Lebanon

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.