Lebanon

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?