned beforehand.

I agree that the media gives misleading reports, for example talking about Hezbollah's rocketing of Israel as if that provoked the Israeli attack rather than coming afterwards.

Plato wrote: Sure Hezbollah has rockets but they were not used until after Israel started its indiscriminant bombing of Lebanon.

eh? hezbollah's been firing rockets into israel for decades now; however, it rarely makes the news. back in 2001 i was driving along the israeli-lebanese border when hezbollah began firing katyusha rockets into the golan heights and hula valley. i heard them fall through the air and watched them land several hundred feet from the car. IDF tanks retaliated with gunfire and we watched them travel over the road into mt. hebron ski area (yes, there's a ski area on the israeli-lebanese border!).

also, in the 1990s it wasn't unusual for hezbollah rockets to land in the town of kiryat shmona. basically, border skirmishes between the IDF and hezbollah are quite common.

Funny how Eurodiplomacy is stuck :

Legacy of History. The Israel state settled on pieces of land under British authority. The Lebanon was a French "protectorat" (not a colony, something more loose). Total different points of view on the subject of cease-fire in 2006.

By the way... France had the same contract with Syria... It seems we know how to make friends... However the link between Damas and Paris is not as important as it still remains with Beyrouth.

To be honest, I thought that something was to happen with the Lebanon when a Lebanese general (or former general) was shot dead one or two years ago. That was followed by Syrian army withdrawal... What I think deeply about the Lebanon is that this country has been and still remains a battlefield for its neighbours... a deadly playground...

AgentWood wrote:

Plato wrote: Sure Hezbollah has rockets but they were not used until after Israel started its indiscriminant bombing of Lebanon.

eh? hezbollah's been firing rockets into israel for decades now; however, it rarely makes the news. back in 2001 i was driving along the israeli-lebanese border when hezbollah began firing katyusha rockets into the golan heights and hula valley. i heard them fall through the air and watched them land several hundred feet from the car. IDF tanks retaliated with gunfire and we watched them travel over the road into mt. hebron ski area (yes, there's a ski area on the israeli-lebanese border!).

also, in the 1990s it wasn't unusual for hezbollah rockets to land in the town of kiryat shmona. basically, border skirmishes between the IDF and hezbollah are quite common.

'Fair enough, teach me not to break my own rule and start expressing opinions on the subject. I guess I meant previous rocket firing was sporadic and long term - it wasn't the immediate cause of the Israeli attack.

Plato wrote: Mel Gibson came along just in time to play the distractor, but even Mel isn't big enough to distract people from what happened in Qana. Mel is an asshole for what he said and driving drunk in the first place. Note to Mel: Get a chauffeur! You obviously can't afford not to have one.

Don't blame Mel-it's the Jews' fault!

I looked into Shaba farms. The land appears to be part of Syria but owned by Lebanese farmers. The land does not belong to Israel but its military has continued to occupy it even after its pullout from Lebanon in 2000. I posted this as a clarification to an earlier link: Israel's "new Middle East".

THIS JUST IN: Canadian Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, and his sidekick the Honourable Peter McKay are now officially the newest members of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Dubbya sends his congratulations. A Foreign Affairs Standing Committee convened a self-congratulatory meeting to celebrate during which the Honourable Minister McKay reiterated how the Hezbollah rocket attacks were unprovoked. Here's a CNN article from July 12-13: "Israel authorizes 'severe' response to abductions" but oddly no mention of Hezbollah rockets.

By the way, no one here is calling Hezbollah 'good guys' because it is obvious that in this war there are no good guys, just bad and worse.

Plato wrote: I looked into Shaba farms. The land appears to be part of Syria but owned by Lebanese farmers. The land does not belong to Israel but its military has continued to occupy it even after its pullout from Lebanon in 2000. I posted this as a clarification to an earlier link: Israel's "new Middle East".

THIS JUST IN: Canadian Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, and his sidekick the Honourable Peter McKay are now officially the newest members of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Dubbya sends his congratulations. A Foreign Affairs Standing Committee convened a self-congratulatory meeting to celebrate during which the Honourable Minister McKay reiterated how the Hezbollah rocket attacks were unprovoked. Here's a CNN article from July 12-13: "Israel authorizes 'severe' response to abductions" but oddly no mention of Hezbollah rockets.

By the way, no one here is calling Hezbollah 'good guys' because it is obvious that in this war there are no good guys, just bad and worse.

At last! Someone honest and lacking in ego enough to admit that his/her in-depth knowledge of convoluted foreign conflicts was culled directly from the info-democracy of Google 5 minutes before posting here.

Plato: I salute you!!

Peddlers of endless fucking factoids: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!

good tune esp. if segued with Life In a Northern Town.

Jiphy wrote: To be honest, I thought that something was to happen with the Lebanon when a Lebanese general (or former general) was shot dead one or two years ago. That was followed by Syrian army withdrawal... What I think deeply about the Lebanon is that this country has been and still remains a battlefield for its neighbours... a deadly playground...

Had friends in the Army who went off to Beirut in the mid-80.s came back with stories of how Beautiful the area could be. The Boulevards and Architecture. And what a mess the politics were. That the Arab-Israeli conflicts of 1948 was still talked about. Sometimes Daily. Because it is a part of Life.

The other night reading a newpaper from the stand and this man says behind me to bomb them all. I asked him why so. For 20mins. we Brilliantly -might add- determined that this already happening. But has to stop. Fast enough that it doesn't go Nuclear and to at least get running water to the population. While President Bush continues to make an ass of himself and Global relations.

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

Plato wrote: I looked into Shaba farms. The land appears to be part of Syria but owned by Lebanese farmers. The land does not belong to Israel but its military has continued to occupy it even after its pullout from Lebanon in 2000. I posted this as a clarification to an earlier link: Israel's "new Middle East".

THIS JUST IN: Canadian Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, and his sidekick the Honourable Peter McKay are now officially the newest members of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Dubbya sends his congratulations. A Foreign Affairs Standing Committee convened a self-congratulatory meeting to celebrate during which the Honourable Minister McKay reiterated how the Hezbollah rocket attacks were unprovoked. Here's a CNN article from July 12-13: "Israel authorizes 'severe' response to abductions" but oddly no mention of Hezbollah rockets.

By the way, no one here is calling Hezbollah 'good guys' because it is obvious that in this war there are no good guys, just bad and worse.

At last! Someone honest and lacking in ego enough to admit that his/her in-depth knowledge of convoluted foreign conflicts was culled directly from the info-democracy of Google 5 minutes before posting here.

Plato: I salute you!!

Peddlers of endless fucking factoids: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!

!

(The Good Doctor) Martin Fradley wrote:

Plato wrote: I looked into Shaba farms. The land appears to be part of Syria but owned by Lebanese farmers. The land does not belong to Israel but its military has continued to occupy it even after its pullout from Lebanon in 2000. I posted this as a clarification to an earlier link: Israel's "new Middle East".

THIS JUST IN: Canadian Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, and his sidekick the Honourable Peter McKay are now officially the newest members of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. Dubbya sends his congratulations. A Foreign Affairs Standing Committee convened a self-congratulatory meeting to celebrate during which the Honourable Minister McKay reiterated how the Hezbollah rocket attacks were unprovoked. Here's a CNN article from July 12-13: "Israel authorizes 'severe' response to abductions" but oddly no mention of Hezbollah rockets.

By the way, no one here is calling Hezbollah 'good guys' because it is obvious that in this war there are no good guys, just bad and worse.

At last! Someone honest and lacking in ego enough to admit that his/her in-depth knowledge of convoluted foreign conflicts was culled directly from the info-democracy of Google 5 minutes before posting here.

Plato: I salute you!!

Peddlers of endless fucking factoids: FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!

I admit that when it comes to the nitty gritty details I do have to look them up and check out their accuracy particularly when it pertains to more recent events in the Middle East conflict. It's very difficult to keep on top of everything and frankly it gets to be very irritating and upsetting. I do however know quite a bit about the beginnings and essentially the heart of the conflict from the late 1800's to the 1970's.