Off-Topic: Israel-Lebanon & Terrorism in general

E · Post by E » 13 Aug 2006, 10:05

liamlion wrote:
One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. America has killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq.

This is clearly bullsh1t - but if I'm wrong please quote source........

liamlion · Post by **liamlion** » 13 Aug 2006, 13:39

pundit wrote: FIRST, the discussion was on Israel/Lebanon, not on Iraq. If you can't stick to the topic, and otherwise have nothing to contribute to it, just don't.

I'll write whatever I want, you pompous knob. And just to put the record straight the topic is titled "Israel-Lebanon and Terrorism in general". I think the "Terrorism in general" part would cover and include discussion on Iraq.

pundit wrote:It's largely Iraqis that are killing Iraqis at this juncture, if you haven't noticed.

Is that some sort of sick joke?? Clearly you have been watching too much fox news it you believe such a statement to be accurate!

E wrote:
liamlion wrote:
One man’s terrorist, is another man’s freedom fighter. America has killed over 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq.
This is clearly bullsh1t - but if I'm wrong please quote source........

Arrogant fool. Please read...

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 41028.html

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Aug 2006, 16:22

liamlion wrote:
pundit wrote: FIRST, the discussion was on Israel/Lebanon, not on Iraq. If you can't stick to the topic, and otherwise have nothing to contribute to it, just don't.
I'll write whatever I want, you pompous knob. And just to put the record straight the topic is titled "Israel-Lebanon and Terrorism in general". I think the "Terrorism in general" part would cover and include discussion on Iraq.

You replied to me, I discussed Israel-Lebanon. If you want to talk to someone else you better make that clear.

pundit wrote:It's largely Iraqis that are killing Iraqis at this juncture, if you haven't noticed.
Is that some sort of sick joke?? Clearly you have been watching too much fox news it you believe such a statement to be accurate!

I wonder what "news" you "watch".

"News of the world"? "Hello magazine"?

P

PS: still wait for any substantial contribution form your part.

E · Post by E » 13 Aug 2006, 18:41

liamlion wrote: Arrogant fool. Please read...

Source: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 41028.html

well, strictly speaking these are deaths, rather than specifically US caused deaths......IE in violence 'caused by the war'....so it contributing to this would be people killed by insurgent activity.

An the numbers are significantly different here;
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/casualties.html

Ric · Post by **Ric** » 13 Aug 2006, 20:50

And, of course, as the American politicians, press and pundits often remind us, all this recent Israeli-Lebanese bloodshed was started by Hezbollah "kidnapping" two Israeli soldiers. Yeah, right. Others in the know say it was the Bush White House meeting with Olmert on May 23:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.ph ... =294861285

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 14 Aug 2006, 05:08

I think despite several of you obviously being well read on subjects surrounding these conflicts, Billy's phuck them is the most profound statement on the thread, coming from an ex-squaddie who has seen it first hand.

We should never have got involved with Arabs, they are quite simply nuts and basically from another planet. Personally I think it's too hot there and over the centuries it's fried their brains.

But we are there, I guess it probably is because of oil because I don't see why else we would get involved sending our soilders over there to face an endless stream of lunatics.

Pull out and spend the billions we are wasting on the military operation on building electric cars or something....

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 14 Aug 2006, 06:11

E wrote:
billy bessey wrote:i dont know anything about religion but after being recalled to the army last year to spend 6 months in iraq i say smeg EM ALL just pull out and let the silly smeg do themselves instead of us its completely smeg out there and its getting no better you can only help people if they want to be helped ive done tours of falklands/kosovo/bosnia and iraq the others seemed justified and you felt as if you were helping them but as for iraq smeg that shit hole and everyone there and all the do gooders here who feel so strongly about it f... off there aswell

I agree with this fully. They don't want us there, most of us don't want to be there, let's leave ASAP. Fvck Iraq, fvck Israel, fvck afghanistan - it's not our business - let's get our boys out.

It isn’t quite that simple though. Even if you couldn’t care less about the humanitarian situation this would create, there is the whole issue of stability in the region. You need to keep a hand in.

If Israel gets wiped off the map (which is deserves to be) and Iran assume dominance in the region, it poses a global security issue over the longer term. What if Iran continue to enrich uranium? Then the next step is a crude but effective nuclear weapon somewhere down the line.

How long before their nut of a president or his successor decides to launch the bastard at a European nation “in the name of Islam!” etc…..

Before long you won’t feel so safe in your own world. That problem over there… will soon become a problem over here.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 14 Aug 2006, 06:14

Goz wrote:I think despite several of you obviously being well read on subjects surrounding these conflicts, Billy's phuck them is the most profound statement on the thread, coming from an ex-squaddie who has seen it first hand.

We should never have got involved with Arabs, they are quite simply nuts and basically from another planet. Personally I think it's too hot there and over the centuries it's fried their brains.

But we are there, I guess it probably is because of oil because I don't see why else we would get involved sending our soilders over there to face an endless stream of lunatics.

Pull out and spend the billions we are wasting on the military operation on building electric cars or something....

Oil aside, global stability.

A few raghead with AK-47s = who cares (and I agree).

One raghead with his finger on the launch button of a nuclear tipped warhead = I care (and you care).

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 14 Aug 2006, 07:27

Loftgroov wrote:
E wrote:
billy bessey wrote:i dont know anything about religion but after being recalled to the army last year to spend 6 months in iraq i say smeg EM ALL just pull out and let the silly smeg do themselves instead of us its completely smeg out there and its getting no better you can only help people if they want to be helped ive done tours of falklands/kosovo/bosnia and iraq the others seemed justified and you felt as if you were helping them but as for iraq smeg that shit hole and everyone there and all the do gooders here who feel so strongly about it f... off there aswell

I agree with this fully. They don't want us there, most of us don't want to be there, let's leave ASAP. Fvck Iraq, fvck Israel, fvck afghanistan - it's not our business - let's get our boys out.
It isn’t quite that simple though. Even if you couldn’t care less about the humanitarian situation this would create, there is the whole issue of stability in the region. You need to keep a hand in.

If Israel gets wiped off the map (which is deserves to be) and Iran assume dominance in the region, it poses a global security issue over the longer term. What if Iran continue to enrich uranium? Then the next step is a crude but effective nuclear weapon somewhere down the line.

How long before their nut of a president or his successor decides to launch the bastard at a European nation “in the name of Islam!” etc…..

Before long you won’t feel so safe in your own world. That problem over there… will soon become a problem over here.

to date only one nation has any history of using Nuclear Weapons, and that's America, and at the time, they already had a surrender offer from Japan in the works, but decided to test them anyway.

Iran's interest in Nuclear weapons is so that America/Israel dare not threaten them. Their president is no fool, he's a very shrewd man who is trying to preserve the sovreignity of his nation in the face of the coming oil fever, which is sensible given they are sitting on one of the largest pools of oil reserve in the world.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 14 Aug 2006, 07:30

Terence wrote:
Goz wrote:We should never have got involved with Arabs, they are quite simply nuts and basically from another planet. Personally I think it's too hot there and over the centuries it's fried their brains.
That is the root of the whole thing there Goz, too much sun sends you barmy, look at us Brits abroad!

Oil aside, global stability.

A few raghead with AK-47s = who cares (and I agree).

One raghead with his finger on the launch button of a nuclear tipped warhead = I care (and you care).
Again one of the best points raised. America had problems in 'Nam because they faced an enemy who do not blink in the face of death. Their ideology followed an abstract ideal that left them open to sacrifice entire villages for the great good. Because we see god as a kindly, grey old-man we have someone to blame when the body-bags start coming home. We say "how can god allow this", in the East they say "I will avenge this in the name of god." A nuke in the hands of an Eastern person, who are genuine nihilists, would be a disaster, a nuke is supposed to be a buffer, these guys are crazy enough to use it, they live in dust and sand, why would they be afraid of reducing us to dust and sand? Maybe this is one stirring that cannot be stopped. I'm going to live in a quiet part of Spain in 3-5 years so hopefully by then they will be well enough out of it for me to live in peace in these crazy times.

Nice one, I'm hoping to follow to Espanol in 10 or so years so I'll see you by the pool with a Pina Colada complete with umbrella atop cherry mounted cocktail stick.

Loftgroov · Post by **Loftgroov** » 14 Aug 2006, 07:43

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
to date only one nation has any history of using Nuclear Weapons, and that's America.

Obviously this is true, but then they're also one of the only countries with nuclear arms, that have been involved in a serious war, with (most importantly) the ability to use them.

North Korea have them, but as evidenced by their recent missle tests they probably have the same chance of actually hitting anyone as Calzaghe has of a meaningful next opponent.

Various other countries either haven't got the weapons or a means to use them, it's not simply a question of desire and intent.

You're also probably right with regard to Iran's motives, however one can't be sure. A lot of the middle east countries are also so politically unstable that you can't be certain as to their future actions. The existing president might not use it, but following some inevitable coup in the future resulting in some nutbag Ayatollah having access to the (then in place) weapons - wouldn't you be worried?

Democrat or Republican, Conservative or Labour, whatever the result of the democratic processes in the western powers its bloody unlikely a future President or Prime Minister is going to nuke some nation they don't like, and especially not on the basis of a religious ideology.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Aug 2006, 11:59

Terence wrote:
pundit wrote:
Terence wrote: It is important that Israel is an illegal state
Israel isn't an illegal state. You haven't brought forward the any coherent argument whatsoever in support of this statement - because you can't. History doesn't lend itself to this claim - there is no such thing as only one possible "legal" sucessor to the British and Ottoman colonial rule. And to the extent that legality is established by acts of the international community, the UN partition plan of 1947 established Israel's legality beyond doubt.

The only possible basis for the "illegality" claim is that any non-Islamic state in Palestine is illegal because it is non-Islamic. This, of course, is Hezbullah's position, but you will not expect that I or anyone else here would accept this as the basis of an argument.

Of course, if you start from so wrong premises, nothing right can follow.

Cheers, P
Pundit, I'm going to be patient as you know very little about this issue.

Whenever someone doesn't buy your cheap tricks and reveals their faultlines you fake indgnation (obviously because there is no other avenue open to you).

Bit of a cheapy, ey?

The legal successor should have been the inhabitants themselves, the Palestinians.

Exactly. There were Palestinian inhabitants, an there were Jewish inhabitants (whose relative population share had varied over the centuries in which the land had not been ruledby either population group).

And there was a UN partition plan, which - according to international law - defined the leagility of the situation. This plan foresaw the establishment of an Israeli-Jewish and of a Palestinian-Arab (Chrstian and Muslim) state.

Now please say excactly what you take issue with.

[P] The Israeli state is a Zionist state denounced by Orthodox Jews. [P]

Plain irrelevant to the argument and in fact a distraction from it - as are your following paragraphs.

P

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 14 Aug 2006, 12:01

Loftgroov wrote: If Israel gets wiped off the map (which is deserves to be)

Wow.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 15 Aug 2006, 05:07

Did anyone see that excellent programme on More 4 last night called 'Promises' which followed the lives of groups of children in Israel and Palestine, it was very sad indeed. It showed very well how and why the plight of Palastinians has become a banner for radicalism.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 15 Aug 2006, 06:09

Terence

Not trying to be re-active or focus in on one issue (particularly as a lot of what you say is broadly correct and almost always well thought out), but I do disagree with the blanket statement that Israel is an illegal state.

I attach a link to the 1947 UN Resolution

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7f0a ... enDocument

As a matter of international law, this quite clearly gives Israel authority in some form (though not as extensive in scope as the 1948 Proclamation) to exist. You can argue that this UN Resolution shouldn't have been made (and it was certainly linked to post WW II holocaust guilt), but how can it be simply ignored?

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 15 Aug 2006, 07:21

Terence

Fair questions, linking in one of the key debates of jurisprudence: if a law is validly passed based on accepted legal rules at the time, at what point is there a higher moral or philosophical ethic that overrules it.

Some obvious examples: the Community Charge Act that brought in the poll tax, the Group Areas Act 1950 in South Africa that was the cornerstone of aparthied were passed in accordance with the accpeted domestic laws of the UK and South Africa respectively.

It becomes more difficult with international issues as there is marked divergence as to viewpoints on who can set international laws and over what areas.

To answer your specific question, in relation to the 1947 Resolution:

In favour: 33

Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian S.S.R., Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian S.S.R., Union of South Africa, U.S.A., U.S.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela.

Against: 13

Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen.

Abstained: 10

Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

The Arab league were, of course, against the Resolution.

As a lawyer, I am focusing purely on the legal issues here and deliberately being ammoral on the ethics. As a pure matter of law, I think it is erroneous to say that Israel is an illegal state. As a matter of ethics, I think it is perfectly reasonable to say that the victors of WW II used the United Nations as a way of imposing something on the Middle East that most of the Middle East did not want.

Your questions of whether repeated violations by Israel of other UN Resolutions inviolates its very existence are also good moral ones. The legal answer is clear-cut: no it does not, as such penalties are not available under international law.

It is clearly a massively complicated issue.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 15 Aug 2006, 07:28

Yes, perhaps Terrence really means that Israel is an 'unethical' or 'immoral' state. Based on the fact that the entire middle east seemed opposed to the notion and it was imposed upon them by the 'authority' of the UN, based on the fact that Britain had conquered the lands in the first place.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 15 Aug 2006, 11:17

Yes, there is surely an inherent hypocrisy from the Zionists? On the one hand, they proclaim that the scriptures prove that God gave these lands to Abraham as justification for their being there, whilst on the other ignoring the fact they are meant to wait for this saviour of theirs to come along before settling in the land of Israel.

Rather convenient no?

mickeybeard · Post by **mickeybeard** » 15 Aug 2006, 15:09

jamesmcdonnell wrote: to date only one nation has any history of using Nuclear Weapons, and that's America, and at the time, they already had a surrender offer from Japan in the works, but decided to test them anyway.

Apologies for going off-topic an an interesting off-topic thread, but anyway...

While this view is pretty much accepted wisdom amongst wishy-washy Indy-reading LibDems (like me), it may not be the hard fact some people would like it to be. I'd recommend the book Truman and the Hiroshima Cult as an excellent read, or there's a handy little summary here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/ ... r_01.shtml

And now we return you to your scheduled programming.

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 16 Aug 2006, 04:33

the iraq war was not for oil like so many claimed, but rather a war to make sure israel had one less threat in the middle east.

israel says jump and america says how high

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Aug 2006, 06:56

In what way was Iraq threatening Israel? Iran if anything was perceived as a threat, along with Syria, I didn't see America invading those countries?

It's about oil, plain and simple, and also about creating enough discord in the region to keep the middle eastern arab nations in turmoil.

Israel meanwhile, continues to prosper.

coneye · Post by **coneye** » 16 Aug 2006, 07:05

A Lot of very well educated people here, talk of zionism , arabism and all kinds of crap, some very interesting some not , But personaly I have a very simple take on the matter.

You see on the left is the western world , ( Thats us, including yanks ) now we live a very easy lifestyle , a lifestyle with employment , social security , and welfare for the unfortunate, money for holidays, educated kids,money for boxing matches pay per view and all sorts of things, we also have bad things like friday night lager louts, and lots of decadence wether thats good or bad depends on your take on things. but overall lifes not bad.

On your left we have the muslim world, now the thing is these guys hate our lifestyle , we are infedels to them (DOGS TO THE UNEDUCATED), they hate our customs and they hate our ways, they dislike every thing about us , but the strange thing is they all want to come here and live amongst us, they enjoy the drinking and the decadence when no one is around to see them enjoy it . But by and large there hatred is such that they have terrorist organizations and little hidden terrorist cells hidden everywhere just waiting to jump out and get rid of us so once again Allah will be the only god.

Now in the middle you have the Jews, now these guys there not westeners because they live in the middle there not arabs either , but they have lived there for such a long time they have no where else to live , but the muslims well , being in there nature to be totally of this fackin planet and bully's has well keep picking on the Israel's sying thats our land we want it all, when what they really mean is your not an arab Allah is not your god so get the fack out of here.

The Israel's being picked on for so long have learnt how to fight back. so with typical cowardice thats been shown for centiries the arab terrorist group hide in amongst civilians to bomb them , but when they get bombed back they complain . Now my take on the subject is quite simple considering these people hate the jews with a passion and hate us westerners only marginaly less.If they ever get the upper hand on Israel they will finish what Adolph started only they will do it more crueler than Adolph ever imagined cos being vicious is in ther nature.

So moral of the story is simple if they can get over Israel WERE NEXT, and all you facking bleeding hearts will have a lot to complain about then , because mark my words if they ever get on top do you think they will let you or your kids or grandkids have the same freedom to critizise has you have, somehow I doubt it.

Mark my words there getting smarter , look around see how many mosques near you , how many muslims in uni how many are running for local goverment , how many are going to be making the laws soon.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 16 Aug 2006, 07:26

God you are an ignorant human being. What a load of ill thought out nonsense. Of course the west by and large enjoy a better lifestyle, there's good reasons for that, not least of which is the hand the west takes in keeping other parts of the world poor, it's how capitalism works, plain and simple. You have to have poor underclasses in order for others to become rich. However, it's not like everyone in the middle east is some poor uneducated goat farmer. Did you know that thousands of scientists and medical professionals the UK from Iraq after the 1st gulf war, do you think everyone in the middle east is an uneducated regligious fanatic, how wrong you are.

I know people who have travelled around Iran, Oman, Saudia Arabia and Iraw (pre war) and they said that these countries are nothing like how they are portrayed. Most people there are interested in Western culture and music, just because their governments are anti western, doesn't mean they are mindless idiots who agree. After all, most people in this country were against invading Iraq, but we (Blair) did it anyway.....

Iraq was a stable, relatively affluent, sophisticated society with many educated people. Women were free to work, they did not have to wear the veil, in fact, despite there being a despotic ruler, it was a fairly progressive society. Far from perfect, but definetly better off than now. The same is true in Iran, the government may be hard line, but the people there are in the main well educated and pretty affluent, they don't live in mud brick houses with tin roofs in Tehran. What do you think they do with all that oil money, spend it on massive sold gold qu'rans?

Just because a few flag burning loons get in front of a camera and chant hatred towards the west, does not mean everyone feels that way. It's a big like someone watching Al Jazeera and seeing a picture of some BNP prat shouting 'Death to paki's' and thinking everyone in Britain is like that.

d1mak · Post by **d1mak** » 16 Aug 2006, 09:47

jamesmcdonnell wrote:God you are an ignorant human being. What a load of ill thought out nonsense. Of course the west by and large enjoy a better lifestyle, there's good reasons for that, not least of which is the hand the west takes in keeping other parts of the world poor, it's how capitalism works, plain and simple. You have to have poor underclasses in order for others to become rich. However, it's not like everyone in the middle east is some poor uneducated goat farmer. Did you know that thousands of scientists and medical professionals the UK from Iraq after the 1st gulf war, do you think everyone in the middle east is an uneducated regligious fanatic, how wrong you are.

I know people who have travelled around Iran, Oman, Saudia Arabia and Iraw (pre war) and they said that these countries are nothing like how they are portrayed. Most people there are interested in Western culture and music, just because their governments are anti western, doesn't mean they are mindless idiots who agree. After all, most people in this country were against invading Iraq, but we (Blair) did it anyway.....

Iraq was a stable, relatively affluent, sophisticated society with many educated people. Women were free to work, they did not have to wear the veil, in fact, despite there being a despotic ruler, it was a fairly progressive society. Far from perfect, but definetly better off than now. The same is true in Iran, the government may be hard line, but the people there are in the main well educated and pretty affluent, they don't live in mud brick houses with tin roofs in Tehran. What do you think they do with all that oil money, spend it on massive sold gold qu'rans?

Just because a few flag burning loons get in front of a camera and chant hatred towards the west, does not mean everyone feels that way. It's a big like someone watching Al Jazeera and seeing a picture of some BNP prat shouting 'Death to paki's' and thinking everyone in Britain is like that.

"despotic ruler"?, stop talking about things that you know nothing about. USSR also "was a stable, relatively affluent, sophisticated society with many educated people. Women were free to work, they did not have to wear the veil...", but somehow millions people were killed just because of "despotic ruler". I too feel sorry about people in East, but if I was to choose between my family and their, I would choose mine. Many of them support terrorism and that make us enemies.

Loynesy · Post by **Loynesy** » 16 Aug 2006, 10:09

"some of them support terrorism and that makes us enemies"

Don't really need to answer anything so ignorant.